User talk:JosephCWatkins

Welcome!

Hello, JosephCWatkins, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Sdrqaz (talk) 00:16, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thank you! :D JosephCWatkins (talk) 00:18, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was a pleasure! If you ever have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at my talk page

. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to leave dishonest edit summaries don't be surprised if you get blocked.

Changing an era style is not editing grammar. Both articles had established BCE/CE edit styles. Doug Weller talk 10:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller Not True. There are multiple instances of each articles switching from "BCE/BCE" and "BC/AD" throughout the whole thing. Also "BC/AD" uses less word space; perhaps it falls into the "other" category in the efforts to promote uniformity. JosephCWatkins (talk) 01:06, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One extra letter is irrelevant and is definitely not a reason to change era styles. Switching took place but they still had established styles. Doug Weller talk 06:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also going to refrain myself from reverting back the pages, but I do honestly believe that I had not only cleared up word space but also promoted uniformity, which regardless of error label should have been more beneficial for the pages. Also I do think (based on the Wikipedia article about "edit warring") is that both people are at risk for getting banned but that's digressing. Can you justify why you reverted them? JosephCWatkins (talk) 01:28, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The dishonest edit summary was sufficient. But afterwards I checked the articles. Doug Weller talk 06:40, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]