User talk:Jc3s5h/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Jc3s5h. 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. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Common sense, no?
Hi Jc3. I don't understand why you reverted OC at MOSNUM on the harmonisation of date formats in articles. I think if you raised it, there would be no objection, since it's entirely consistent with the rest of our guidelines on within-article date-format consistency. Tony (talk) 02:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- See my reply to Ohc in the section immediately above. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
QUIZ?
WHASSAMADDER WID DIS to make u wanna revert? Consistent formatting throughout articles has got little to do with citing sources per se. It about not using dmy and mdy in the same article and is not touching on yyyy-mm-dd dates nor AP style dates. I've reverted. -- Ohc ¡digame! 02:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- There is no agreement as to whether WP:MOS and its subpages governs citations or WP:CITE does. WP:CITE does not require date format in citations. In fact, it does allow one to follow an external style guide, such as Chicago Manual of Style or APA style. Indeed, an editor might be using software that automatically formats the citation in one of these external styles, and imposing any format change from WP:MOS would prevent the use of the software. If the external style calls for a different date format than what is used in the body of the article, that is allowed by WP:CITE.
- In my opinion, it's a pity the community can't decide which guideline is in charge of citations. This kind of problem will continue to occur until one of two things happens:
- WP:CITE is deleted and all useful information in it is transferred to WP:MOS.
- WP:MOS contains a prominent statement that no advice about the formatting of citations is allowed in that guideline, and any such advice must be contained in WP:CITE.
- Jc3s5h (talk) 14:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Not cool
After all that discussion why would you go and make a bad faith edit completely changing the meaning to exactly the opposite of what was discussed and call my attempts to include what is actually in the standard "ramblings"? JMJimmy (talk) 16:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- I can no longer persuade myself you have a sincere interest in improving the article so will pursue dispute resolution. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
GMT and summer time
Thanks for the talk page note. I agree with it. But I do think it should be emphasized that the essential difference between GMT and UTC is Daylight Savings Time. If there were no Daylight Savings Time, there would be no need for UTC, and GMT would continue to suffice as the official global timekeeping reference. Br77rino (talk) 21:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- There are several different modern time scales that are akin to GMT. Two of the better known are UT1, which in effect is the mean solar time at Greenwich, and International Atomic Time (TAI), which started out the same as UT1, but the two have drifted apart because UT1 is based on the rotation of the Earth, and TAI, which is based on atomic clocks. Today they are different by more than 30 seconds, and the difference is growing. It's impossible to find one time scale that works for everything; if you try to use TAI when you need UT1, astronomer's telescopes point in the wrong direction. If you try to use UT1 when you need TAI, spacecraft crash into planets and cell phones stop working. UTC is a compromise that nobody is very happy with. The next important decision on what to do about the mess is supposed to come in 2015 at the World Radio Conference.
- Also, I'm American, and I'm also a ham radio operator. Ham operators use UTC a lot (sometimes calling it GMT). Among the people I know, GMT does not observe summer time. So if the British people think GMT observes summer time and Americans think it doesn't, the term is pretty much worthless. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
IBM style guide
Just to let you know I agree with your latest post, but prefer to give others a chance to reply before doing so there myself - it seems very slow, with the anti-MiB brigade yet to make its appearance. It is the spirit of the IBM guide that is important here (use IEC prefixes where they are helpful and not otherwise), not the letter. My purpose is, and always has been, to end the pointless deprecation. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 18:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
ISO 8601 and 3-letter month abbreviations
I honestly don't think I can help because I know nothing about dates. The only reason for even mentioning ISO 8601 was that it was the subject of the MIT post that mentioned 3-letter month abbreviations. Nevertheless, if you can summarise the concern in a couple of sentences, I would gladly read them and make what comments I can. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 10:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the offer. The section ISO 8601#Dates begins with an overview of dates, and provisions that apply to all dates that are to be represented with the standard, then there are detailed subsections about different parts of the date. My concern with the part between the "Dates" section heading and the "Years" subsection. I argue that it is incomprehensible and excessively detailed. User:JMJimmy seems to feel that while the writing needs some improvement, the all points it covers are essential and should not be omitted. The talk page section specifically addressing the readability is Talk:ISO 8601#Readability and context. Jc3s5h (talk) 10:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- See my post at ISO 8601. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 11:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
ISO 8601 thread
I agree with the closure of the ISO 8601 thread. You never said what admin action, if any, you were requesting. You made a claim, which was completely contrary to fact, that the article was "locked" with incomprehensible content. Please do not start inflammatory but useless threads. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Standard_cell
My last edit is more relevant than already referenced product spectre. Edited statement talks about CAD programs and mentions spectre as one such program. A 'characterization program' is more relevant and essential than 'simulation program'. So if you keep spectre and remove guna, you've a clear bias toward spectre that may indicate conflict of interest.
I've no idea on your expertise on the topic. I'm credentialed as an author of a book on the topic. If you happen to disagree with my edit, please escalate and let a neutral party decide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.247.177.151 (talk) 16:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- It's obvious you work for the company you are promoting; it is a conflict of interest for you to make these edits. Do it again and we'll see if a neutral party wants to block your IP address and blacklist the company's website. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- You are way too presumptuous about other people, their association and do not hesitate from making inflammatory remarks, as evident from your talk page and its history. I am unlikely to come to your level. Good luck keeping your attitude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.247.177.151 (talk) 21:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Books and Bytes - Issue 8
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 8, August-September2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)
- TWL now a Wikimedia Foundation program, moves on from grant status
- Four new donations, including large DeGruyter parntership, pilot with Elsevier
- New TWL coordinators, Wikimania news, new library platform discussions, Wiki Loves Libraries update, and more
- Spotlight: "Traveling Through History" - an editor talks about his experiences with a TWL newspaper archive, Newspapers.com
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Ohio Voter ID
No, the predicted amendments did not occur. If they had, the source I added would not list utility bills, bank statements, or checks as acceptable forms of ID. The point of the bill was to remove those.--Ibagli (Talk) 22:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- I see that now. It was a bit confusing since the citations gave access dates but not publication dates. I have added publication dates to the citations. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
It's not an essay, it's an information page. Hence the information page header. There is a qualitative difference in the two concepts, one that is widely recognized. If you think some aspect of the info page doesn't accurately reflect the main guideline, then edit it so it's accurate - don't arbitrarily declare it to be some personal opinion piece. And no, we don't need to gather a pre-consensus that this new page is good before giving it an info page header and linking to it (otherwise no one will even see it!); if concerns arise that it's bad, then you should go looking for a consensus to drop it. —Swpbtalk 15:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
New Wikipedia Library Accounts Now Available (November 2014)
Hello Wikimedians!
