User talk:John Quincy Adding Machine/Jun2007

Common era edit

Do you have a source for your recent [edit] to the Common era edit. Controversial statements should have a source, and I regard any statement that appears in a list of arguments for or against a concept as inherently controversial. Thanks. --Gerry Ashton 15:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The statement in question is "In fact, it could be said to be more religious due to that fact it claims the birth of Jesus fostered an entire new era for mankind." I suspect the term "Common Era" originated as a recognition that because it is used, to some degree, throughout the world, it is an era that virtually all cultures have in common, at least to the extent of using it for cross-cultural communication. Whichever view is more accurate, it isn't the place of Wikipedia editors to come up with novel observations, but rather report the observations that have been published in reliable sources. --Gerry Ashton 04:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Whoa

My god, your proposal on WT:NOT about "Wikipedia is not a children's encyclopaedia" yesterday was a damn scary bit of precognition... literally 5 minutes after I read it, this happened. Clearly I was destined to agree with you on this one eventually! - Zeibura S. Kathau ^{(Info | Talk)} 13:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the birthday wishes! Sorry that I couldn't get back to you until today, but thanks again! no reply is necessary unless you really need or want to. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 17:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)