Talk:Diamond/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

Proposal to change BC/AD to BCE/CE (CONT)

I protected the version that existed before the edit war, which is exactly what the policy says. I haven't made an edit to the article related to this, so haven't broken any policy. And as for protecting my "preferred version", since when do I prefer BC/AD? I prefer BCE/CE. In any case, the protection template clearly states that protection doesn't endorse the current version. --brian0918™ 23:34, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Brian, while I see your protection was in good faith, I'm afraid it was technically against protection policy. To quote the relevant passage: "Admins should not protect pages which they have been involved with (involvement includes making substantive edits to the page or expressing opinions about the article on the talk page)." Emphasis mine. You wanted to cool down the edit war, and while I'll note that the war was actually over until CrucifiedChrist's arrival, your intent was admirable. But after doing so you jumped into the debate to declare BC/AD to be the the best option based on your own opinion and declared the argument to be over (facetiously or not, it's not helpful). I'm not about to raise a stink over this relatively minor infraction, but I think it would be best if you could either lift the protection or withdraw yourself from the debate. FWIW I think you're a good admin, so please don't take this personally. -- Hadal 04:43, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

[1] --Walter Görlitz 21:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

The continued debate on BC/AD vs CE/BCE

We should stick with the WikiPedia usage. Wikipedia redirects every BCE page to BC. It redirects every CE page to AD. This causes additional overhead on someone's computer, likely the servers. Just say no to BCE & CE until Wikipedia can be convinced of the wisdom of this change. I changed it back to common usage / wikipedia usage, and will continue to do so until the insanity stops. I also removed multiple spaces as they are also stripped when generating the pages. --Walter Görlitz 04:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

No, the only solid consensus we have over the issue is that you should never disrupt a stable article to change from one usage to the other. So your "I'm going to continue to disrupt no matter what" is trolling plain and simple. You will be blocked or sanctioned if you keep it up. Did you not see the extraordinary amount of time that has been wasted on this issue? Don't contribute to that. Valuable editor's time is much more valuable that the trivial amount of server time involved in redirects. - Taxman ^Talk 12:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

One thing further: I see no consensus here. I see a few people who side with the new (100 year-old) convention and a few who side with the traditional (more than 1000 year-old) convention. I see a few very stubborn people who want it CE & BCE who have worn down their opponents.--05:35, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I have done some analysis of the discussion. If anyone would like to see the work, please contact me. With the RFC aside, the discussion can be summarised as following

• AD: 6 (six) brian0918™ , Dewet , Doovinator , Gene Nygaard , Jasper , Walter Görlitz
• CE: 2 (two) Bryan is Bantman/Bantman, Hadal
• CrucifiedChrist and Taxman just want the debate to stop.

The summary below was ignored.

The real consensus is to not change the era markers from AD & BC to BCE & CE. Even before I weighed in, the consensus was 5 to 2 that we should stay with AD & BC.

We appreciate your authorship and desire to make this your own article, but it's public domain and you don't hold the copyright. Please follow the consensus decision.

Let's unlock the page. I believe that Bantman or Hadal should make the changes to AD & BC. Thanks. --06:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

The page was stable for 4 months before you came and changed it in violation of the policy. Brian and Hadal wrote the page so they should be able to decide the format used and change it if they like. It is not in the public domain and they do hold the copyright on what they wrote. So the page protection is improper because instead of being protected so that all editors are prevented from improving the article, you should be prevented from edit warring on it. You are the one restarting the edit war again again. Go away, we don't need edit wars. And sign properly with 4 tildes. - Taxman ^Talk 14:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

While the page was stable, the debate had not ended, it simply has undergone a period of dormancy as the consensus opinion was not respected when two editors simply stated that they wanted it one way. Those editors, while they offered a substantial amount of input, are only contributors. They do not own the work. They may feel an attachment to it. They may feel strongly about how certain things should be displayed, but they do not own it. Period. No one owns the pages and the way that they are displayed should be by consensus. And the consensus, as I have proven, was to change to using BC & AD for eras.

My humbles apologies for declaring that this work was Public Domain, it is not. "All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License". No individuals hold a copyright on it however. All individuals have editorial rights. While authors have the right to write whatever they feel, the community has the ability to change what was written and the group's consensus should be considered rather than the original authors'. I am not planning on starting another edit war. I am planning on having those who were opposed to the consensus agree to the group consensus and have them make it. I expect Bantman or Hadal, the editors who are dissenters from the consensus opinion, to admit that they need to follow the consensus. If they do not, I will suggest that the page be edited to meet the consensus opinion and be locked that way.