The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for:
- DeGruyter: 1000 new accounts for English and German-language research. Sign up on one of two language Wikipedias:
- Fold3: 100 new accounts for American history and military archives
- Scotland's People: 100 new accounts for Scottish genealogy database
- British Newspaper Archive: expanded by 100+ accounts for British newspapers
- Highbeam: 100+ remaining accounts for newspaper and magazine archives
- Questia: 100+ remaining accounts for journal and social science articles
- JSTOR: 100+ remaining accounts for journal archives
Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team 23:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).
- This message was delivered via the Mass Message to the Book & Bytes recipient list.
Re: An Unbiased Objective Prose to WordPress and Electronic Signature
Josh I appreciate your promptness and attention to the integrity of the wikipedia page Electronic Signature. It's assuring to know someone such as yourself is equally passionate about the topic of electronic and digital signatures. As an active member of the USC Legal Tech Startup Weekend and a speaker at multiple WordPress conferences through out the US I am not simply promoting a website or a brand but rather passionate about the advances of electronic signatures in the WordPress space (I'm sure you can relate). I understand your concern for users using Wikpedia as a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion and quite frankly share the same concern. I assure you my sole intent is to offer an unbiased objective prose about the Technological implementations (signature systems) of electronic signature.
With almost one and four websites being a WordPress website and their recent option for electronic signature I believe that a paragraph about this technological implementation of (signature systems) is merited in the electronic signature wikipedia page (especially considering the preceding paragraph about mobile phones).
If you feel the following paragraph below is indeed "soap box" I invite your assistance in creating an unbiased objective prose about the adoption of electronic signature in the WordPress space.
For your convenience the paragraph about WordPress adopting electronic signatures is below. Please advise, I look forward to hearing from you soon.
WordPress
WordPress is a free and open source blogging tool and content management system which currently makes up 23.2% of all websites on the internet.[1] In September 2014, WordPress introduced the option for its users to sign contracts and court recognized agreements electronically by digitally capturing and authenticating non-repudiable hand drawn signatures collected from a tablet, mouse, trackpad or smartphone device with a WordPress eSignature plugin.[2] The WordPress eSignature solution was developed by ApproveMe and it utilizes php database encryption and signer authentication methods that are compliant with the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act and Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act. (www.approveme.me)[3]
Kevin Michael Gray 03:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
References
The biggest problem with the paragraph is that there are no independent reliable sources to back it up. The site finance.yahoo.com just publishes whatever press releases are given to them. Is there any journalist who has actually examined this development? Note that finance.yahoo.com has a byline of "BUSINESSWIRE" for the source of the article. Wikipedia's "Business Wire" article describes that service as "a Berkshire Hathaway subsidiary, is a company that disseminates full-text news releases from thousands of companies and organizations worldwide to news media, financial markets, disclosure systems, investors, information web sites, databases, bloggers, social networks and other audiences." Jc3s5h (talk) 21:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Josh I'll do some research and see if we can find some unbiased articles that backup the facts. Hope you have a great week. Kevinmichaelgray (talk)
New Wikipedia Library Accounts Now Available (December 2014)
Hello Wikimedians!
The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for:
- Elsevier - science and medicine journals and books
- Royal Society of Chemistry - chemistry journals
- Pelican Books - ebook monographs
- Public Catalogue Foundation- art books
Other partnerships with accounts available are listed on our partners page. Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team.00:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).
- This message was delivered via the Mass Message tool to the Book & Bytes recipient list.
Books and Bytes - Issue 9
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 9, November-December 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)
- New donations, including real-paper-and-everything books, e-books, science journal databases, and more
- New TWL coordinators, conference news, a new open-access journal database, summary of library-related WMF grants, and more
- Spotlight: "Global Impact: The Wikipedia Library and Persian Wikipedia" - a Persian Wikipedia editor talks about their experiences with database access in Iran, writing on the Persian project and the JSTOR partnership
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Huh?
Regarding this edit — what are you talking about? If an article discusses Simon Schama's scholarship and includes a citation to The Story of the Jews: Finding the Words: 1000 BC-1492 AD, and someone else comes along and changes the book's title to 1000 BCE–1492 CE to match the rest of the article (or even AD 1492 for correct usage), the change has introduced an error and must be reverted. Nyttend (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. However, I'm not yet completely clear. Take an imaginary example, <ref>Scribe, Unknown. Ancient Text. Sumer: Scribes Incorporated, 1999 BC.</ref> Are you addressing a situation where someone changes 1999 BC to 1999 BCE? Nyttend backup (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- Again, thank you. I thoroughly agree with your final comment and apologise for the confusion that produced this situation. Nyttend (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Stylization of the "common name"
In January 2013 there was a "RfC on COMMONSTYLE proposal" at WT:AT in which you expressed an interest. FYI there is a similar debate taking place at the moment, see Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Stylization of the "common name" -- PBS-AWB (talk) 12:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
response
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi there, i just wanted to share my opinion on the edit you made on the "One time pads" page. While the generator i linked does not generate truly random data, it has the possibility to mix truly random data (for example, white noise from a radio station) into its generation protocol to create truly random numbers or letters, also the seed is generated by users interaction with the computer (mouse movement + time intervals calculated between those movements) so it kinda is truly random. If you have time, please look at the programs PDF help file (it is not very long, 9 pages) and you will see what protocols and processes it uses to generate data and what possibilities it has, before jumping to conclusions. With its possibilities, it is one of the best free-ware RNG's i have seen...
