I edit this page of ''The Signpost'', once I have read. I also agree to multi-license all my contributions with the exception of my user pages.

Those four tildes ( ~~~~ ) they most certainly are not the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse. - honest!

GA Cup[edit]

Hello everyone! We hope you have all been having a great summer!

As we all know, the recent GAN Backlog Drives have not had any big impact on the backlog. Because of that, me (Dom497), Figureskatingfan, and TheQ Editor have worked on an idea that could possibly finally put a dent into the massive backlog. Now, I will admit, the idea isn't entirely ours as we have took the general idea of the WikiCup and brought it over to WikiProject Good Articles. But anyways, here's what we have in mind:

For all of you that do not know what the WikiCup is, it is an annual competition between several editors to see who can get the most Good Articles, Featured Article's, Did You Know's, etc. Based of this, we propose to you the GA Cup. This competition will only focus on reviewing Good articles.

For more info on the proposal, click here. As a FYI, the proposal page is not what the final product will look like (if you do go ahead with this idea). It will look very similar to WikiCup's page(s).

The discussion for the proposal will take place here. Please let us know if you are interested, have any concerns, things to consider, etc.

--Dom497, Figureskatingfan, and TheQ Editor

Bury witch-trial[edit]

Are you now trying to tell me Edmund that Browne actually commented on this trial and stated that he testified ? I would really like to see the evidence of that ! An account of this trial was not even published until the 1730's, which was hopelessly jumbled in it chronology of events. how much faith would you place to documentation of events 50 years ago ? It really is most tiresome of those who are anti-religious to shoe-horn in their agenda in a vain attempt to make out they are in some way superior in intellect to Browne. Why not try reading the man for once, you may acquire some respect instead of using him to 'justify' your 'intellectual' agenda. The Bury Witch-trial is one of the very few known biographical details of Browne who was not invited to testify, merely to express an opinion, which he did, non-committal at best, making reference to witch-craft in Denmark. I find your 'interpretation' extremely unhistorical and highly ideologically driven, with little respect to someone who remains an important figure in World literature and intellectual history. And all to score a point to in order to placate your ego that you're somehow intellectually superior, you're not and never will be ! Why not admit to yourself that you're just using Browne and the events of the trial in order to attack Christianity. Norwikian (talk) 13:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay in getting back to you, busy in the real world. I will answer your questions yet again, but please remember I am quoting the opinion of an historian (who does not try to impose his / her 20th / 21st century mores onto an historic and important person). Being that you have this time accused me of being anti religious and specifically anti Christian I am asking admins / editors to observe and join in if they wish. Back as soon as I can. Edmund Patrick – confer 06:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Obviously a very basic check in this time scale but the original fact came from the historian Keith Thomas in the book Religion and the Decline of Magic. The exact wording is as follows - I assume you have not read it (- all these assumptions wandering thither and wither...)- ..., while Sir Thomas Browne's citation of a parallel case in Denmark turned the scale against the accused in the trial of Rose Cullender and Amy Dury at Bury St Edmunds in 1665. Chapter Witchcraft: The Crime and it's History pp524 - 525.

To quote [1] Citation: summons to attend court. So if he had the luxury of not having to get to his feet, and to be able to speak from "the gallery" it may have been the court showing due care for any discomfort he may have been suffering he was after all 60. I do not know, I was not there, all I am doing is editing an article in Wikipedia about an event which involved a recognised major intellect of the time. I do know I quoted an historian that said 1) he attended 2) he spoke 3) he was listened to and 4) his speech / evidence "turned the scale against the accused". The simple premise of Wikipedia is that it provided knowledge to those that wish to find it so to quote you .... The Bury Witch-trial is one of the very few known biographical details of Browne who was not invited to testify, merely to express an opinion, which he did, non-committal at best, making reference to witch-craft in Denmark.... Can you please please reference this and then it can be put into the article and not left meaningless on this talk page, to quote you again ...I would really like to see the evidence of that ! It will not prove me wrong or you right, it will though , shock horror, improve the article! Busy for a day or two apologies will answer after that. one last thought, upon re reading our message to me, I have yet to go back to all the others. Yet again on what seems like a bi-annual pattern you question me be it my faith (if I have any, I know for sure that you don't know), my professionalism etc. I am not a sounding board. Edmund Patrick – confer 15:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm back, you are not, so I will waste no more time, and next time I will also waste no time, but bring in Wikipedia#Dispute_resolution, so that others can. Edmund Patrick – confer 09:23, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 November 2015[edit]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 November 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 02 December 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 09 December 2015[edit]

copied rfc[edit]