I'm sorry. I am new to the wikipedia experiment, but I don't think that Oligarchies like the one I've seen here should be permitted. But then what do I know, I live in a democracy. I'm also not fond of indenting. I think it's stupid. We can all tell when one person's comments end if they sign it.--04:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

New players need to learn the rules of the game. Starting and edit war over a previously resolved issue (or at least dormant) is not acceptable. Referring to accepted practice of communication clarity as stupid is not acceptable. Deleting others comments on your talk page is highly questionable. Changing a section heading to your POV is not acceptable. These points suggest that the new player in question simply just wants to be disruptive (not acceptable) or a troll. And you didn't sign your last comment, Walter.

This article was stable with an accepted usage of a debated form - so leave it alone so it can be unlocked and open to constructive serious editing. Vsmith 14:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes exactly. Walter, you are displaying all of the characteristics of a disruptive user. Please stop, and try to learn how to be a productive editor instead. Since there is no Wikipedia wide consensus on the date format issue, the debate should not be carried out on hundreds of individual pages. You clearly are not familiar with Wikipedia policy, and while there is nothing wrong with that if you're not being disruptive, starting and stating that you will continue an edit war is a very big problem. I've taken the liberty of unprotecting since other editors should not be prevented from editing just because you want an edit war. Please stop, and work on something else instead. - Taxman ^Talk 18:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

PS, you still didn't sign properly, and you're still wrong about the copyright. Editors hold the copyright on what they write, they just license them under (at least) the GFDL. - Taxman ^Talk 18:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

new players need to learn to play by what rules? This is an open forum and the rules change. End of that debate.

Not end of the debate. There are a lot of conventions about how to dea with issues that have been developed to save time and focus on building an encyclopedia. Please learn them. - Taxman ^Talk 19:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes end of that debate. The rules are changing all the time. Learn the new ones.--Walter Görlitz 04:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Funny said from the guy that didn't even know the policies at all until they were pointed out to you and you still don't know them well. There are several examples below where you don't understand Wikipedia policies. Learn the basics before you try to lecture others. - Taxman ^Talk 13:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

There was no resolution there was bullying. I don't believe that this was ever settled. Those who cared about the other position were just bullied out of the way. End of that debate.

No, there was just no consensus. 5-3 (you forgot to count my support of Bryan and Hadal's position) is not a consensus, and neither is 6-4 that it stands at now. That doesn't matter anyway because the policy is not to have this debate for individual pages. - Taxman ^Talk 19:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there was consensus. More people wanted it one way. You never stated your opinion as far as I can tell other that something along the lines of let the authors decide, but that does not amount to stating BC or BCE. Eeven if you do come down on the BCE side, it makes it 6 to 3, not 4 unless you're adding another vote on that side. Even if you did, a 3:2 margin is more than enough. Consensus on the debate to this point is that BC & AD are the group's will. If the ground rules change and you can muster more votes on your side, then we can change back. Hence the rules change until the consensus switches. That's the way it should work.--Walter Görlitz 04:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Your first misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy is on consensus. Majority does not equal consensus. 5-3 is not consensus. The bigger issue you missed is that the more important policy is not to have the BC/BCE debate on individual pages. It is to stay with what the original authors used as a compromise to not have this debate over and over and waste time. The original authors mixed the usage and can decide which one they want. - Taxman ^Talk 13:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Adding a section heading with any POV is wrong. It was slanted against me. I edited to make it more neutral.

Actually it was factually correct. The page was stable until you restarted the edit war. - Taxman ^Talk 19:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

actually it was biased and pointed against me. There was no fact that was correct.--Walter Görlitz 04:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

The comments on my talk page are not deleted, they are in the history. I use my talk page as a forum for conversation. When I'm done conversing, I move on. You may be able to determine how to bully people on public pages, but don't tell me how to deal with pages where I have significant interest.

That is a strongly frowned upon practice because it becomes harder to tell what is going on. You're free to do it anyway, but accept that it makes you look like a disruptive user. - Taxman ^Talk 19:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

That's another thing you'll have to convince me of, but not here.--Walter Görlitz 04:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I and others have informed you of it a number of times. You can either accept that it is so, and go find out that it is a widely held belief or not. - Taxman ^Talk 13:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

The only accepted practice is that group consensus should be accepted over author preference. I think that siding with author preference is not wise. The page belongs to the entire world, not its authors. If the word stupid offends you, I'm sorry, but I cannot state the position any more clearly. Perhaps ignorant or unenlightened might suit you tastes more.

