User talk:Tariqabjotu/Archive Twenty-Seven

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Re:Talk:Operation Wilno

Out of curiosity, why did you change your mind? And here I was happy for 12 minutes that one problem has ended :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I changed my mind after reading more of that "Discussion" and "Alternative name" sections. -- tariqabjotu 01:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. If I may ask, what convinced you that 'battle of Wilno' is not a better name? Note that in this case we are not only in need of a 'best' name, but 'any' name will do as the article is occupying a name which 99,9% of all sources use for a different event (thus the first priority is to free a redirect, second, to have a better name).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no opinion about which is a better name; I just thought there was no consensus that "Battle of Wilno" was a better name, based on the discussion. -- tariqabjotu 02:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point, however I still wonder if keeping an article under a misleadin name (as users looking for 1944 battle will find 1919 one) is preferable to moving it to a name considered better by roughly half of the participants (note that no other suggested name has generated more then one support post; and nobody is actually arguing in favour of leaving the article at the current name - everybody is in agreement current name is bad). PS. Consider this case study in RM history: a move was carried out to a name with the highest number of support votes, even though only 1/3 of the voters supported that name...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm having trouble finding sources that use "Operation Wilno" to refer to the 1944 event. -- tariqabjotu 02:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Try: 'operacja wileńska' + 1944 and compare to 'operacja wileńska' + 1919. And yes, in English historiography different name is usually used for the 1944 event - 'operation ostra brama' + 1944 or 'wilno uprising' + 1944. However on the 'operation wilno' name may be used (particulary relying on Polish historiography and translations) by some for the 1944 event - but certainly not for 1919.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Obviously I'm not fluent in Polish (it is Polish, right?) so... I can only say that if you weren't able to convince the others involved (whom I'm sure are more knowledgeable about the situation) that the suggested name is better, I'm not sure I could be convinced. You are, of course, free to get a second opinion for another outside user, but I fear someone's going to think you're twisting arms if you do that. So... do that at your own peril. -- tariqabjotu 02:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it's really a minor issue. Eventually majority of reasonable users will triumph; that's the wiki way. It's a shame it will not happen here, now - but you can't win them all, as the proverb goes. Amusing thing is that most likely this controversy will end up helping the article improve in quality :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Parkway Central Middle School IP

...which you blocked for EIGHT months as of Febuary 27th... I have submitted a unblock request. In it is also an alternitive for blocking this IP. Thanks! W1k13rh3nry 20:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Cite web

I think the year is being repeated twice for articles using the accessdate, accessyear format. FMF|contact 00:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I made a change to the template. Did that fix the issue? -- tariqabjotu 00:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No the history is now showing "invalid time", you could check the references here as example. FMF|contact 00:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright; the issue should be fixed now. -- tariqabjotu 00:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Sig Question

Noticing your sig, how do I go about changing the appearance of my sig? i know what I want to to do, but am unsure how to test it out or make it the default. Arcayne 04:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You go to "My preferences" then (under the "User profile" tab) type your new signature, with all the links you want included, in the Signature box. Afterwards, uncheck the box next to "raw signature". -- tariqabjotu 14:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Could I trouble you to take a gander at my Sandbox and tell me what I am doing incorrectly? Arcayne 14:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I made a change that probably took care of the issue. -- tariqabjotu 14:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it seems to be working now. Thanks for the assist. :) Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Confusing edit summary

Just wondered why you removed the disambig link to International Day of Quds from the Jerusalem Day article with the edit summary that should not have been removed? Surely it's a valid link. Number 57 12:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea how that occured; I meant to only re-add the link to Yom Ha'atzma'ut. Perhaps I accidentally edited an old version of the article. -- tariqabjotu 14:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, no worries. I have readded it :) Number 57 14:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Date/year linking in Jerusalem

