Jump to content

User talk:Nopowernoblood

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hello Nopowernoblood! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Masterhatch (talk) 01:30, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

April 2025

[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Seneca the Younger have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

  • ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
  • If you need help, please see the Introduction to Wikipedia, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
  • The following is the log entry regarding this message: Seneca the Younger was changed by Nopowernoblood (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.884154 on 2025-04-13T20:12:03+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 20:12, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Please don't change the format of dates, as you did to Cyrus the Great. As a general rule, if an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the dates should be left in the format they were originally written in, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. Please also note that Wikipedia does not use ordinal suffixes (e.g., st, nd, th), articles, or leading zeros on dates.

For more information about how dates should be written on Wikipedia, please see this page.

If you have any questions about this, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Enjoy your time on Wikipedia. In particular, per MOS:ERA: "An article's established era style should not be changed without reasons specific to its content; seek consensus on the talk page first (applying Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Retaining existing styles) by opening a discussion under a heading using the word 'era', or another similarly expressive heading, and briefly stating why the style should be changed." NebY (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page you link says you can use BCE/CE format. There's a Cyrus the Great page, and Cyrus the Great in the Bible page.
It only makes sense to use BCE/CE due to the historical and secular page. I don't know what kind of agenda if that's what it is, because my edits are not unconstructive. You should not be an admin if you think I'm being disruptive. Nopowernoblood (talk) 21:36, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That section continues Apply Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Retaining existing styles with regard to changes from one era to the other. ... An article's established era style should not be changed without reasons specific to its content; seek consensus on the talk page first (applying Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Retaining existing styles) by opening a discussion under a heading using the word era, or another similarly expressive heading, and briefly stating why the style should be changed. NebY (talk) 21:47, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, can you please tell me what Laozi has to do with Jesus? No?.. Oh.. what about Epicurus, or Diogenes, or Xenophanes, or some of the others you reverted? Still no? Oh. So it is a pro-religious thing. OK, if it has nothing to do with Christianity it DOES NOT warrant a talk page on it. Hypatia? Sure because she was murdered by a Christian mob, but she was a real person--Therefore treat her with respect and change AD to CE.
You are not making sense. Nobody wants to waste time making a page, walking on eggshells, and interacting with potentially biased people on a talk page. Nopowernoblood (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a collaborative project; no-one can expect to see their changes stand if they are contrary to policy and guidelines, made without discussion and without consensus. MOS:ERA serves us well as a truce; without it, there are passionate, forthright and principled editors who would remove every BCE/CE from every article - and vice versa. NebY (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. ~70% of the Western world and ~72% of English speakers believe in Christianity, so it's inherently biased already, and you're just ignoring the page you linked me and my last message and sentence… "fortright and principled" how about mention the points I've brought up then.
Keep the site Christian Nationalist for all I care. You just won't see me using it anymore. Nopowernoblood (talk) 22:32, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Hi Nopowernoblood! I noticed that you recently made an edit at Cyrus the Great and marked it as "minor", but it may not have been. "Minor edit" has a specific definition on Wikipedia: it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. NebY (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Hannibal. