Cfimei
|
Your recent edits
edit
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button 
or 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Warnings
editSeptember 2011
edit Your editing pattern at Dead Sea Scrolls indicates that you may be using multiple accounts. Make sure you are logged in whenever you are editing anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, otherwise you are violating Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts. Mojoworker (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on Dead Sea Scrolls. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.
Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:
- Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; 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 without further notice. Mojoworker (talk) 16:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Dead Sea Scrolls. Your edits have been reverted or removed.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in you being blocked from editing. Mojoworker (talk) 19:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Kuru (talk) 19:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Dead Sea Scrolls. 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.
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 17:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Your compromise solution for Dead Sea Scrolls
editHey Cfimei. Wikipedia does prefer that we find alternate approaches when dealing with these kinds of contentious style issues. Basically rewrite things in order to avoid the problem and everyone's happier. Unfortunately in this case it doesn't work out so well. Because the dates range from 150 to 70 we have to actually specify the years. Using the "before present" approach, while sidestepping the issue, results in awkward text. It's one thing to talk about events from 50 million years ago but when dealing with much smaller time frames and when we have pretty exact dates then we need to be as precise as possible. It's all about trying to maintain a higher level of prose — keeping things encyclopedic and professional.
If there's some other way to rewrite that section to avoid the conflict then that would be great and if you have more ideas then I'm sure we'd all be open to them. I can't think of anything but maybe your or someone else will. SQGibbon (talk) 20:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes there is a way to illustrate the age of these scrolls by referring to them in the following way i.e they are about xxxx to xxxx years old (as at 2011). If this isn't acceptable then really, something deeper is going on.--Cfimei (talk) 19:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
BLOCKED
editBlocked again. I was just going to warn you, but then I saw this (what might be called WP:DICK), and then I noticed you've just gotten off a block for edit warring! I know you're new here, but maybe you should take this time to review the 'getting started' links s.o. posted at the top of this page.
As for the AD/CE question, we generally leave an article as it was written, unless there's consensus to change it. Generally topics on religions other than Christianity use CE. — kwami (talk) 18:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)