Hi! This is with regard to the date/year linking in the article Jerusalem. Per Dates section in Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context, standalone years need not be linked, unless relevant to the context. The article has almost all the years linked which IMO increases wikilinks. Yes, some historically significant years need to be linked, but I think the article could do with some less amount of date/year links. That helps easy reading. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to remove links that you feel are unnecessary. Coincidentally, I was just about to notify you that I moved the {{Jerusalem}} template back to the top of the article. Jerusalem, of course, is the main article in the template series. Thus, I thought it would make more sense to keep it in a more prominent location. I kept the template right-aligned (because I had a feeling you preferred that) and moved an image in the History section to the left to accommodate that. -- tariqabjotu 15:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Yes I read your edit summary on the shifting of the template, the edit summary nicely explained the move. Yes I am aware of the FAC, and it is through the FAC that I came to the article. I shall definitely comment in the FAC. Basically I have a tendency to comment against multi-subsection "History" section. However, in case of Jerusalem, history is so important and long, it may be better to have subheadings. Anyway, shall be on the FAC soon. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Shatt al Arab/Arvandrud move

Hi, I'm a WP newbian, and I'm at a loss. I started the poll on this a week or so ago, and I agree with your conclusion that the consensus and most relevant evidence pointed to a clear move. Yet the same individual who has been fighting his "Arvandrud should be the primary name fight" for years there simply reverted your move. Can anything be done? Thanks. DLinth 18:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Khoikhoi (talk · contribs) did not participate in the move request on the talk page (except when closing it) and has not been very involved in the article. I think you may have him confused with another editor. -- tariqabjotu 22:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that you're a fellow Marylander! How can we get "Southern State" out of the first line of the Maryland article? (see discussion there.)

No confusion about Khoikhoi (talk · contribs). In fact, as experienced an editor as Khoikhoi is, he seems overly eager to relegate the consensus name for this article despite its worldwide usage. For ex., before the poll on this topic he had reverted or otherwise switched "Shatt al Arab" to "Arvandrud" or "Arvandrud/Shatt al Arab" on 1 April and 30, 28, 26 March, plus three times on 25 March. He suggested a poll, then when the evidence presented didn't "go his way", he simply reverted your move. Any suggestions for "awakening" Khoikhoi to the evidence, and for getting this article's nomenclature fixed so it no longer conflicts as it does now with most sources and reference material around the world? I "don't have a dog in this fight" other than, with my job as a geographer, it pains me to see WP articles out of step with accepted worldwide geographic nomeclature. (Keep getting logged out on my Mac here....I tried the "enable cookies" suggestion already....) DLinth 03:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Merzbow and his attacks

Look at this please: [1] and [2]. Despite my bringing up legitimate grievances of the article I am attacked as being "easily offended" even they are promoting conspiracy theories like Eurabia by Bat Ye'or as "criticism of Islam" and calling Pat Robertson a "critic" of Islam (he calls Muslims devils and believes Muslims will burn in hell) even though they are clearly bigots. The double standard here is that if Bat Ye'or was promoting a similar conspiracy theory about Jews taking over Europe, she would be labeled a anti-Semite not a "critic" of Judaism. Can you please help there with the bullying or at least raise the issue with other admins if you don't want to look into it? Merzbow's actions in particular are reprehensible with his pasting of "This guy is a Christian, I'm easily offended" all over the place and calling me a troll. Khorshid 05:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Tariq, Khorshid gave a similiar message to 2 other amins. I had left a message for that admin there, and will repeated it here for you:

Khurshid, the 2nd link you gave to Alex was actually a Wikipedia bug (see his talk page). You should have first contacted Merzbow, instead of bothering an admin first.

Tariq, the admins must be tired of directly dealing with Islam related issues. I'm guessing out of the 1000 or so admins, atleast 10 must be regularly bombarded with Islam related issues. There must be a strong solution to this. Maybe users could be told "Please follow policies and procesdures (RfC, DR, etc) if you have concerns, dont bother us with the issues directly", becuase this really drains admins and takes up their time over small matters and thus makes Wikipedia suffer. Am I correct Tariq? Or is it ok for people to keep bothering admins directly? If they spend time over these small bickerings and conflicts, they might be taking away their valuable time and efforts away from more important Wikipedia related stuff. I am seeing this happen on a regular basis. --Matt57 12:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would prefer that people use Wikipedia:Dispute resolution (and I do get bombarded with quite a few comments about Islam-related articles), especially because they think (rather erroneously) that I'm going to automatically be sympathetic to Muslims and Muslim editors. I'll respond to this one anyway, although it might take a bit of time for my response to make it to Talk:Criticism of Islam. -- tariqabjotu 13:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I think this is a common problem for admins. Many are frequently and unneccesirily bothered by Islam related conflicts, and other conflicts as well and this takes away their precious time. Maybe a template can be made in reply to any such request which says "Please follow through the procedures (RfD, DR) for this issue. If you have done so already, please type Yes and I will look into this further". This kind of cold response is the only thing that is going to help admins to stop spending their time on little conflicts like this. If you take an initiative, this will ultimately help admins save a lot of time.--Matt57 14:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Minor problem with map Image:Cartoonmap-key.png