AD / CE - BC / BCE Suggestion[edit]

Original communication at Wikipedia:Bot_requests#AD_.2F_CE_-_BC_.2F_BCE_Suggestion moved here as maybe more appropriate space I am asking that someone with the necessary skill looks at a BOT that can, if agreed, add the following;

• Link: AD to CE and BC to BCE.This would only need to be done once per article (maybe in the first instance of it occurring) a suitable article, for example, is History of timekeeping devices. It may also be required to wikilink AD / BC in the first place. If feasible the Bot should be able to reverse link (BCE to BC) the critical action is that AD is linked to CE and BD to BCE, whatever starting point is within the reviewed article.
• Why: AD and BC are based on a presumed date of a birth of deity and whilst whether it is factually correct is irrelevant, it has become the standard universal dating method. 1) Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, needs to inform that there is alternative terminology, and that within many educational establishments the measurement of time on this scale is taught through CE and BCE. Please see, for example one of many previous discussions at Talk:History_of_timekeeping_devices#WP:ERA. Whether the link is within the text of the article or separated out for whatever reason is another discussion, the importance is the one link between AD to CEand BC to BCE. Edmund Patrick – confer 08:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

A bot performing an action like this would, at a minimum, need consensus via a widely advertised discussion. I suspect that you would not find it easy to achieve that, given the existing guideline. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:49, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I totally agree that a consensus would be needed, and this is just a small part of the conversation that needs to be had, but I disagree with your example of the existing guideline. What I am asking for is just a link that makes clear to the reader that BC = BCE and AD = CE. I am not asking for the dating style of any article to be changed, nor the manual of style, just for Wikipedia to do what an encyclopedia should do, inform! in this case by what is after all Wikipedia's strength a simple link. I will seek the next platform is raise this discussion, I would still like to know if it was feasible though? Thanks again Edmund Patrick – confer 09:24, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Although not originally written as a rfc I have today linked it to technical and proposals. With Thanks Edmund Patrick – confer 10:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose, on three grounds. (1) How does the bot know which pages to edit? You don't specify how to determine which pages are suitable for having these links added, and linking it in all of them would be quite excessive. How does the bot know whether "AD" is the era indicator or initials, for example? (2) You don't suggest doing the opposite thing: why add these links without linking "CE" to Anno Domini? (3) Your proposal would fundamentally overturn WP:ERA, and there's no reason to censor the terminology used in English for thirteen hundred years. It's one thing if you think that the current generation's terminology is fundamentally superior to that of all previous generations, but don't force that opinion on the rest of us. Nyttend (talk) 23:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Reply Thanks for the input, in ref to 2)I wrote above ...If feasible the Bot should be able to reverse link (BCE to BC)...and did not think to mention the obvious CE to AD as it was the principle I was trying (obviously badly) to put across. 3) My proposals do not undermine thirteen hundred years as I said ... I am not asking for the dating style of any article to be changed, nor the manual of style, just for Wikipedia to do what an encyclopedia should do, inform! in this case by what is after all Wikipedia's strength a simple link... My sons education was with CE and BCE as their schools believed in inclusiveness of all and reflected the many many religions that attended the schools. I am not saying it is right or wrong just that it is! I am not at any point saying one is better but a paper published encyclopedia would have no chance to update their era dating system, this one can simply which is one of its strengths. Obviously my dyslexia was strong that day as at no point was I aware I was forcing my opinion on anyone, apologies. I am asking that a bot links once, and once only, AD = CE / CE = AD / BCE = BC and BC = BCE. The difference between names AD and AD as you correctly pointed out could be a difficulty which is why I started the conversation with bot designers, hoping that they can see and maybe solve such problems. Edmund Patrick – confer 15:16, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment It wouldn't be too hard to do this in the majority of cases. However, it would be difficult to make sure that there were no false positives. Consider the article BC (video game): if someone added the sentence "The 2004 BC trailer was well received" to it, linking "BC" to BCE would be incorrect. This example is slightly contrived, admittedly, but I would not be at all surprised if there were sentences like this already present in articles. For a bot to get this right all the time it would need to be good at natural language processing, which is very difficult. It might be more plausible to do it via semi-automatic editing with AWB or similar. However, without a consensus for the change we won't be able to implement it at all, so that should come first. I suggest submitting a proposal at WP:VPP and seeing how things go. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:12, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Reply Thank you for all the ideas, thoughts and concerns. I always appreciated that this would be a long process, and nothing wrong with that, as long as, at the end, we are aware of any difficulties, like your very valid example. I will wait a few days and then follow your recommendation. Thanks Edmund Patrick – confer 06:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 December 2015[edit]