I did sign my last comment using the "Your signature with time stamp" button. I saw it insert the --~~~. I don't know how it was edited out. It was not meant as a way to hide my tracks especially since my name is recorded in the history.

I am not trying to be disruptive. I am trying to honestly debate a point. It seems that no one wants to discuss my valid point. They would rather make me appear to be villain. Sorry to say, I'm not. Discuss the issue at hand not the one who is raising the point. Thanks.

That is correct, no one wants to waste any more time on this, please stop. - Taxman ^Talk 19:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I am a productive editor. I am dismayed that the other editors are so against the group consensus.

I am quite familiar with Wikipedia policy on era and date formats. In fact Bantman pointed it out to me. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) states two things: Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article. and Writers are not expected or required to follow all or any these rules

Taxman wrote:

the debate should not be carried out on hundreds of individual pages

and I could not agree more fully. I think that there should be one standard used across the Wikipedia. However, it has been decided that this is not going to be the case and as such it must be decided by the community of authors, editors, and readers. I too wish it were not so.

You state you agree, but then you contradict it. What I quoted is correct. So then it should not be debated upon further, just let it go. - Taxman ^Talk 19:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I do agree that there should be a single Wikipedia policy. Please read what I wrote and stop pushing your point when you can't even understand what is written. There is one policy at the code level: all BCE dates are redirected to BC dates and all CE dates are redirected to AD dates. However some "enlightend" authors think that common usage is wrong...blah, blah, blah. They're the real waste of time.--Walter Görlitz 02:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

You think these redirects reflect policy on how usage in articles should be. Nothing in the MOS or policy supports that. - 13:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I am fairly clear on Wikipedia policy. I do not believe that we would be discussing this--well I'm discussing it, everyone else just wants me to go away--if I had not edited the page repeatedly. And again, you have not addressed the point on the table: the group consensus is to revert to AD & BC for years. Let's not forget this. I was following the will of the group.

I am most definitely not wrong about the copyright of this page as I pointed out that it is protected by the GNU Free Documentation License. All content is copyrighted, but the copyright is not that of the original authors. If you have a different understand of the Wikipedia's copyleft, feel free to share your opinion. Bantman and Hadal have no ownership of it.

You are still wrong. Please read up on copyright. The GFDL is a license, it does not change who holds the copyright. Copyright is created and given to the person who produces original work:the contribution to the article. - Taxman ^Talk 19:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

No sir it is you who is wrong. Please read up on coyright law.--Walter Görlitz 02:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Further to this. If I enter any piece of work into the Wikipedia copyright reverts to the Wikipedia under the GNU Free Documentation License. The Contributors' rights and obligations section indicates that if the work is copyrighted before, they retain copyright to the work, but it becomes licensed under the GFDL in perpetuity. This means that the original author must acknowledge this copyright as well.--Walter Görlitz 04:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

This is besides the date issue, but is an important point and an example of how you misundertand policy but persevere in your stance anyway. You really should actually read and understand the issues before writing things that are incorrect. I'm not an expert on this but I am correct on the basics. I'm not sure where your bigger misunderstanding is on copyright itself or on how Wikipedia uses the GFDL, so I'll explain both, with quotes from the article you linked. First copyright is created upon "creative expression of ideas", "for instance because you produced it yourself". In other words, when writing something creative (each contribution to an article that contains creative character) then the contributor owns the copyright on that creative expression. That's just copyright law. If you don't understand that, you may have to read the law or talk to an attorney. So when you own the copyright to contributions it falls under the first case of the section you linked. The important point regarding that is "In the first case, you retain copyright to your materials." Now you are correct the GFDL license is irrevocable, but the contributor still retains their copyright, they simply license it under the GFDL as I said before. Finally, you think the copyright is assigned to Wikipedia which it is not. "The English text of the GFDL is the only legally binding document", and nothing in the GFDL assigns copyright for contributions to Wikipedia. Therefore contributors retain copyright to their contributions, but it remains licensed under the GFDL also. - Taxman ^Talk 13:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

As I stated earlier, I do not intend to change the contents of the page now that it is unprotected, but I expect Bantman or Hadal to do this to meet the consensus of the group. As a side not. Taxman's comment one editor is causing the edit war is oncorrect. There was more than one editor involved in the war.

1. signing my name using the tool above. --Walter Görlitz 20:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Good, then don't change it and please stop choosing to waste people's time on this issue. If you revert again in the future as you have claimed you intend to, please note that qualifies you for being blocked from editing for disruption according to the blocking policy. - Taxman ^Talk 19:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I am waiting for someone to follow the will of the group. If no one does I will have to bring this up again. Stop telling me to go away. It's not at all productive. Also, blocking a person's editing rights is virtually impossible as accounts are free and the alphabet is limitless. All you can do is block this account. I'm not suggesting that I intend to start editing this page over the era issues, I expect someone else to do so in accordance with the will of the group.