This map has Kaliningrad Oblast' in gray, rather than blue (like the rest of Russia). Not critical, just something to keep in mind for the next time you revise the map. Cheers, Tomer^talk 07:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for informing me of the debate. --Scientia Potentia 10:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:De-linking Jerusalem

Am in a hurry (have to sleep). So will reply you later. I admit some of over delinkings (Hebrew language, many years in "History" I might have delinked some significant years). Talk to you later.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, here's what I did. For comparison, here are the overall changes (from before your changes to after mine). -- tariqabjotu 02:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Ok, the years in "History" may be linked (as most of them are very old years, and probably significant). However, there are some links that should be de-linked. For example, Christianity, Judaism, Islam are common words. When they are once linked in the "lead", IMO they need not be linked anymore. You are correct in observing "Essentially, I feel the de-linking was done under the impression that someone will be reading the article from start to finish and go paragraphs back to find a relevant link if they need one" So I feel East and West Jerusalem, Old City etc need not be linked multiple times in the article. Common words like "capital", "suburb" don't need to be linked.

Anyway, let the article be what it is as of now. let's see what happens in the FAC. What worries me is the lack of response in the FAC. Support, Object or Comment - whatever it may be, responses are needed, so that the article can be bettered. Have you advertised in the relevant wikiprojects and portals? (for example, Wikipedia:Notice board for Israel-related topics). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am surprised by the lack of response. Seven days ago, I advertised the FAC on the pages for all of the WikiProjects noted on the talk page – WikiProject Judaism, Israel, Islam, Jewish history, Christianity, and Cities. By the way, my point in making the comment that you italicized was to emphasize that people usually do not read articles from start to finish. From WP:MOSLINK, A link for any single term is excessively repeated in the same article, as in the example of overlinking which follows: "Excessive" is more than once for the same term, in a line or a paragraph, because in this case one or more duplicate links will almost certainly then appear needlessly on the viewer's screen. and However, note that duplicating an important link distant from a previous occurrence in an article, may well be appropriate. -- tariqabjotu 05:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Jerusalem advertising

Hi! I have advertised about the FAC in some places like Portal talk:Christianity , Portal talk:Islam , Wikipedia:Notice board for Israel-related topics and Portal talk:Judaism. Hope the FAC will get some more attention. Portal talks are usually more watched than project pages. That's why I advertised there. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, by the way,

I'm a dude... okedem 17:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright; I guess I didn't notice your name on your page. By the way, I responded to your comments on the FAC. -- tariqabjotu 17:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Jerusalem

The JVL source is used to show the population of religious groups during Ottoman times. The sources state and show that Jerusalem had been a small town not to long ago. As for the word vibrant, which is only an adjective, is a source really needed to say that Jerusalem is metropolitan? --Shamir1 23:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, however the main point is that Jerusalem's status as a metropolis is fairly new. It had been a town with relatively a small number of inhabitants until the First Aliyah, and even then hardly a city. Feel free to come up with ideas. --Shamir1 23:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 9th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

Special note to spamlist users: Apologies for the formatting issues in previous issues. This only recently became a problem due to a change in HTML Tidy; however, I am to blame on this issue. Sorry, and all messages from this one forward should be fine (I hope!) -Ral315

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you speak Farsi?