I am linking the help file here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_2GCGSUZON9S20xWEVIY2hkZW8/view?usp=sharing
Amon16 (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for that before, i dont edit the wikipedia very often so it seems some rules slipped under my judgment. i have undone the changes on the article and have opened a discussion in the "talk" page whether this link should be added or not. My intention was not to promote or advertise this product, but i simply wanted to add it because there are many people who are starting to get interested in cryptography, and the first place they usually come to is wikipedia. Because there are no links in the article to a one time pad generator, i though i should add this one because it is pretty secure, and it has the option to create truly random numbers, ergo, unbreakable one-time pads. Also, thank you for pointing out my mistakes, it was not my intention to brake any rules :)
Amon16 (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Template
It is inappropriate for you a) to template inaccurately and b)if it were the case, to template me and not the other editor (you show bias for one). Lapadite (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Books and Bytes - Issue 10
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 10, January-February 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)
- New donations - ProjectMUSE, Dynamed, Royal Pharmaceutical Society, and Women Writers Online
- New TWL coordinator, conference news, and a new guide and template for archivists
- TWL moves into the new Community Engagement department at the WMF, quarterly review
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Your username
Hey. I've seen your nick before (was it in #wikipedia-en-help?), saw it again recently and read § User name meaning. That's pretty funny, and I didn't know that's where all those alphanumeric characters came from. :) I scanned some cards, applied various filters on them with GIMP, and came up with this. No real reason why I created that, just wanted to waste some time with GIMP. :P --82.136.210.153 (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the image; it might come in handy. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
rvt
Hi, you forgot to add a reason for your revert on Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers, notably you didn't fix the original problem with the statement Use only with Gregorian dates from 1583 onward. That's not English, judged from my DEnglish en-3 self-assessment. There's also nothing on the talk page suggesting a consensus to avoid links to ISO 8601 for yyyy-mm-dd at all costs. –Be..anyone (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, I clicked the save button when I meant to hit the preview button. I put a phrase in to inicate what format is being limited, although I do not agree the phrase is necessary; it is indicated by the cell in the table immediate to the left. It is absolutely critical to write YYYY-MM-DD rather than ISO 8601, because that standard allows a multitude of formats; if you write ISO 8601, you invite all kinds of junk, and allow people to interpret a date range like 1911-12 an December 1911, rather than 1911-1912 (which is the more likely meaning). This has been discussed on the talk page for years. Another user's summary may be read at User:Gadget850/FAQ/YYYY-MM-DD dates. A relevant archive is Deprication of date linking. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, I guessed the idea, maybe use RFC 3339 for the "something" in "Use something only…", unlike ISO 8601 it's freely available and adopts only the essential no-nonsense parts of ISO 8601. –Be..anyone (talk) 13:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- Inserting a standard into a guideline is inadvisable without a well-advertised RFC. The purpose of RFC 3339 is stated within it to be "this document focuses on just one common usage, viz. timestamps for Internet protocol events." Thus it declares itself to be unsuitable for Wikipedia articles, because Wikipedia articles are not usually about Internet protocol events, dates in Wikipedia articles are usually not timestamps, and very often are about events that preceded the invention of the Internet. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- W3C timestamps as used in XML and[HTML5 and parts of the MediaWiki code not limited to raw PHP are not different. They also work in any language and any timezone and any wiki project with ordinary digits, no dmy/mdy/xx-yy-zz ambiguities. And as somebody typing with one or two fingers "2015-03-27" consists of ten characters without shift key, while "March 25, 2015" (if that's one of the permitted formats) consists of 14 characters with one shift. But I have no objections if others later "fix" yyyy-mm-dd to their favourite variant, if that's still machine readable for wikidata. –Be..anyone (talk) 14:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- Inserting a standard into a guideline is inadvisable without a well-advertised RFC. The purpose of RFC 3339 is stated within it to be "this document focuses on just one common usage, viz. timestamps for Internet protocol events." Thus it declares itself to be unsuitable for Wikipedia articles, because Wikipedia articles are not usually about Internet protocol events, dates in Wikipedia articles are usually not timestamps, and very often are about events that preceded the invention of the Internet. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- My experience with WikiData is they get old dates wrong. There are numerous dates that were blindly imported by bots, or entered by users, without considering that the dates were given in Wikipedia as Julian calendar dates but ended up as Gregorian calendar dates in WikiData. Not to mention that many of them are treated as Greenwich dates when the event really happened elsewhere. Considering WikiData's horrible date quality, I'm inclined to think making dates "non-machine-readable" is good. Moving a date from one source to another requires human intelligence. Indeed, it's such a mess, a wiki unaffiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation, WikiTree, does not allow editors to edit pre-1700 genealogies unless they pass a self-administered test. In any case, making dates automatically transferable to any place other than the article is not a stated goal of Wikipedia and a well-advertised RFC would be needed to make it so. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
A new reference tool
Hello Books & Bytes subscribers. There is a new Visual Editor reference feature in development called Citoid. It is designed to "auto-fill" references using a URL or DOI. We would really appreciate you testing whether TWL partners' references work in Citoid. Sharing your results will help the developers fix bugs and improve the system. If you have a few minutes, please visit the testing page for simple instructions on how to try this new tool. Regards, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Books and Bytes - Issue 11
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 11, March-April 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)
- New donations - MIT Press Journals, Sage Stats, Hein Online and more
- New TWL coordinators, conference news, and new reference projects
- Spotlight: Two metadata librarians talk about how library professionals can work with Wikipedia
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Persondata RfC
Hi, You participated in the previous Persondata RfC. I just wanted to notify you that a new RfC regarding the methodical removal of Persondata is taking place at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Thanks, —Msmarmalade (talk) 08:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
RfC: Guidance on commas after Jr. and Sr.
