User talk:Jguk/Archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12

Contents

[edit] Hello

Thank you for taking notice of my writing. What article have you read of mine? I have been here for only a month. On biography Eddie August Schneider is related. My research started with a single photo in a family album and took me all the way to Chicago to do the research. Now I am trying to find him in old newsreel footage. The American newsreels are not on the Internet yet, so I have to write to all the archives. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:04, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The issues you raised

Feel free to move this comment to the sandbox talk page. I'm not sure where you want any public discussion to occur.

The first point you address is along the lines of: Criticism -- checking out another Wikipedian on Google or whatever is "snooping" and is improper; response -- there's an exception to that principle where the subject of the inquiry has expressly invited the inquiry. I don't accept a ban on Googling as a general principle. Therefore, I have nothing to add on whether a case of this type should be an exception.

Your second point refers to the details of this specific instance. You then say, as to both points, "I am thinking about raising these issues in the abstract...." Alas, IMO, this is the kind of issue about which one can say almost nothing useful in the abstract. For example, the phrase "conflict of interest" can embrace a wide range of criticized behaviors.

My impression is that you want to avoid personalities by saying that we should have a general rule on the subject. For each of various non-Wikipedia events in an individual's life (felony conviction, personal bankruptcy filing, whatever), here are the Wikipedia consequences (e.g., personal bankruptcy might be deemed immaterial to most committees but thought by some people to be a disqualifier for certain roles in fundraising). If that's your idea, I agree that it's better to have a general rule, which is then applied in specific cases, as opposed to deciding each case completely on its own, which leaves the process subject to personalities.

The trouble is that we can't formulate a general rule that would fairly dispose of something like "conflict of interest". There are two nice simple versions: (1) Nothing outside Wikipedia is at all relevant here. (2) Any public finding of "conflict of interest" disqualifies the person from the following roles on Wikipedia: [insert list]. Each of these rules exemplifies Mencken's comment: ""There is always an easy solution to every human problem—neat, plausible and wrong." [1] I wouldn't support either rule. Therefore, I don't know how you could go about raising the issue in the abstract. It always turns on the facts of the particular case. You might, however, try a comment on the Village Pump. Judging from the comments already received, I think you might find a flood of support for version (1), which I guess would dispose of the matter, at least for now. Down the road, when someone gets nailed offline for something really vile, people might conclude that version (1) was too simple. JamesMLane 17:37, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The biggest problem with this issue is the public way in which it was raised. People could have e-mailed their concerns to the ArbCom and tried to get a more private discussion going. But in addition to that, in real life, the fact of a conflict of interest in one area does not imply there will be a conflict in any other. If participants feel an aribtrator has a confict, that must be shown with reference to the particular case, not with reference to something that happened in an unrelated case many years ago. If that rule were to apply, we would have no judges anywhere in the world who were allowed to hear cases. Furthermore, a person who is suspended from the practice of a profession for one month is allowed to practise it again after that month, so how can this mean, several years later, that they shouldn't be allowed to be a Wikipedia artibrator? There's no internal logic to that reasoning. Slim 17:59, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin Spacey

Yes, you do not want to be on the list.

Sincerely,
Wjw 04:37, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jguk, thank you for cleaning up Kevin Spacey. --Viriditas | Talk 23:11, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Style guide

I have reopened the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (jguk's changes). Maurreen 06:55, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have requested arbitration. Maurreen 07:57, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would prefer it if we both let the matter drop. jguk 20:30, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline of Cricket

Hello Jguk, I started Timeline of Cricket and would like an opinion of what you think about the article before I made any more edits to it. I asked you because you seem to have more experience in this field. [[User:Squash|Squash | Talk]] 01:11, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Sidebar

I have responded to your comment on Talk:Current events. Please read it and respond. Kevin Baas | talk 00:10, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)

[edit] Humor

I enjoyed very much the humorous thing you put on my user page, but since other people deleted it (reasonably enough) I put it on my user_talk page as well. It's 2:31 in the morning, so I can't answer you right now, I'm too tired. But I did glance at the article the other day and it looks nice. I think it could be FA soon enough. I bet actually that people will see this shameless advert on my talk page and come help out with it.--Jimbo Wales 07:32, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Image for deletion

Could I get you to vote on WP:IFD to delete Image:Ok magazine 89 cover.jpg? It's a picture of a child on a paedophile magazine. It needs to go. Now. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:07, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Take more care when reverting

Hi. You're wrong about the use of "Her Majesty": its usage is POV. But that's not why I'm here. Possibly the most annoying thing about Wikipedia is when someone reverts an edit because they disagree with one small part of it. Please do not do this: instead, change the part you disagree with, if you have to. But leave the rest of the edits in place. Thank you. -- Avaragado 21:27, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] VFD

