This page 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.

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)

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)

AD currently redirects to Anno Domini. Your proposal is ambiguous because you piped the Wikilink as [[Anno Domini|AD]], do you mean to make Anno Domini redirect to Common Era or merely AD redirect to Common Era? In either event I would suggest leaving the current compromise of WP:ERA as one that we can all live with. I think we need an article on Anno Domini and would prefer CE/BCE over AD/BC, but not sufficiently to force the community to choose between the two conventions. If you must try to shift the consensus on that I would suggest first clarifying your proposal, redirecting AD from Anno Domini to Common era would be a neater proposal though as I say it breaks a compromise that most of us can live with. ϢereSpielChequers 13:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Apologies for the length of the delay to acknowledgement and reply, the real world interrupted big time! I will reply soon, thanks. Edmund Patrick – confer 08:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

If you have read the ANI thread then you will have seen that several administrators examined my edits and concluded not only that they were not harmful but that they were necessary and useful. To suggest that the personal attack "could stay here now as a record" in the circumstances is just stirring it. Please don't. Scolaire (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

My goodness Scottish people who are Irish and now leaving something which up until this diatribe said more about the originator of the edit, but now does not! A case in point - "you will have seen that several administrators examined my edits and concluded not only that they were not harmful but that they were necessary and useful." but try as I might only one of the editors listed on the ANI is an administrator, why say several.... and take in vain the names of other editors (e.g.Serialjoepsycho / OpenFuture, I'll stop there - see below -). So the method chosen by Wwallacee was crass and self defeating but for example (1) two of your supports correctly support your proposition but neither of them are listed as Administrators, now if there is now a secret administrator post I will make that aware to the Administrators I know, and (2) the only constructive reason for you to come up with such a statement is presumably to stop me actually editing articles - to quote you Please don't. And to quote an administrator (yes really) (without his permission but I'll take the wrath ...) We're here to build an encyclopaedia, not a chat group. Edmund Patrick – confer 18:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

What an unpleasant person you are. Scolaire (talk) 06:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

maybe. unpleasant you have a right to that opinion - at least I do not try to blind / scare other editors with all the "support" from imaginary administrators to back up my point, (and well done for studiously not answering that point / mistake / error / whatever) so I will take being an unpleasant (but IMO factually correct person) as a compliment. Edmund Patrick – confer 08:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

You would. Scolaire (talk) 08:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I suggest this "last word"-itis should stop now, let's go back to improving Wikipedia, eh? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Damn, but right, Wikipedia says it is an encyclopaedia not necessarily a source of unbiased knowledge, I mean which one ever has been! Ta Edmund Patrick – confer 11:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Bury St Edmunds

Thank you for quality contributions to articles such as James Nesbitt and Rose Mead, for adding details to articles such as Bury St Edmunds and Edmund the Martyr, for GA reviewing and dealing with ITN and recent deaths, for restoring content and for supporting editors, - Edmund, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I have occassionally come across these gems, never in a pattern which makes them even more fun to find, and now I have beeen awarded one. With many many thanks, let us all try to keep up the good works. Edmund Patrick – confer 16:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man.

Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Evidence.

Please add your evidence by September 17, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For non-parties who wish to opt out of further notifications for this case please remove yourself from the list held here

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

My user name is Medeis, not the Greek signature. Id est, ping Medeis. I have been asked by an arbiter to drop the issue (it is two years old, and regardless of the evidence, checkusers refused to investigate it, given it was from a proxy IP, not a registered user). In any case, I would not have seen your comment unless I had read the whole thread. Smiley. μηδείς (talk) 20:06, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Apologies for the confusion in the signature and thanks for the clarification. Edmund Patrick – confer 21:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I am very glad to hear you are working on Edmund. I know very little about East Anglian history. Any chance of seeing it at FAC? I aim to get Æthelflæd to FAC soon. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: A long held thought but (and I sense you may also have come across this) to do something like that does seem to bring out a certain class of editor (see these discussions as an example) and has one must admit, put me and a couple of others off. I am beginning to think that a section on the water ape theory with double references (see Matthew Hopkins for example - 1st ref to page within the aquatic ape book(s) with note references the source that author used. I am not sure I am explaning it clearly enough but I will play a bit in the sandbox and see what comes up. If I do could I run it by yourself? Best of wishes for Æthelflæd always was an interesting person. Edmund Patrick – confer 14:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I am not clear just what you propose but I will be happy to look at your sandbox draft. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

A proposed decision has been posted in the open The Rambling Man arbitration page. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. If you are not a party, you may opt out of further notifications regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Mass Message List. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Edmund, I've put an outline on User:Chris55/AAH2 have started the redraft and would invite you to contribute if you want to, or add your suggestions to the talk page of that page. Chris55 (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Edmund Patrick. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)