GrizzlyEchols
March 2017 edit
Hello, I'm CAPTAIN RAJU. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Near-Earth supernova have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
BCE - not just Jews and "hard core atheists" edit
Your latest edit looks ago, but you must follow WP:ERA, particularly as you seem to have a misinformed agenda here. The author of this book teaches at a Jesuit university but uses BCE. This book[1] is published by the Liturgical Press, a Christian publishing house. This book[2] is written by a Presbyterian minister. I could show many more examples. I suggest you find something else to do. There's a lot of interesting things to do here. But if you're here only to get rid of BCE/CE, you are likely to get blocked from editing. Doug Weller talk 11:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I see you were reverted by another editor at an article for the same reason. You really need to stop. Doug Weller talk 07:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Dear GrizzlyEchols -
First, not sure anyone has welcomed you to Wikipedia. Happy to have you here. I'm just another editor, like you.
I noticed your comment on BC/BCE on the admin noticeboard, where it was quickly closed as not being an admin matter. Then I looked at your contributions. All your recent contributions seem to be on this one point (BCE->BC, CE->AD). You appear to feel that BCE/CE preferences arise from some animus against Christianity (I may be oversimmplifying your argument). That may or may not be true in your specific professional and/or social circles, but is not true globally. Conventions just vary. That's why WP has adopted the sensible approach in its manual of style of i) either BC/AD or BCE/CE is fine, ii) be consistent within a single article, and iii) don't change an article from one to the other absent a compelling reason for that specific article. This is the same approach WP uses for other divergences where conventions vary, for instance British versus American spelling.
My recommendation as a fellow editor would be just to let it be. It seems you feel strongly about this, but the world at large doesn't share the same concerns in the way you feel them. If you do want to try to change Wikipedia consensus, the place to do so would be at the talk page for the MOS on this, as someone has helpfully pointed out to you. I would stay out of making tweaks to it inside articles, except to make a single article internally consistent if it is inconsistent. Otherwise, I suspect others, admins and nonadmins, will take a progressively more forceful approach to stop disruption -- which is what your doubtless well-intentioned efforts will become if you pursue them without first persuading people of a change in consensus on the MOS talk page, which I do think is unlikely to happen.