I ask because there are a number of terms in the filmography of the Googoosh article that could use some translation. If you don't, could you recommend some who are? -Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't speak Farsi. Native speakers of Farsi will often put themselves in Category:User fa-N. Of the names there, User:Tajik, User:Behnam, and User:Sa.vakilian look familiar and may be active. -- tariqabjotu 19:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Changes to cite web, cite news, etc

I'm not sure your changes to {{cite web}} and other citation templates were good. I don't see why you are forcing the dates to appear in a certain format when the software already handles this according to user prefs. I see that your summary mentioned anon editors, but I don't see why forcing the dates to one format has any sort of advantage. Can you please change these templates back? Thanks. --- RockMFR 19:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, this seems to have been discussed pretty heavily on the talk pages of these templates, with consensus (how I'm reading it) being to not link in any particular fashion. --- RockMFR 19:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I get the impression that those discussions on the talk page are not addressing the exact same thing. The reason I added the default date in the first place was due to the formatting in the new protection templates (e.g. {{pp-dispute}}, as used at Allegations of Israeli apartheid). As you can see, the date format is [Month] [Date], [Year] – and that's for everyone, logged in or not. I have yet to see any objections to that (or to formatting such as Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 10, 2007 and Portal:Current events/2007 April 10. The discussions on the talk pages seemed to primarily circle around the idea of removing the date links altogether in place of dates written in a specific format for everyone. I won't make a big deal if someone were to revert my changes, but almost nobody writes dates like 2007-04-10 in standard writing. Perhaps if I were to change the format to 2007 April 10, fewer people would be able to make a case for objecting (it still works with user preferences). -- tariqabjotu 20:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I really think the best option would be to not format at all. On many good/featured articles, efforts have been made to have consistent date formats throughout references, but now it just looks sloppy. I'd really prefer if it was reverted. --- RockMFR 22:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you have an example of this occurring? It sounds like you do. -- tariqabjotu 22:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Wii looks especially bad at the moment. In some cases, refs are not done with the citation templates, so forcing formatting makes these articles look especially bad. You seem to be under the impression that this is not a contentious issue, but it really is. For any given date format, there's a low proportion of people who really want to use it, and unless efforts are made to force the formatting on all dates in every citation template, it's going to look like crap. --- RockMFR 22:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what you're talking about on the Wii article. Additionally, I think looks like crap is a serious subjective point. There may, for instance, be people who think the use of 2007-04-10 looks bad on its own (as seen here). But as I noted before, I'm having trouble finding a discussion regarding this part of the date item. Yes, there have been many discussions regarding the date, but it does not appear this was one of them. If you prefer a specific date format, you are free to specify one in your preferences. Alternatively, you could bring up this matter on the talk page of one of the templates (perhaps Template talk:Cite web). There are probably a few other available options that I can't recall at this moment, but as of now, I really only see this as a you vs. me thing (or me vs. you, if that less sounds antagonistic). No one else has expressed an opinion on it. -- tariqabjotu 23:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem with changing the prefs is that it forces all dates to be one style. I don't think this is a reasonable solution to this problem. There's just no reason for the original changes. --- RockMFR 00:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Jerusalem further

Hi! I have added some comments in the FAC. Please consider those. On a side note, I usually follow Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian cities for city articles. Indian guidelines may not be applicable for other cities, nonetheless, the guidelines are good and you may have a look. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Tags

I have tried to put up a notability tag on the Nasser Pourpirar article and have explained my reasons in the talk page. However, it keeps getting reverted by one user[3] who has not yet contributed to the discussion on the talk page. Could you advise?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 19:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I would advise you to stop edit-warring with him. I would also advise you to remove (or at least provide a translation for) those footnotes that are not in English. This is, after all, the English Wikipedia. -- tariqabjotu 19:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but I did not put those references in the article. If it were my choice, they would not be there. If I were to delete them, it could prompt further edit warring - or, at least, complete reversions. There are no sources in the English language that meet WP:V in relation to the subject of the article.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 19:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If you want the article deleted, go to WP:AfD. -- tariqabjotu 19:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Occupied territorries and what to call them

I don't have a particularly strong opinion in the matter, but do remember the explosive debates around the term itself. IMO, "West Bank" is neutral and good enough for most (perhaps all) purposes. Isn't it amazing that an article as Jerusalem can be fine-tuned to FAC status? Wikipedia is often at its best where the controversy is hottest (but alas, what an enormous waste of time it often is). Kosebamse 13:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh and by the way, it's fine with me if someone works on an article and discusses it somewhere at the same time. However, FAC discussions are something special, and I prefer to be either critic or author when it comes to that, particularly when I am critical of an article. Just my personal whim I guess. Kosebamse 14:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Block-evading user