You should know about Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/User:Amgine/Maureen's RfC. I have inferred that although you would like the material deleted, I doubt you agree with the VFD itself. If I am wrong, feel free to delete my comment about that. However this turns out, it might be good to develop a policy or guideline in case it happens in the future. Maurreen 12:30, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Style guide

I've withdrawn my request for arbitration. And I'm starting to draft answers to your questions about the style guide. Maurreen 17:12, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks jguk 17:33, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I appreciate your approach to my recent reversion.
I have copied your questions to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (jguk's changes) and answered them there, with some elaboration. I am willing to stay out of further developments for a while, as you suggested.
About your opinion that any form of standard English should be OK -- that can be inveterpreted very broadly, such as to mean more than just different national varieties. In my view, that could lead to little style at all, which would be a radical departure. I am less concerned with individual style issues than with radical departures.
A lot of perceptions of oddity are subjective. For example, to me it is odd to capitalize titles unless they are immediately before a name. Maurreen 19:42, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I wanted to clarify that I am still involved with the style guide, just staying out of the discussion or any changes about "period", "U.S.", and the serial comma.
Also, I'd like to either archive or split off the discussion about the quote in the style guide, but I won't if you object. Maurreen 15:36, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I meant - though I think it would be best if we both restrained the volume of our comments going forward. In ten days' time, say, we'll see where the discussion on "period (full stop)", "U.S." and the Oxford comma has got us (unless others have determined the issues sooner).
As you can see, I'd rather replace a lot in the style guide on punctuation, Oxford commas, etc. with just a recommendation to use standard English. I'm not sure what your uncertainties are: I wouldn't call a decision on whether to use italics or inverted commas for a book or song title, for instance, to be a decision on what form of standard English to use.
I'd also add that any recommendation against using a form of standard English is most likely to be ignored. A recommendation of when to use italics (as long as it is consistent with current majority practice) is not. This is relevant. Policy should reflect practice, just as practice should reflect policy.
I'm not really sure what your last sentence means. On the quote at the start of the style guide, there appears to be support for replacing it with something of our own - it's just a case of, with what? Is it time to move onto the "with what?" jguk 17:45, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


I got caught up in some things and I'm not sure how well I can respond to all your comments right now.
About the quote at the beginning of the style guide, apparently we interpret the discussion differently, so I'd like to suggest that we include that with the rest of the issues we're staying out of for the time being.
About replacing much of the style guide with just a recommendation to use standard English, I'm not sure how well we're understanding each other, and I'm not sure how to express myself better.
This is a little confusing to me: "I wouldn't call a decision on whether to use italics or inverted commas for a book or song title, for instance, to be a decision on what form of standard English to use." I'm not saying that a decision on italics is based on nationality. But at least in the USA, use of italics varies. For example, italics are usually used in books and magazines, but infrequently in newspapers.
Side comment: No biggie or value judgment either way, but I might not see your replies to me if they are here.Maurreen 08:45, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew, Kelly and Tanni

Congratulations on getting in first with the New Year's honours! Deb 11:12, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Happy new year, cricket!

Although I'm wondering if all those useless cricket articles should be speedy deleted. --Pgreenfinch 13:02, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Sussex County Cricket Club

Hello there - Sussex County Cricket Club does not have an entry here yet. You seem to be the chap to create it, if you have the time. See Durham County Cricket Club for an example you might like to follow. Cheers - Jeff Knaggs 15:32, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Current sports events

Hi, is there a legitimate reason why you've repeatedly changed the date format in Upcoming events? My understanding was that when it isn't POV one way or the other, and it isn't a page exclusively devoted to events affecting North American or British English-speaking areas that you leave it as it was. Since some of the date ranges are written in the form Jan 4-7, for example, writing them the other way makes it so that it says:

  1. 4 Jan-7. This just looks awkward.
  2. 4-7 Jan. I think this is less preferable because the first date of the event is not contiguous.
  3. 4 Jan-7 Jan. In the upcoming events sidebar, minimizing the width of events is highly treasured, so this isn't good.

I'm not switching it back, but I'd like a rationale for the switch. Jonpin 03:11, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sept. 11

Your questions: "Are you now proposing that as far as FACs are proposed, every nuance of the MOS should be strictly adhered to? Even the bits where people have been suggesting we don't get so wound up about because it's not binding?"