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Please stop changing era styles until you have gained consensus for thodse changes on the talk page of each article per MOS:ERA: "An article's established era style should not be changed without reasons specific to its content; seek consensus on the talk page first (applying Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Retaining existing styles) by opening a discussion under a heading using the word 'era', or another similarly expressive heading, and briefly stating why the style should be changed." NebY (talk) 21:33, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me why it should be BC/AD because I am at a total loss. BCE/CE would make much, much more sense. Nopowernoblood (talk) 21:39, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He was not alive during Jesus time, and not everything revolves around religious nature/figures nor should it. This is nothing less than petty and not remotely worth a talk discussion about unless you're religiously biased yourself. No point in arguing in circles or playing games with people. Nopowernoblood (talk) 21:44, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), you may be blocked from editing. Untamed1910 (talk) 01:08, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you're an admin I need you to explain why my talk pages are being removed. This is unacceptable. Your site is hard to use and navigate as it is on non-main pages.
I am annoyed. Nopowernoblood (talk) 01:11, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had to use ChatGPT to even find that policy page. Grow up. Nopowernoblood (talk) 01:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to explain anything since Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) is for discussing already-proposed 7policies and guidelines, as well as changes to existing ones. your post [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)&oldid=128549203] doesnt even belong since Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) is for discussing policies and guidelines, as well as changes to existing ones and nothing else. Untamed1910 (talk) 01:18, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Untamed1910: I may be missing your point, but it seems to me that Nopowernoblood's edit at VPP was in fact to propose changes to existing policies and guidelines, specifically MOS:ERA. Personally I support leaving that guideline as it is, but I don't think that you can fairly say that proposing a change to it at the village pump, in and of itself, constitutes disruptive editing. --Trovatore (talk) 22:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added a welcome template to help you navigate your way around. Don't get discouraged. There are a lot of ins and outs with wikipedia and once yo8 learn the basics, this is a grest place to spend time. Masterhatch (talk) 01:34, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nopowernoblood: while I don't agree with you on the substance, I can appreciate your frustration a bit here. I think one thing you could consider is, if you want to make a proposal at the village pump, read a few existing ones first, to see the expected style.
This issue has been discussed many times and people are familiar with the issues, so you don't have to write a long essay explaining why you want the change. Familiarize yourself with the existing consensus on era, well enough that you can fairly summarize it, and say succinctly why you think a new consensus should be sought. --Trovatore (talk) 22:27, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You know good and well nothing will change.
Tell your superior Gordon to bring that god to the Bible Belt, cause I sure as fuck don't see it anywhere. Nopowernoblood (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I actually agree that it won't change. The existing compromise seems to work OK for most people. We've all heard your arguments before, and they aren't sufficiently convincing, largely because most people don't consider AD or BC to be religious terms except etymologically.
However, if you want to try, you can. I was offering suggestions that might at least get you a hearing. If you keep going with your current attitude, that won't happen. --Trovatore (talk) 00:10, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, like you said, they don't consider it religious.
So the only rational argument that may work is the fact that even though it does mean 'Before Christ' and 'in the year of the Lord', it was created in the 6th century CE. So logically every article from the year 525 CE and before should default to secular, if it doesn't, then it's not neutral.
If you think that'd work I may try, or if you have any other ideas. But that's all I got. Nopowernoblood (talk) 00:34, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're falling into the etymological fallacy. "BC" does not mean "Before Christ", and "AD" does not mean Anno Domini; that's just where the terms come from. Practically no one thinks of the origin of the terms when using them, just as they don't think of Thor when they say "Thursday". They're just letters that refer to a system of representing time.
Honestly I don't even follow your second argument; it seems to apply equally to CE/BCE. Obviously we want a way to talk about years that occurred before the calendar was defined.
But I really don't want to debate the merits with you. It's not me you have to convince; it's maybe thousands of editors who are mostly a little tired of hearing about it. As I say, you are free to try, but you might consider doing in a less alienating way than accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being a Christian nationalist, and maybe you might even watch the way policies and guidelines are developed and changed for a while before jumping in with your big project. There's no rush; the issue isn't going anywhere. --Trovatore (talk) 00:49, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean it's still culturally, globally relevantly tied to Jesus, when you hear Thursday I never think of Thor unless someone brings it up. You cannot say the same thing about BC/AD. It's fundamentally different.