Following the closure of a recent RfC you participated in, I have started an RfC on the separate but related issue of commas after Jr. and Sr.. Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC: Guidance on commas after Jr. and Sr. and feel free to comment there. Thanks! —sroc 💬 06:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Persondata removal, data preservation, etc.
Hi, JC. I saw your comment on the persondata-bot-removal discussion page. The removal of the persondata templates is going to happen, whether it happens today, tomorrow or next month. My only concern at this point is that as much of the accurate persondata information be preserved and transferred to the Wikidata profiles as possible. I have taken the liberty to notify a number of the WikiProjects with which I have an association regarding the pending persondata removal, and urging concerned editors to manually transfer accurate persondata to Wikidata. I would be grateful if you would do the same. Here's an example of a notice I left earlier today: [1]. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comment. Most of my biographical interest is with people from several hundred years ago, or earlier, who either were involved in calendar creation or reform, or who's birth or death dates illustrate problems in getting calendars right. Unfortunately Wikidata is highly questionable for dates before about 1752, and entirely broken for BC dates. I am monitoring the progress to get Wikidata fixed, but once it is fixed, a major effort will be needed to check all the early dates. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'm willing to accept that Wikidata is a better system for embedding most of this data. My only concern is that a lot of perfectly accurate persondata -- which was the work of hundreds, if not thousands of editors -- is being removed without any organized attempt to transfer it to Wikidata, and for no particularly good reason. In the last 5 or 6 years, I have personally entered persondata name variants for 2000+ bio subjects, and I would vouch that it's 98+% accurate based on the quality sources I was using for those articles. having deprecated the persondata system, I'm not sure what the rush is to immediately delete the templates and input data. I think wide-ranging notices should be given of the impending removal, but 30 to 60 days notice should be given to all affected WikiProjects so that concerned editors can transfer as much accurate data as possible to the Wikidata profiles. To my way of thinking, that's just common sense. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
GMT
I note the flamewar in the GMT page and the reference to the Rots et al. (2015) paper. I think the GMT talk discussion has missed the points we were making, but I am not wont to add more fuel over there.Steven L Allen (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- I did not comment directly on the Rots et al. paper. My take on it was it was primarily concerned with specifying how to represent time in FITS, and the comments on GMT were made in passing (or perhaps were intended as hints for astronomers who need to represent historic data in FITS). It does provide one point of view that GMT can be viewed as equivalent to UTC for low-accuracy purposes. I do not claim that GMT corresponds to any particular time scale; rather I take the view that once the day-beginning-at-noon confusion died down, it could be viewed as equivalent to any variety of UT, and one would have to reverse-engineer any high-accuracy observations that claimed to be GMT to figure out what time scale was really intended. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, that's what we were saying in the paper. The use of GMT is allowed for writing historic data, and the reader has responsibility to decode the original meaning. Steven L Allen (talk) 01:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library needs you!
The Wikipedia Library
The Wikipedia Library is expanding, and we need your help! With only a couple of hours per week, you can make a big difference in helping editors get access to reliable sources and other resources. Sign up for one of the following roles:
- Account coordinators help distribute research accounts to editors.
- Partner coordinators seek donations from new partners.
- Outreach coordinators reach out to the community through blog posts, social media, and newsletters or notifications.
- Technical coordinators advise on building tools to support the library's work.
Delivered on behalf of The Wikipedia Library by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Why the username?
What if I need to easily remember "Jc3s5h"? — CpiralCpiral 23:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- See User:Jc3s5h#User name meaning. Maybe I could have come up with an easier-to-remember random user name, but I'm so used to people spelling my real name wrong that I guess it didn't cross my mind. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
MD5
Hi, my name is Aram. recently I've posted a link of web site (http://md5converter.net/) that helps users convert text to md5 , in external links tab. And you've deleted this link. I would to know why this link was deleted? best regards . Aram Manukyan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 19aram91 (talk • contribs) 10:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- 100% of your Wikipedia activity has been devoted to promoting the site you mention. This indicates it is extremely likely that you are in violation of the Wikipedia "Conflict of interest" guidelne. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Regarding this edit at Birthright citizenship in the United States, which you reverted: Senator Howard of Michigan did in fact say this; see Citizenship Clause#Senate debate. To be sure, the exact meaning of Howard's comment was unclear — did he mean the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause to exclude all US-born children of non-citizens, or just children born to foreign diplomats? — and despite the 1898 Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court decision, some people have tried to (mis)use Howard's words in the context of the "anchor baby" debate. I would question whether Howard "clearly spelled out" the intent of Congress by this particular speech, so it's probably just as well that this particular insertion of his comments was removed, but it might be appropriate to add this quote back in at some future time (with proper attribution, and without trying too hard to explain what he meant). — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- Putting it at the front of the "Current law" section rather than the universally accepted and implemented Wong Kim Ark decision is just false. It might not be false in a more appropriate context, although I think such a hard-to-interpret passage belongs in some highly detailed history-of-law book rather than an encyclopedia. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library needs you!
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!
With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:
- Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
- Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
- Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
- Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
- Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
- Research coordinators: run reference services
Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Books and Bytes - Issue 12
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 12, May-June 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)
- New donations - Taylor & Francis, Science, and three new French-language resources
- Expansion into new languages, including French, Finnish, Turkish, and Farsi
- Spotlight: New partners for the Visiting Scholar program
- American Library Association Annual meeting in San Francisco
The Interior 15:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks
For what it is worth the network 192.88.168.1 is a corporate network. Not sure who made that previous edit but just letting you know ...
-- MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.88.168.1 (talk) 03:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
More thanks
Just a quick thank you for improving my contribution to Prime meridian (Greenwich). There are one or two minor points that don't quite add up in my mind, but you seem to be more knowlegeable on the subject than I so it's probably me. I B Wright (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Books and Bytes - Issue 13
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 13, August-September 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)
- New donations - EBSCO, IMF, more newspaper archives, and Arabic resources
- Expansion into new languages, including Viet and Catalan
- Spotlight: Elsevier partnership garners controversy, dialogue
- Conferences: PKP, IFLA, upcoming events
The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Julian day
Hello Jc3s5h, Thank you for your comments, I was a bit careless, I should have re-read. Of course 1580 should have read 1582.
I had no authority to cite as I programmed the algorithm myself and tested it from Julian day zero to the present and the published algorithm worked for all the dates I tested.
The only assumptions I made was that of the Gregorian calendar correction, October 4 1582 was followed by October 15 1582.
I made the Julian numbers increment by 1 between those two dates.
I checked that January 1 4713 BCE was 0 and I checked other dates against the wikipedia Julian day generator.
I did not see where the original article took into consideration other transition dates. I had assumed that Gregorian calendar adoptions in different countries at different times made corrections at those times to make their dates compatible with the original Gregorian correction, adding different numbers of days depending on the adoption date.
I am presently programming a Julian day to Decimal date (yyyymmdd). The published algorithm works fine only to year zero. I am researching on how to make it work to January 1, 4713 BCE.
...again, no problem in removing my posting, I will not re-post unless you think it will be useful. Thank you for your comments, I certainly do not want to reduce the credibility of Wikipedia. Gaetgodi (talk) 16:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. The algorithms in the article do not include any transition date; it is up to the user to decide which calendar they wish to use in each instance. If the user is reading sources from several country, the user might be working with a variety of transition dates, and an algorithm with one fixed transition date would be useless. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Reference errors on 9 November
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:
- On the Bernie Sanders page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
- On the Vermont page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
leap seconds
Thanks for understanding. (The heated debate between Guy and me has so completely taken over the thread that I'll be pleasantly surprised if anyone else dares to wade in with anything useful.) —Steve Summit (talk) 17:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
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) 14:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
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) 14:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Good writing!
i like your posts!
AHighSchoolGirl (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Books and Bytes - Issue 14
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 14, October-November 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)
- New donations - Gale, Brill, plus Finnish and Farsi resources
- Open Access Week recap, and DOIs, Wikipedia, and scholarly citations
- Spotlight: 1Lib1Ref - a citation drive for librarians
The Interior, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Kilowatt and watt
Hallo. I moved the {{redirect2}} to the section because it tells you why you were redirected (the place you are redirect to). If you search for kilowatt in the search box (or press a link) you will not see the top of the Watt article because you are redirected to a section. Its confusing, and I think its normal to move, but Wikipedia:Redirect doesnt say so. I have just suggested at Wikipedia talk:Redirect to change it. Have a nice day :-) Christian75 (talk) 14:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- OK, I'm not used to seeing redirects that go to a section in an article, rather than the top of an article. I guess your approach is as good as any. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Sanders party listing at Talk:Vermont#Sanders party affiliation
Hi Jc3s5h, would you mind providing your input at Talk:Vermont#Sanders party affiliation? We have a visitor from England who has some definite opinions. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 21:44, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
ping --Flominator (talk) 12:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Power?
Can you please clarify how energy consumption per year (kWh/yr in a household and TWyr/yr in large scale energy consumption) relates to power? The expression MWh/h is used her http://www.statnett.no/en/Market-and-operations/Data-from-the-power-system/Production-and-consumption/. Here are used TWyr/yr http://www.asrc.cestm.albany.edu/perez/2010/DA12_perez.pdf Can you, for my clarification, suggest a better way to express the energy consumption in my houshold per hour, week, month or year? Regards KjellG (talk) 14:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- The first source in your post above uses MWh, and makes no mention of MWh/h. As for the second source, an amount of energy consumed in a stated period of time is power, not energy. The second source appears to be intended for popular audiences and perhaps didn't bother to rigorously distinguish between energy and power.
- Whether to use the word power or energy when describing energy consumption during a period of time, it is a matter of sentence structure. "My home consumed 58 kw h of electric energy in July" [the word "energy" is associated only with 58 kw h, an energy unit; the part about the month comes later] or "the average electric power in my home in July was 78 watts." It would be weird but technically correct to say "The average electric power in my home in July was 58 kw h/month."
- Jc3s5h (talk) 14:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- You find the following text "The terrawatt-hour and petawatt-hour (PWh) units are large enough to conveniently express the annual electricity generation for whole countries." in the article. When following the link you find a table with GWh in the heading, no indication as to what peride of time. This must be found in the text as "per year" or per year? In my opinion the heading should read GWh/yr. Likewise, how can PWh denote "annual energy"? How would you shorthand "petawatthour per year" in a formula? You clearly can with EJ/week or EJ/yr.
- This link http://www.statnett.no/en/Market-and-operations/Data-from-the-power-system/Production-and-consumption/ shows amount of energy produced in one hour, i.e. MWh per hour or MWh/h. Maybe my wording is not good enough, please find a better. How would you express: "Worlds energy demand per year is 16 TWyr/yr or 504 EJ/yr"? KjellG (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- You wrote 'You find the following text "The terrawatt-hour and petawatt-hour (PWh) units are large enough to conveniently express the annual electricity generation for whole countries."' You didn't state which article I should look in to find the text. In any case, your quote uses the phrase annual electricity generation, not power or energy.