My answers: No and no. Maurreen 05:44, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I ask you to rephrase your comments here to conform to Wikipedia:Wikiquette and Wikipedia:Civility.
I also ask you to reconsider Wikipedia:Mediation between us. Maurreen 07:56, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Over a comma?
My comments expressed my frustration over your four-month long obsession with a comma. I am also annoyed that after a number of users working hard, in their leisure time, to improve an article to featured article quality, the first comment they got was an objection over a such a trifling thing.
And to be honest I don't even know what you want mediation over, not to say that it is a thoroughly time consuming process for all concerned, and best not rushed into. jguk 18:58, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dates

Thank you for your message on my talk page re: dates. Which dates are you referring to tho? TonyW 11:41, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] In the News

Jguk, you are not funny. What you did is vandalism. Do it again and I will block you for 24 hours. You are warned. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 23:52, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And I warn you, Cecropia, that you will be on the end of an RFC if you block him or continue to threaten people that disagree with you. violet/riga (t) 00:34, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Jguk, I do apologize, without reservation. I didn't realize you were serious; as I said above, I thought you were playing a joke in an inappropriate place, and reacted hastily. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 19:18, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, jguk 19:35, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cricket

Hi, I'm not sure I understand - why is it necessary to have all those separate cricket categories on Charles Lennox, 4th Duke of Richmond. Seems like extreme over-categorization...shouldn't at least some of those be subcategories? Adam Bishop 19:40, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Userpage

Most assuredly. Thanks for reminding me. Warmest regards --Neutralitytalk 20:54, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Answers

  • Ben, may I ask why you have (together with Danny) banned Cantus for six months. Have I missed something in the recent ArbCom decision?
  • The Arbitration Committee ruled in Cantus v. Guanaco that Cantus may not revert more than once per article in any given 24-hour period (remedy #3). Cantus went on a massive reversion spree/multi-page edit war (apparently relating to templates on the country articles) with Gzornenplatz. He also convinced himself that Gzornenplatz is the hard-banned user Wik, and redirected Gzornenplatz's userpage to Wik's. Cantus was blocked for violation of the Arbitration Committee ruling and immediately created and user obvious sockpuppets to vandalise, bait Gzornenplatz, and generally engage in large-scale disruption —TimComm, Lazyfair, Ground0, Tumlti, and Xsysl. One sockpuppet—I forget which—moved Gzornenplatz's userpage to Wik's, which is quite annoying to repair. After the fifth sockpuppet, Danny and I jointly blocked a range of IPs for six months in Chile after consulting with Tim Starling. This block doesn't effect the Spanish Wikipedia, and if Danny or I get e-mails from accidentally blocked users we'll immediately unblock. But as of now, Cantus is under a six-month block—not really for violation of the ruling but for page move vandalism (comparable to the "Willy on Wheels" vandal). If/when he returns, he'll be liable to be the subject of another Arbitration Committee decree—I think Gzornenplatz would probably ask for a ruling.
  • I note that you have turned the userpages of Cantus' sockpuppets into redirects to Cantus. Whilst this seems perfectly reasonable to me, I'm just wondering if it's general practice. For example, should User:172's revert of User:Cantus' edit of User:Wik itself be reverted?
  • I think the redirects help other users not familiar with the incidents to understand. As to your second question: while it has been speculated that Gzornenplatz might be a reincarnation of Wik, this has not been proved or officially declared. Since Wik created a vandalbot to vandalise Wikipedia, I doubt that Jimbo would let Gzornenplatz/Wik continue to edit. Of course, anything is possible. And even if Gzornenplatz was Wik, Cantus's edits were entirely unacceptable and in any case violated general practice and the Arbitration decision.
  • Also I notice that you are taking an active role in blocking users following ArbCom decisions. I thought the practice was that Arbitrators do not enforce their own decisions, but it seems advisable to follow this practice anyway as it protects Arbitrators as requiring other admins to enforce them shows that the ArbCom decision is accepted by the community and also means that Arbitrators avoid the hassle that comes from complaints from users who have been blocked. And having Arbitrators kept above the fray is probably in your interests more than it is in anyone else's.
  • I wasn't an Arbitrator at the time, but I agree with you. I'm not going to make any Arbitration enforcements and will leave that up to the competent 300+ admins who are not Arbitrators. Warmest regards, and in hopes of an ongoing dialogue --Neutralitytalk 21:50, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edits

Personally I have nothing against Gzornenplatz. However he has reverted all the images of the states of India reverting to totally unencyclopedic and biased information. On hindsight, I realise that protecting images is useless as anyone can modify it and link another image to an article. Nichalp 19:22, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

I have already posted a message on Gzornenplatz page. Will wait for a reply from him. As for the cricket images, you don't have any access to cricket gear; friends etc.? PS I have loads of interesting cricket stats to put up after I finish my Sikkim project. Nichalp 19:46, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The pope (and other such figures)

The pages where I have reached compromise on this issue are Tenzin Gyatso, Mahathir bin Mohamad, and Muhammad, all of which describe the titles and honorifics without actually using them. We can drop ‘His Holiness’ from the beginning, and append a sentence noting that his formal style is ‘His Holiness’, or that he is addressed and referred to by many of his supporters as ‘His Holiness’.

