User talk:Kakorot

Hi, Kakorot, and welcome back to Wikipedia!

The bulk of your recent contributions have violated the date format policies outlined in WP:ERA, specifically the clause that reads:

Do not change the established era style in an article unless there are reasons specific to its content. Seek consensus on the talk page before making the change. Open the discussion under a subhead that uses the word "era". Briefly state why the style is inappropriate for the article in question. Having a personal or categorical preference for one era style over the other is not justification for making a change.
— Wikipedia Manual of Style

Please take some time to familiarize yourself with the Manual of Style before making any further contributions, and in the future, your fellow editors will look forward to discussing your proposed revisions on the Talk pages of the relevant articles. Ibadibam (talk) 07:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And as someone who has been involved in discussions about this in the past, let me reinforce what Ibadibam has said. Please don't continue to make such changes. Dougweller (talk) 07:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New violation of WP:ERA after Dougweller's previous warning

Please review the warning given above by Dougweller a month ago. Your recent edits to Carbon dating the Dead Sea Scrolls is a violation of the statements in WP:ERA telling editors not to arbitrarily change an article's established era (in the above mentioned DSS article, the established era was set by the article's creator, Ihutchesson, who created the article using BCE/CE, yet you changed it without any discussion, without any consensus). — al-Shimoni (talk) 05:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible block

You are ignoring warnings and continuing to edit against WP:ERA. You may not realise it, but your edits are easily tracked. You will be blocked from editing if you continue. I'd appreciate an acknowledgment of this. Dougweller (talk) 07:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Kakorot knows this page exists, Doug. It doesn't serve us to get impatient waiting for an answer when nobody's home. Ibadibam (talk) 13:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? I am not sure if this how to reply, nor am I sure if this can be read. This is the first I've heard of any warnings, my friend just momentarily directed me to this page. I was under the assumption that some kid elsewhere in the world was mocking up Wikipedia by replacing the specifications of dates. I do not understand how my changing of them is deemed inappropriate. Also I fail to grasp how my edits can be appropriate one place, and not so another. I would appreciate if this were explained to me, without directing me to a page, so I may understand the lapse in my judgement.

With best regards,

                             John aka Kakorot

Hi Kakorot! Nice to meet you at last.

In the past, there have been long arguments about whether BC/AD or BCE/CE is the right system to use. In the end, it was decided to compromise: Each article would use the system most appropriate for the subject at hand.

To avoid further conflict, Wikipedia has a policy that this should not be changed unless there is an important reason to do so. So everyone was surprised when you changed BCE/CE to BC/AD without letting anybody know.

Usually, we would discuss this on the "Talk" page for an article. You can get to this by clicking on "Talk" right above the article's title at the top of the page. The page we are on now is your personal Talk page, where people can ask you questions and have conversations with you. You can also set up a personal page, like what you see when you click on my name.

I'm sorry that our first conversation is under these circumstances, and I would like to personally encourage you to keep using and editing Wikipedia. And now that you know a little bit more about how Wikipedia works, you'll be able to fit right into the community here.

Ibadibam (talk) 19:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, that was very informative. I apologize for any interruptions I may have caused, Wikipedia is a fantastic website, and I will countiue to use it with the greatest respect. I am very much glad you've introduced me to this "Talk page", I will certainly give it a look, and use it as a tool in the future. It saddens me deeply to think if I have offended anyone, or wasted anyone's time; I'll study the laws and compromises of Wikipedia more thoroughly to prevent any more misunderstandings. Again, thank you very much for taking the time to inform me of the violations I have caused, it means more to me than you would believe. I truly hope to become a valued member of this website's community.

Thanks, Kakorot aka John

April 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Astyages, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. If you believe an article should use the BC/AD convention instead of the BCE/CE one then please discuss it on that article's talk page first and establish a consensus for the change. SQGibbon (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Dougweller (talk) 18:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This block is on the basis of the multiple warnings above which you read and apparently understood and agreed to abide by. Your main purpose here appears to be changing BCE/CE to BC/AD and the last few times you did it you knew about our guidelines. You can ask to be unblocked but if you are unblocked it should be under the condition that you agree not to add or change era designations to articles. Dougweller (talk) 18:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]