- As far as following the link to List of countries by electricity production, Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources so whatever it says there proves nothing. The first source in that Wikipedia article that isn't a dead link[1] uses "Total Electricity Net Generation (Billion Kilowatthours)" in the heading of its table. This is a power unit, and can easily be understood as the average power over the course of the year that is stated in the table. This is really no different from attaching a current meter with a needle to a circuit, and understanding that the needle reading represents the average current over the course of a few tenths of a second. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I still cannot see the reason why refrenced material was deleted from WP. TWyr/yr is a way to express huge energy amounts per year in scores of sites and books as kWh/day and kWh/yr are. Technically they are all rate at which energy are consumed, but the adjust the numbering and understanding like k,M,G,t,P does. You also fail to indicate how to express "16 terrawattyear per year" in math form, e.g. TWyr/yr. I will consider reverting your edit. Regards KjellG (talk) 16:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- First of all, the article is about one specific unit of energy, the kilowatt hour. If there is a desire to mention other energy units they should go in Energy units.
- Even if the so-called unit were discussed in another article, there is a problem with it. Applying Dimensional analysis, to "TWyr/yr" we see that the yr in the numerator cancels with the yr in the denominator and "TWyr/yr" is the same as TW. Thus "TWyr/yr" is basically slang. It is best avoided, but if it must be used, a definition of what it means in the particular publication that uses it ought to be provided (unless the publication is only meant to be read by a highly specialized technical community that already understands their own slang).
- In answer to "You also fail to indicate how to express "16 terrawattyear per year" in math form", 16 terrawattyear per year is 16 terrawatts, which is the same as 16 TW. If the more verbose form has some special meaning other than just 16 TW, that special meaning should be stated in the publication (unless, again, the publication is only meant to be read by a highly specialized technical community that already understands their own slang).
- As an analogy, it is common for construction workers to speak of a "yard of concrete" when they really mean a cubic yard. It would be wrong for Wikipedia's Yard (unit of length) article to be written as if there this were correct usage. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
References
- ^ Energy Information Administration - International Energy Statistics — net electricity generation
0 (Year)
I added the information about how one does not count to 0 and then back up; but instead however have time-units roll in the same direction, but it was reverted as unverifiable. ¿Do you have a source?
Not:
-0000-01-01:00:00:05 -0000-01-01:00:00:04 -0000-01-01:00:00:03 -0000-01-01:00:00:02 -0000-01-01:00:00:01 0000-01-01:00:00:00 +0000-01-01:00:00:01 +0000-01-01:00:00:02 +0000-01-01:00:00:03 +0000-01-01:00:00:04 +0000-01-01:00:00:05
But Instead:
-0000-01-01:00:00:05 -0000-01-01:00:00:04 -0000-01-01:00:00:03 -0000-01-01:00:00:02 -0000-01-01:00:00:01 0000-01-01:00:00:00 0000-01-01:00:00:01 0000-01-01:00:00:02 0000-01-01:00:00:03 0000-01-01:00:00:04 0000-01-01:00:00:05 … 0000-12-31T23:59:55 0000-12-31T23:59:55 0000-12-31T23:59:57 0000-12-31T23:59:58 0000-12-31T23:59:59 +0001-01-01T00:00:00 +0001-01-01T00:00:01 +0001-01-01T00:00:02 +0001-01-01T00:00:03 +0001-01-01T00:00:04 +0001-01-01T00:00:05
I tried to explain this in the article, but it was removed as original research. Since you explained it to me, I need your source.
- The burden of proof is on the person who wants to add material to an article. Since I'm not adding anything to an article, I don't have to prove anything to anyone. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
- Yes but the article is deficient. The article does states neither that an instant of 0-Time does not exist nor indicate that time units do not count down to 0-time and then backup. The article should state this.
- You must have a source for your claim. ¿Could you at least 1 link? I could then do the rest.
- ¿Why did you put "Not helpful" in the edit-summary? What I put was very helpful. It would have saved me a week (granted, most of the week was spent working, but I spent a handful of hours searching for something the article should have). Certainly, other users would want to know this. My clarification would be very helpful for those users.
- For some sort of statement to be added to the article, you should find a source demonstrating that there are a noticeable number of people with the misconception that the year before 0 is -0.
- I described your edit as not helpful because it was badly written and it was unclear what it meant, as well as not having a source to support it. The sources I just provided are not suitable for the article because they require too much deduction on the part of the reader. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- I am not exactly sure what your problem is, but I do not plan to spend thousands of dollars for hiring a polling company. I found why Cassini wanted an unsigned year though:
- Originally, years were adjectives (1st year, second year, et cetera). This innumerate system is because, at the time, people did not know about 0. Cassini was numerate. He may or may not have wanted 0-Time, and mathematical point of time, but he wanted to maintain the cycle of the leap years; so now, he defined the 0th year as the duration containing the leap year before the positive 4th year. Since he had to base the system on durations instead of a mathematical singurality of time, the 0th year is unsigned.
- ¿Why do months, days, days of the week, hours minutes, and seconds roll the same way for negative dates instead of counting down?:
- These units already existed long before the current calendar existed.
- On the talk-page of the year 0, I shall write an explanation. You and anyone else can edit it. Then, I shall insert the edited information into the article.
- ¡I should not have had to do all of this research and work! ¡This information should have already been in the article!