For the record, and I have already stated this, I consider John Paul to be no better than anyone else, but I do consider him to be the pope (which is to say, the head of the Roman Catholic Church), and I usually honor his desire to be known as ‘John Paul’; though it was never my understanding that in taking his papal name he was in any way rejecting his birth name, so both are consistent with the idea of self-identification. For all we know, he considers himself Karol Wojtyła, and his papal name was imposed by tradition.

On a related issue, I do think it is better to resolve neutrality disputes, but if they exist, they must be acknowledged. And I am acting in good faith, presenting my reasons clearly and logically, and summarizing my edits honestly, so I think I am entitled to a page that meets my objections, or if not, then the right to dispute (as the case may be) the neutrality or factual accuracy of any page I choose. I am not a troll; I honestly believe that the use (as opposed to description) of these honorifics is not neutral and, moreover, is not in accord with objective usage elsewhere. I think I am making the encylopedia more of what it aspires to be.
— Ford 00:31, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

[edit] country infoboxes

Hi, there's a new Solution E that's been proposed for the country infoboxes; I've changed my vote from the Solution D that I proposed, earlier. The new option, proposed by User:Zocky, transcludes a subpage instead of using the template mechanism for this.

See: Nepal's infobox is implemented at Nepal/infobox using Template:Infobox_Country; Tuvalu's is implemented at Tuvalu/infobox as a wiki table.

Discussion is at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries

voting: Wikipedia:Country_infobox_vote

Thanks. — Davenbelle 02:23, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship

You have stated you are 'still not convinced'... if there is anything I can answer, or any reasons you would oppose my adminship, or anything you'd like to have me be aware of as an admin, please let me know. Whether I am given adminship or not, I'd still like any input you have. Pedant 21:15, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

I'm a 48 year old college educated professional who cherishes the wikipedia. What more can I say? Pedant 21:15, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)
OK, but it's a bit late this time round. Good luck next time. Kind regards, jguk 21:22, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support on my adminship vote. Dbiv 03:35, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Sydney riot of 1879

Great new article. Thanks! Neutralitytalk 23:13, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] United Kingdom corporation tax

Hello - and many apologies for the delay in getting back to the article - I have been carrying a manuscript mark-up around for a week, but haven't had time to get stuck in. I promise to have a go asap, possibly this weekend. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:47, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for the further comment. I will get around to making my amendments, but the last week or two has been ridiculously busy (and please don't hold my other contributions in the meantime against me!). -- ALoan (Talk) 11:36, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Antrim

Whoops, Antrim is a small town, far, far, removed from a city! I moved it back and corrected the text. Incidentally, almost all Irish town articles follow the convention, townname, county countyname. However, as Antrim, County Antrim seems silly, I went with the format of Antrim (town).

zoney ♣ talk 00:54, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BC/AD

Ok, thanks. I had assumed that BCE/CE was the wiki convention since that's what I had seen in several articles. Thanks for updating me on this. --ashwatha 01:21, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] English Cricket Team Article

Hi Jguk,

Unfortunately I wasn't at the Oval(managed to get to the Headingley Test of the same series, a miserable defeat for England :-( ). I compiled that 'report' mostly from memory, but I had to check the stats(wasn't sure of Trescothick's exact score, for example).

I wrote the end of the article in a bit of a hurry and didn't put any links in, so I'll go that soon. I thought that as we have a 'greatest matches' section, 'greatest players' should be there too. I agree with respect to NPOV, but I think that most people could agree on the greats. I can imagine a debate over some players but surely not Hutton, Botham, Fry, et al.

Thank you for the invite to the project! I'll pop over there.