One thing further. You keep telling me to go away, but you have never acknowledged that my interpretation of the facts is correct with respect to the consensus of the group. That is most disheartening.--Walter Görlitz 02:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

One last question for tonight. How long does this mythical authorship right extend? I'm not saying that I believe that an author for any Wikipedia article has the right to assume that their work will stand inviolate for any period of time, but that is your claim. In other words at what point can we do away with the concept that the authors have the right to say that their method of entering epochs and eras must be maintained? One year? Ten? Until their death? What if in their will they stipulate that their heirs maintain an edit war on anyone who changes the pages from their initial design? What if the Wikipedia is around in a century or even two, and our descendants have moved to counting epochs by dynastic or powers of imperial forces? The concepts of BC & AD will be as foreign to them as the concepts of BCE & CE. Do you maintain that our descendants honour the memory of the original authors even then? If not then, why now? What is the difference between then when our systems are archaic and now? If the will of the group is that we use a certain method, should we not use it?--Walter Görlitz 05:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

According to the policy of not changing the date format and not debating this issue on individual pages because there is no overall consensus on the issue, the answer to your question is simple. The date format stands until there is overall Wikipedia consensus to favor one format over another. That has not occurred, so until it does, date formats in articles should not be changed unless to be consistent internally. Yes that means we shouldn't debate this further and the article should not be changed from where it is now. So with that, I won't comment about this any more. - Taxman ^Talk 13:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Each page must decide for itself. The official policy is that Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)). Based on my reading of this policy, the only way that the issue can be settled is for each article to debate the topic. I would argue that it could be on a section by section basis as well. Unfortunately until a Wikipedia-wide style is accepted, this must occur. Please point out where the policy that you are referencing is listed. The fact remains that there is a community that wants this page to display dates as BC & AD.--Walter Görlitz 14:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC) I've been reading up. from Wikipedia:Editing_policy

• Generally, most of us think we should be bold in updating pages.

• Virtually no one behaves as though previous authors need to be consulted before making changes; if we thought that, we'd make little progress.

• Quite the contrary: some Wikipedians think you should not beat around the bush at all—simply change a page immediately if you see a problem, rather than waiting to discuss changes that you believe need to be made. Discussion becomes the last resort.

• An intermediate viewpoint accords that dialogue should be respected, but at the same time a minor tweak should be accepted. In this view, to edit radically or not will often depend on the context—which seems reasonable enough.

In none of the guidelines have I seen any statements to the effect that an author's original intent is inviolate, but I'm waiting for a guideline that does indicate that. It seems that the debate never went away, just like the edits to this page never will. I suggest that someone apply the group's preference soon. If the vote count, which now stands at 6:3 in favour of BC & AD, changes at a future date--and I would expect to see voting results--I will be more than willing to change.--Walter Görlitz 05:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Proposal to change Era dates based on group consensus

It has been more than a week and no one can, or cares to, prove that there is a Wikipedia policy that the original author has the right to over-ride the consensus of the group. To this end I will change the era mode based on the consensus listed below in about one week. If we continue the poll with members signing their names as is displayed, we can keep track of those who care about this page and change the era based on consensus.

I would like to keep this section focused only on the vote and keep the discussion on whether this method is right or wrong in a separate section. This will help keep the vote easier to find and edit. Thanks. --Walter Görlitz 04:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the "votes" because they were not made recently and are thus pointless. Also, votes don't properly establish consensus, and a simple count of votes in any case is far from the right way to do it. - Taxman ^Talk 12:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

AD	CE	Neutral
Brian0918 Dewet Doovinator Gene Nygaard Jasper Walter Görlitz	Bantman Hadal Taxman Anotherpanacea	CrucifiedChrist

Stop this nonsense now

This is fairly simple. By Walter's method, the date format issue would be debated on many thousands of pages individually and countless hours would be wasted debating the issue back and forth, and not really come to any better outcome. The compromise strategy, as is done with English/American spellings when there is not clear reason to favor one over the other, is to leave the article the way the first authors wrote it. That way, no time is wasted. So the choice is simple: waste countless hours debating, or just compromise and move on to more important things. If you'd all like to waste countless hours debating the issue over and over, have at it. - Taxman ^Talk 12:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