And I am not here to make friends, I see how hard it is anyway. And no, there are clearly biased Christians/Jesus worshippers, I don't care who I call that because you can't convince me they aren't a lot out there, even purposefully not wanting it to change.
It seems like another user told me it's a big project and not worth it. I know how I feel what's right and wrong, and that's all that matters to me. I may try if I have the motivation or intellect.
Nopowernoblood (talk) 01:10, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I can say the same thing about BC/AD, and I don't think that it's fundamentally different. But that's the argument you'll have to make. Anyway it's not about making friends. You need to recognize that you won't be effective with that attitude. --Trovatore (talk) 02:12, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the honesty, I can't change who I am though.
It's really just empirical, then, I can't change someone else's anecdotal experience. Words don't matter in abstraction.
If you ask me I'd change not just BC/AD but BCE/CE to something different then, I am tired of seeing his name everywhere in real life. Now I have to think about him in completely unrelated instances too. Nopowernoblood (talk) 02:46, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To the argument that we should change Thursday due to the relation to Thor, involving the BCE debate:
Searching ‘Thursday’ on MOS:DAN gives you 25 results.
These have relevance to the BCE debate: 8
These do not: 16
Both Thursday and the BCE debate are on the same page, but irrelevant to each other: 1
Thursday and BCE are mentioned in the same discussion, but still irrelevant to the debate: 1
Searching ‘Thor’ gets 11 results.
Relevance: 7
Words that it picked up such as ‘author’ or ‘thoroughly’ but no mythological ‘Thor’ mention: 2
‘Thor’ specifically mentioned, but not the mythological one: 1
Mentions of changing Thursday because of the relevance to Thor: 1, but that was under the BCE debate, not a specifically made topic for it.
Empirically speaking, both Thursday and Thor have been mentioned outside of the BCE debate (less than half off all results) more than it has. 15 with relevance, out of 36 results.
Therefore, in my opinion this argument should not be taken seriously anymore because it is, overall, unconnected. Nopowernoblood (talk) 20:08, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, it's 17* that are irrelevant under Thursday to the BCE debate, the last point was just an observation. Also, since rationality seems to not work, would something like this? Are there anymore examples I could do? Nopowernoblood (talk) 21:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to double check everything and make it clearer, more structurally organized if I were to do the study.
Also, reading through over a hundred archives from both MOS and Village Pump would be tedious. I gave an example of the first person I read that disagreed. I'll try what I can if I can focus through it all. The consensus page I was linked, I guess I could try arguing each point.
I also now just seen a non-religious person against it, from looking. I can't compete with people who either 1. never had a religious upbringing which is what I'm intuitively gathering and/or live in a non-religiously dominated/controlled area and frankly just doesn't care because it doesn't affect them. 2. many points I've brought up previously. Nopowernoblood (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When you get time, please let me know how and what to improve on for the study under the topic. Thanks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nopowernoblood#Countering_the_Thor/Thursday_argument_in_the_BC/AD_&_BCE/CE_debate Nopowernoblood (talk) 04:00, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia uses reliable sources. And there are many, I mean many secular, reliable sources that use BC / AD. Since that's the case, why do you find it so egregious that Wikipedia does too? I mean, if wikipedia was the only place left that still uses BC / AD, I'd get your point. But as long as reliable sources use it, Wikipedia should too. Wikipedia is a follower, not a leader. It is not our job to be more inclusive, to right great wrongs, or to lead change. Wikipedia is built on consensus and the current consensus is 20 years in the making. It's gonna take some serious outside-the-box thinking to come up with something better. And, frankly, I haven't seen that from your suggestions. Masterhatch (talk) 02:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Look, inclusivity matters. And BCE/CE is becoming the global standard. Instead of responding to my 3 point message I spent a while typing up wanting clear answers. I get personally attacked by an arrogant admin that was not being in good faith to me and I was calling it out plainly what I was seeing from him. He did exactly what the article he sent me was doing.
I was being ignored. You can have your hierarchal status all you want, you can have your Christo-centric encyclopedia all you want. I want nothing to do with it, as an editor or a visitor. Nopowernoblood (talk) 11:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Countering the Thor/Thursday argument in the BC/AD & BCE/CE debate