Best wishes, Rusty Mac 00:07, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] American versus English convention

Re this please see here, and here. WikiUser 21:08, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

British English for British subjects and articles already in British English. Well established convention on wikipedia. WikiUser 21:15, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox Old Cricketer

Hi Jguk. Could you have a look at Robert Bush and suggest how I might change my use of Template:Infobox Old Cricketer? Also you might take some of these issues as suggestions for how the template might be improved (I'm have no experience editing templates):

  1. Bush played only for Gloucestershire, so using the English flag is arguably inappropriate, although it does serve the purpose of indicating in which domestic competition he played.
  2. Setting Bush's nationality to English results in "Gloucestershire" being wiki'd to point to English cricket team, which is certainly not right. I've set his nationality to Gloucestershire so that "Gloucestershire" is wiki'd to point to Gloucestershire cricket team, but that seems like cheating to me. And it would be better if it could point to Gloucestershire County Cricket Club anyhow.
  3. I wish there was some way to note that he was also a keeper. Maybe this is not so important for Bush, but eventually we'll run across someone who was the outstanding keeper of his time, but did very little else.
  4. I have "balls bowled" listed as zero, and all other bowling related statistics are dashed out. Is this okay?
  5. The dates for Bush's debut and last games are unknown. Unknown is being automatically wiki'd by the template, which isn't ideal.

Hesperian 00:37, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To answer you in turn:
1. I think an England flag is appropriate as Bush was English. If we had the Gloucestershire logo/badge as an image on Wikipedia, that may be better here - but we don't, so the England flag will do fine.
2. Gloucestershire was pointing to Gloucestershire cricket team. I have made that page a redirect to Gloucestershire County Cricket Club, but that page has yet to be written.
3. I've added him to Category:English wicket-keepers. Though I note on CricketArchive.com that he was only an occasional wicket-keeper.
4. Personally I prefer '0' and 'n/a' (as appropriate) throughout and have adjusted the infobox accordingly, though no doubt some prefer alternative styles.
5. I've added the dates of Bush's debut and last games. I find that Cricket Archive is a better resource for statistics than Cricinfo. I found the info here jguk 11:01, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The norms for "Selected anniversaries"

Hello. Please do not change the chronological order in "Selected anniversaries" templates for the Mainpage. Please move your mouse and bring the cursor to the picture, and you'll find a small box with the a few words about the picture appearing next to your cursor for a few moments. In the case for Feb.2, it should read "President F.W. de Klerk". Thanks. -- PFHLai 00:57, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)

[edit] AEJ Collins

I have put this case on FAC and invite you to support the nomination - it would be good if more people new about him! Brookie 17:52, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] E-mail

Hi Jguk, I tried to e-mail you but you haven't entered one. Would you mind e-mailing me? I have a query. Best, SlimVirgin 07:44, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Honorifics and styles

You are mixing up honorifics and styles. Honorifics should be used (I wrote the original proposal on that). But His Holiness is not a honorifics, it is a style, ie, a manner of address. Styles are not used, and should not be used, in an encyclopaedia. Honorifics should. So we can say Sir Robert Peel but we should not say Right Honourable Sir Robert Peel. Sir is an honorific, Rt. Hon is a style. They are two different things. So articles should not begin with Her Majesty, His Royal Highness, His Holiness, His Excellency as they are styles. Styles are all too easily misunderstood by people who don't understand them as a POV statement and provoke edit wars, eg, some wikipedians are convinced that by saying His Holiness Pope John Paul II wikipedia is expressing a POV that the pope is holy, or that saying the Right Honourable Tony Blair we are expressig a POV that he is both right and honourable. IMHO it is a nonsensical argument but there have already been edit wars since a small minority of people began adding in styles in the opening sentence.

Explaining in the article what the style of an office holder is avoids that because it cannot be seen as POV, especially if it is explained. Such an explanation cannot be included in the opening line unless one says His Holiness (the manner by which he is officially addressed) Pope John Paul . . . " FearÉIREANN 18:39, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You are mistaken. It is POV to take an excessively republican line. We should report what "is", not what some Wikipedians want to be. Also Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) is unambiguous as to what Wikipedia style is. That is, we should start articles with The Right Honourable. I, and from what I can tell the majority Wikipedians are convinced that to ignore these styles is insiduously POV. It is disappointing that there have been edit wars from people choosing to remove the information of how someone is styled from the beginning of articles. It is easier to start an article "The Right Honourable Anthony Blair", rather than "Anthony Blair.......Blair is, in some formal contexts, styled "The Right Honourable". Not only does it save 7 words, it also draws less attention to it. Kind regards, jguk 19:12, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BCE/CE Opposition

I edited the Opposition section because the arguments were blatantly one-sided, had a strong Christian bias, and because some arguments were 'unencyclopedic' (i.e. claiming that changing from BC/AD to BCE/CE undermined Christ's role in Christian societies, that BC/AD didn't offend anyone, and that changing it was destroying our common language for the sake of political correctness). I felt that those "reasons" should've been in comparison to the other side's argument, and that some of them were pure opinion and had no place in an encyclopedia.