Tariqabjotu, you blocked User talk:Alx 91 2007-04-08 for persistent image violations. I believe that Alx 91 is evading the block as an anonymous user. I posted a short post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Request block of block-evading user User:Alx 91. Please take a look. --Iamunknown 04:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Jerusalem FAC

It seems the Jerusalem discussion is breaking down, with someone already objecting that stability is a fundamental, intractable problem for the article. Please join and help diffuse. nadav 23:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Jerusalem FA

However it turns out, it was brave of you to try it, and it's a great article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		For your fine writing, your commitment to neutrality, and your dedication to the ideals of the project, it's my privilege to award you this barnstar. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a million for the barnstar; your statement on the FAC was right on target. I'll add the barnstars to my userpage once I get around to re-designing it. -- tariqabjotu 22:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Barnstars are not even enough to express your monumental achievement of bringing it even this close to FA. It was a herculean task. BTW, do you think I made a mistake in offering these rewites to the lead? A lot of support has already coalesced around your nice version, and now I think maybe it would have been better to let the opposition die down. I hope I didn't mess things up... nadav 01:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

My biggest worry is that it will fuel the this article is not stable fire. -- tariqabjotu 01:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

(just passing by) Striving for consensus is a positive thing, even though I disagreed with your suggestion. okedem 08:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Should I notify voters on the last FAC that the FAC has been restarted? More importantly, don't you think the Hebrew and Arabic text on your user page would look nicer right-justified? nadav 16:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Notifying !voters from the last FAC would probably be a good idea. About the Hebrew and Arabic text... it looks right-justified to me. I haven't used Internet Explorer recently, so I'm not sure how it looks there. And I'm at school too, so I don't have the option of downloading it here. I'll be home in a few hours and check. -- tariqabjotu 18:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 16th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

LOL YOU'RE GONNA GET SCOLDED

you can't protect main page articles for long periods of time. lol you're gonna get told.--Aftertaken 00:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh... no. You're wrong. -- tariqabjotu 00:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

translation

Done faster than I expected. By the way, you're my neighbor. I live in Rockville.

nadav 09:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for the translation; I have since added it to my user page. One thing I did notice was that it looks like there might be an error. I don't know Hebrew, but it seemed like on of the links should go to he:המכון הטכנולוגי של מסצ'וסטס, instead of he:מכון הטכנולוגי של מסצ'וסטס. Am I correct about that? -- tariqabjotu 04:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. There should be a "ה" (when used as a prefix in Hebrew, it is the definite article) like you said. nadav 08:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

And there shouldn't be a "ה" in שם עט, so we're even on the number of "ה"s... okedem 08:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I already fixed that on the user page. nadav 09:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC) But the link was bad. I see okedem fixed it now, so all is good. nadav 09:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Arabic translation

OK, I've translated the paragraph. The wiki-linking was a pain, because the RTL text tends to be a hassle with punctuation marks.

Let me know if you need any other help. —Anas ^talk? 12:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for the translation; I have since added it to my (new) userpage. -- tariqabjotu 04:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't mention it. Looks great, but the text is aligned left-to-right. It's not looking too weird though. :-) —Anas ^talk? 11:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the alignment issue; I didn't notice that earlier. -- tariqabjotu 18:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

BC/BCE, etc.

Hi,

I understand that many feel BCE and CE to be more neutral than BC/AD, so your revert was justified, but maybe you can explain something to me - regardless of the suffix, we still count by the approximate time of birth of Jesus, right? So how, exactly, is saying "1000BCE" better than "1000BC"?

The whole "Common Era" thing seems like a sham, to me. Personally, I'd rather use BC/AD. If we're using Jesus Time, might as well use the Latin with it, and the BC/AD difference is much clearer (easier to see) than BCE/CE. But that's just me (the atheist Jew)...

Cheers, mate. okedem 21:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the issue comes from the fact that BC means "Before Christ" and AD is the Latin abbreviation for "In the Year of Our Lord", suggesting that Jesus is "our" (everyone's) lord and our (everyone's) Anointed One. -- tariqabjotu 21:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 23rd, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It'll be over soon

You have the patience of a saint. Hang in there. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)