[edit]

To the argument that Thursday/Thor is truly persuasive in the BCE debate:


Note: These were all searched on MOS:DAN.


Searching ‘Thursday’ gives 25 archive page results.


·        Discussions relevant to the BCE debate: 9

·        Total irrelevant: 21

·        Side note: Several archive pages had both Thursday and the BCE debate mentioned, but not in the same discussion.


Searching ‘Thor’ gives 11 archive page results.


·        Discussions relevant to the BCE debate: 7

·        Total irrelevant: 2 (other 2 results no particular mention, I won’t count those)

·        Side note: One page had ‘Thor’ mentioned, but not the mythological one.

·        Side note: One mentions of changing Thursday because of the relevance to Thor, but that was under the BCE debate, not a topic specifically made for it.


Empirically speaking, both Thursday and Thor combined have been mentioned outside of the BCE debate, more than it has been included. Comparing archive page results, it is 8 with relevance for ‘Thursday’, and 7 for ‘Thor’ – that is 15 out of 36 results in all which is 42%, less than half.


Comparing relevant discussions, it is 9 out of 30 for ‘Thursday’, which is 30%. The majority of discussions about Thursday are irrelevant to the BCE debate. Comparing for ‘Thor’ it is 7 out of 9, the majority are relevant. A total of 16 combined about the BCE debate out of 39, which is 41%, also less than half.

In my opinion, a truly sound argument would show up at least half of the time, if not more or every time.

Please note: These below are only archive pages, I have seen up to 3 discussions about the debate on one page from glancing. It defaults at 1 but expect a lower percentage. I will be using the total matched discussion amount earlier for both terms combined, which is 16 and getting the percentages.


Searching ‘CE’ gives 83 results. In that regard, it appears in ~19%.

Searching ‘BCE’ gives 87 results. In that regard, it appears in ~18%.

Searching ‘BC’ gives 109 results. In that regard, it appears in ~15%.

Searching ‘AD’ gives 119 results. In that regard, it appears in ~13%

These are all less than 20% for archive pages.

I think the most important part here, is If you account for only 'Thor' mentions. 8% for CE, 8% for BCE, 6% for BC, and 6% for AD. Please remember, these are percentages of 'Thor' discussion total in archive pages- I have noticed multiple BCE debate discussions on one archive page.

Therefore with everything noted, in my opinion this argument should not be taken seriously because it is not a consistent talking point, and also overall disconnected in the combined mentions of both Thor and Thursday in MOS:DAN.


Sources for ‘Thursday’ discussions

Archive 35: 2 - irrelevant

Archive 52: 1 - irrelevant

Archive 161: 1 - match

Archive 160: 1 – irrelevant

Archive 17: 1 – irrelevant

Archive 69: 1 – irrelevant

Archive 137: 2 - match & 1 – irrelevant

Archive 34: 1 – irrelevant

Archive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers/Archive/Complete_rewrite_of_Units_of_Measurements_(June_2008) – irrelevant

Archive 128: 1 – irrelevant

Archive 130: 1 – irrelevant

Archive 109: 1 – match

Archive 158: 1 – irrelevant

Archive 155: 1 – match & 1 – irrelevant

Archive 105: 1 – irrelevant

Archive 136: 1 – match & 1 – irrelevant

Archive 159: 1 – irrelevant

Archive 134: 1 – match & is the one previously mentioned suggesting to change Thursday because of Thor, but it is only under the BCE debate, not its own topic.

Archive 148: 1 – irrelevant

Archive 131: 1 - match

Archive 114: 1 - irrelevant

Archive 156: 1 – irrelevant

Archive 113: 1 - irrelevant

Archive 154: 1 - match

Archive 163: 1 – irrelevant

Sources for ‘Thor’ discussions

Archive 137: 1 – match

Sandbox1: 1 – match & 1 – irrelevant (I counted the bolded subtopic)

Archive 109: 1 – match

Archive 135: 1 – match

Archive 136: 1 – match

Archive 107: No specific ‘Thor’ N/A

Archive 119: ‘Thor’ mentioned, but not the mythological one. 1 – irrelevant

Archive 92: 1 – match

Archive 106: No specific ‘Thor’ N/A

Archive 154: 1 – match Nopowernoblood (talk) 03:57, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I missed a period and forgot to approximate the final percentages. I also counted that one archive under Thursday when I didn't for Thor.
Overall, I just wanted to prove I can convince with a little help. Nopowernoblood (talk) 04:21, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By approximate I mean put the ~ in front. Nopowernoblood (talk) 04:22, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't feel good vibes here. It genuinely upset me and I don't care to not use this place ever again. I'd be happy it not be rent free in my mind because this feeling is awful. I think that up yours guy should self-reflect on how he acted. And 3 months ago is a long time ago. Cool it for the next person, seriously. Actually reply to their points, and tell them why exactly… not ask them to do a full damn study day one, and especially not be a smartass and send an asshole hypocritical link. Then tell them up yours for calling you out on your bullshit. Asswipe.
And we know this is all based on feelings not inclusion. And you already knew before even reading this that I wrote it up for nothing. Can't even be proud of my points, because it actually is pointless. Nopowernoblood (talk) 05:17, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nopowernoblood&oldid=1286015400"