Books & Bytes - Issue 15
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 15, December-January 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs)
- New donations - Ships, medical resources, plus Arabic and Farsi resources
- #1lib1ref campaign summary and highlights
- New branches and coordinators
The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Your message on my talk page
Hi. This also is very confusing. When I try to edit the page you link to I get a permission error. Please explain how to comply with your request to submit comments. Thanks. 151.226.185.90 (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Reference errors on 28 March
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the Prime meridian page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
M8
Will refrain from anymore "vandalism". 'Twas but a minor piece of banter conducted during a severely boring physics lesson. Yeezus3rd (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Books & Bytes - Issue 16
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 16, February-March 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs)
- New donations - science, humanities, and video resources
- Using hashtags in edit summaries - a great way to track a project
- A new cite archive template, a new coordinator, plus conference and Visiting Scholar updates
- Metrics for the Wikipedia Library's last three months
The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Incorrect Revision on Citizenship Clause Page August 2015
You incorrectly reverted my grammatical edit on this article because the original passage does not contain a period. You are incorrect on this rule of grammar. Periods and commas always belong inside quotation marks, regardless of whether they're part of the original text or not. It's only question marks and exclamation points that are sometimes placed outside because they can change the meaning of the original text. Thought you should know for future reference. Here is a link explaining the rule: Purdue OWL: Quotation Marks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Offensivename (talk • contribs) 18:29, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- Each publication establishes its own style. Wikipedia's style regarding the placement of quotation marks may be found at MOS:LQ. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
That looks awful. Very bad decision on the part of whoever set up those guidelines. I stand corrected though. Sorry for wrongly disagreeing with your change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Offensivename (talk • contribs) 21:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Metric System
You restored an inappropriate citation in the Metric System article.[5] Could you explain why? If you read the reference you might have noticed it did not say anything about the statement in the article. Ceinturion (talk) 15:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- The following paragraphs from the source support the claim in the article:
The unit of volume, the pinte (later renamed the litre), was defined as the volume of a cube having a side equal to one-tenth of a meter. The unit of mass, the grave (later renamed the kilogramme), was defined as the mass of one pinte of distilled water at the temperature of melting ice. In addition, the centigrade scale for temperature was adopted, with fixed points at 0 C and 100 C representing the freezing and boiling points of water (now replaced by the Celsius scale).
The work to determine the unit of mass was begun by Lavoisier and Hauy and was completed by Gineau and Fabbroni. They discovered that the maximum density of water occurs at 4 C, and not at 0 C as had been supposed, so the definition of the kilogram was amended to specify the temperature of maximum density. We now know that the intended mass was 0.999972 kg, i.e., 1000.028 cm3 instead of exactly 1000 cm3 for the volume of 1 kilogram of pure water at 4 C.
- That's why I restored the source. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- You may have noticed that the citation is behind the statement about aristocratic connotations (in the paragraph "original metric system"). That statement is not supported by Nelson's article. That is why it is an inappropriate citation. In addition, the different facts in the two quotes you selected here do not correspond to another statement in that paragraph. Citations should not be a puzzle. I am not sure why you are a fan of Nelson's article, but if it helps it would be no problem to keep it in the legends of the earlier figure. My focus is improving the paragraph "original metric system". Ceinturion (talk) 22:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- I noticed you edited the article. You did a great job in removing the citation from its old location. However, introducing that citation behind another statement was a mistake. The statement "Originally the kilogramme, defined as being one pinte (later renamed the litre) of water at the melting point of ice, was called the grave" is garbled and wrong. As it is wrong, it does not deserve a citation. The kilogram was defined as 1000 gram, and the gram was defined as the weight of 1 cm3 of water (please read the wikipedia article on the kilogram and its citation of the law that introduced the kilogram, [6]). In successive reports and laws the kilogram was sometimes expressed as the weight of 1 dm3 of water, but never as a pinte and never als a litre. I read those reports and laws, and it really seems you did not. Ceinturion (talk) 18:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not a big fan of the current wording of the sentence; perhaps you would like to rewrite it, with appropriate citations. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- I noticed you edited the article. You did a great job in removing the citation from its old location. However, introducing that citation behind another statement was a mistake. The statement "Originally the kilogramme, defined as being one pinte (later renamed the litre) of water at the melting point of ice, was called the grave" is garbled and wrong. As it is wrong, it does not deserve a citation. The kilogram was defined as 1000 gram, and the gram was defined as the weight of 1 cm3 of water (please read the wikipedia article on the kilogram and its citation of the law that introduced the kilogram, [6]). In successive reports and laws the kilogram was sometimes expressed as the weight of 1 dm3 of water, but never as a pinte and never als a litre. I read those reports and laws, and it really seems you did not. Ceinturion (talk) 18:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- You may have noticed that the citation is behind the statement about aristocratic connotations (in the paragraph "original metric system"). That statement is not supported by Nelson's article. That is why it is an inappropriate citation. In addition, the different facts in the two quotes you selected here do not correspond to another statement in that paragraph. Citations should not be a puzzle. I am not sure why you are a fan of Nelson's article, but if it helps it would be no problem to keep it in the legends of the earlier figure. My focus is improving the paragraph "original metric system". Ceinturion (talk) 22:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Books & Bytes - Issue 17
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 17, April-May 2016
by The Interior, Ocaasi, UY Scuti, Sadads, and Nikkimaria
- New donations this month - a German-language legal resource
- Wikipedia referals to academic citations - news from CrossRef and WikiCite2016
- New library stats, WikiCon news, a bot to reveal Open Access versions of citations, and more!
The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
UTC
I apologize if my rewording of the UTC page may have been a bit poor. I have since reworded it, and if you don't mind, I would very much appreciate your review and/ or comments on this rewrite.
Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 00:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Books & Bytes - Issue 18
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 18, June–July 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi, Samwalton9, UY Scuti, and Sadads
- New donations - Edinburgh University Press, American Psychological Association, Nomos (a German-language database), and more!