By Taxman's method, the date issue would be decided by the first person to write an article and would stay that way until the Wikipedia ceased to exist. My method of voting is supported by the method of conflict resolution supported by the Wikipedia. Your method has no support by the Wikipedia so please stop your nonsense now! --Walter Görlitz 15:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

The article is stable and uses an accepted form. So stop trolling, POV pushing, and trying to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Focus instead on constructive editing, please. Vsmith 16:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

This article is stable because two authors forced their POV onto the group. I am neither tolling nor pushing my POV. I am seeking that group consensus be maintained and not the POV of two editors or authors. Focus on constructive editing and not vandalising legitimate debate please --Walter Görlitz 17:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution indicates that "Wikipedia works by building consensus". Consensus has been reached and this is what is being displayed the table. The minority editors refuse to accept the group's consensus opinion and are holding on to some mythical concept that an authors original writing should be considered inviolate and held over the consensus of the group.

If you don't like my vote indicating consensus, please create a survey yourself (see Survey guidelines). Interestingly, the actually sample survey is about the AD/CE issue and is not that different from what I did.

If this doesn't satisfy the group, then we can go to Mediation.

Alternately, you could show us the policy on the inviolate right of first authorship as was requested, or propose one ( How are policies decided).

I am following WikiPedia policy and guidelines. Please don't post based on POV any longer. --Walter Görlitz 17:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Walter, there is a strong community consensus that this argument should not be carried out on individual pages. You are contravening that consensus. That community consensus overrides this discussion. It also indicates that individual pages should be left as they are, given that both alternatives are acceptable.

Then stop arguing and impliment the community consensus that the dates should be BC and AD.

Your actions on this page are unproductive; if you really want to pursue this issue, it is neccessary to do so on a policy-level page. It is totally unacceptable to pursue it on thousands of individual article pages, as it both robs the issue of the attention it desrves from the broader community, and wastes everyone's time by having the same discussion over and over again.

My actions are to seek that the will of the group is served. Your actions are self-seeking.

Please review the page Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate. The vote was 89-103 against adopting a BCE-CE only policy (which is not a 89-103 vote against using BCE-CE at all, just a vote slightly against using BCE-CE only) which is absolutely not a community consensus for BC/AD.

No deed. I have read it and I understand your point. Please read that this page is under dispute and that this issue is not settled, nor was it it ever settled. Two individuals went against the wishes of the group. The other group members decided to back down because they were bullied. I didn't care when the debate statred. I made a change and was bullied to change it back. Now I care. There is a 6 to 3 opinion that we should use BC and AD. That is a absolutely a consesnsus. If you disagree, please follow the dispute resolution procedure as outlined above. All other forms are bullying.

If you continue to willfully ignore certain Wikipedia policies while misusing others to push your POV, you will lose any credibility you may now have, and will be treated as a vandal. For your sake and ours, please stop agitating on this issue here. If you feel you must continue the fight, please take it elsewhere, to a more appropriate policy-related page. - Bantman 18:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

If you continue to wilfully ignore certain Wikipedia policies around resolving disputes while misusing your editorial powers and pushing your own POV, you will lose any credibility you may have now and I will consider you a vandal. For your sake and ours, please stop agitating on this issue here. If you feel you must continue the fight, please take it elsewhere, to a more appropriate dispute resolution page. --Walter Görlitz 19:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

The issue you are missing Walter, is there doesn't need to be a micro policy for every specific issue, and insisting on one is disruptive. It's classic disruptive user tactics. Continuing to press for this "vote" or debate when no one wants it, is clearly violating WP:POINT. In this case it is clear you just want your way and are willing to disrupt and waste everyone's time until you get it. The choice we have is either waste tons of time debating on an issue, or not, and we'll be just as well of otherwise either way. We should make the choice that is overall better for Wikipedia. Common sense makes which choice that is obvious. In fact I think it's so obvious, that we are all better of doing what Bryan and Vsmith were successfully doing before, and I was not, is just remaining silent on this issue. If we all remain silent, we thwart Walter's efforts to waste our time. - Taxman ^Talk 18:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

The issue you are missing Taxman, is that there does, by the Wikipedia's own admission, need to be a page by page policy for issues under debate or that are controversial. I don't understand how debate and consensus can be considered disruptive. I am not demanding a vote. I am simply taking the next step in the dispute resolution as every other means have seen three members bully the others. I don't think that's fair and it is our only recourse. If you want to stop debating, go ahead. I don't want to either. I want the vote because it's part of Wikipedia policy. Bullying is not. You may remain silent, but I am seeking to follow the guidelines on dispute resolution. You and Bantman just want to force your opinions and POV on the wikipedia community. --Walter Görlitz 19:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)