- Spotlight: GLAM and Wikidata
- TWL attends and presents at International Federation of Library Associations conference, meets with Association of Research Libraries
- OCLC wins grant to train librarians on Wikimedia contribution
The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Books and Bytes - Issue 19
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 19, September–October 2016
by Nikkimaria, Sadads and UY Scuti
- New and expanded donations - Foreign Affairs, Open Edition, and many more
- New Library Card Platform and Conference news
- Spotlight: Fixing one million broken links
19:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Old Style and New Style dates
Hi. Please see my reply. Best, --Hispalois (talk) 22:16, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Your edits to Nautical Almanac
Your edits to Nautical Almanac are promotional in nature and unsupported by reliable sources. Who says the Nautical Almanac is the most widely used, or most authoritative? I do not believe your claim that there are any legal restrictions on printing almanacs. I have reverted your edits. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Kind of you to tell me. I do hope you restore it. "Most widely used" does lack citations. However, my navigational training books do not mention anything other than almanacs from this source (I admit that some recommend using the Air Almanac, but it's from the same offices). Also, I don't think any practical navigator would use anything other than the AA and NA. (reasoning follows in a bit) About the restriction: In fact Her Majesty's almanac office maintains a copyright, in part because the information is indeed safety-critical, and the US Almanac authorities of the naval observatory are prevented from claiming a copyright by US law. When you read the copyright, please note that it carefully covers the tabulations of actual astronomical data, but not prefaces, etc. This copyright is not secret; It's in every authorized copy. Google books can easily show it to you, though not the reason for it, which is obvious to every navigator: An unauthorized copy's tabulation could have a transcription error during typesetting, and that could cause a preventable navigation error and accident at sea with loss of life or property. The authorized commercial publisher (there is one in the US) has that right due to an agreement to publish only photographically reproduced pages. Also, their editions carefully document that their edition is both authorized and photographically reproduced. Only a fool would use an unauthorized almanac to navigate at sea. Also, I have read that some persons mistrust the commercial edition and only purchase the GPO's edition. (I remember words something like "false economy") That issue, the care with which it is produced, is exactly why knowledgable people trust it. Would you buy a ticket from someone navigating by an unauthorized NA? Best wishes. Ray Van De Walker (talk) 11:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- The purpose of copyright is to allow authors to be financially rewarded for their efforts by preventing copying by those who didn't go through the effort of producing the material. US works produced by the US government are indeed not eligible for copyright; the UK government copyrights pretty much every work created by the UK government, whether it has anything to do with safety or not. You have not produced any evidence that there is any restriction against someone computing a nautical ephemeris independently.
- Your reasoning and experience seem likely enough (after some fixes in the wording), but Wikipedia editors are not reliable sources. If you want to say that a certain almanac is the most widely used, or most authoritative, you would have to find a reliable source that says so.
- The claim "The Nautical Almanac is currently the most commonly-used, authoritative, printed ephemeris in English-speaking countries" is far too sweeping, and would certainly need a reliable source. The number of voyages and flights that employ celestial navigation have dramatically declined since the availability of GPS, and in the few instances in which it is still employed, it seems likely that software that incorporates an ephemeris is likely to be used. At the same time, printed ephemerides such as the Astronomical Almanac are used by astronomers, and publications such as Star Almanac for Land Surveyors are used by land surveyors to establish the direction of true north at a particular site. Then there are astrologers; I suspect most of them have switched to software, but who can guess how many of them still use paper ephemerides, and which ones? Without a proper investigation published in a reliable source, who is to say which of these publications is the most commonly used? Jc3s5h (talk) 15:55, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Jc3s5h. 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)
Your comment at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case
I think you might have added your comment to the wrong case request.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 18:39, 27 December 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/Magioladitis.
Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 17, 2017, which is when the evidence phase closes.
You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis/Workshop.
For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.
If you no longer wish to receive case notifications for this case you can remove yourself from the notifications list here.
For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 22:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Books and Bytes - Issue 20
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 20, November-December 2016
by Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs), Samwalton9 (talk · contribs)
- Partner resource expansions
- New search tool for finding TWL resources
- #1lib1ref 2017
- Wikidata Visiting Scholar
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
hi, surely if the context implies something different (which isn't immediately apparent to me) the beauty of wikipedia is that someone who DOES know can come along and extend or correct it. Based on this exchange I tried to add to the disambiguation a bit. The article does say "several classes .. ". So there's more than what is mentioned there. Couldn't we even put a redlink in the disambiguation page, which this temporarily anchors to.
Fmadd (talk) 16:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- The topic seems to be some kind of code generation from source that is intermediate between assembler an a high level language. Sometimes people accuse the C of being between assembler and high level, so I looked at both the C article and the Speedcode article, and didn't see any links to articles that would seem to be on-topic. I wouldn't even know what to call the topic. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Natural-born-citizen clause
> The fact that several people have been president even though one of their parents wasn't a citizen weighs against this argument.
Excluding presidents who were citizens at the time of adoption of the Constitution, please name the presidents whose parents were not citizens at the time of birth of the future president. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.160.239 (talk) 21:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- I see that our article actually says that several people (excluding those born before the adoption of the Constitution) have been president even though one of their parents was not born in the United States. The source cited in our article says
Moreover, President OBAMA is the sixth U. S. President to have had one or both of his parents not born on U.S. soil. Plaintiff STRUNK and his fellow "birthers" might not realize that: both parents of President Andrew Jackson were born in what is now Northern Ireland; President James Buchanan's father was born in County Donegal, Ireland; President Chester A. Arthur's father was born in what is now Northern Ireland;
- President Woodrow Wilson's mother was born in Carlisle, England; and, President Herbert Hoover's mother was born in Norwich, Ontario, Canada.
- Andrew Jackson was in the United States before the adoption of the Constitution.
- Because James Buchanan's parents moved to the US before the American Revolution, it seems likely they were considered citizens.
- The citizenship status of Chester A. Arthur's father isn't stated in our article about him.
- Our article about Woodrow Wilson doesn't state the citizenship status of his mother.
- Our article about Herbert Hoover doesn't state the citizenship status of his mother.
- Our article about Barack Obama's father Barack Obama Sr. says his citizenship was Kenyan.
- So I only have support for the idea that one president had a non-citizen parent; several others would require more research to establish the citizenship of their foreign-born parent at the presidents' dates of birth. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
ANI
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Please disregard the above notice. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Books and Bytes - Issue 21
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 21, January-March 2017
by Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs), Samwalton9 (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)
- #1lib1ref 2017
- Wikipedia Library User Group
- Wikipedia + Libraries at Wikimedia Conference 2017
- Spotlight: Library Card Platform
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
My edits on the Daylight Saving Time page
You said: "I notice that your two periods of editing activity, in 2014 and 2017, revolve around adding 2 books by Chris Pearce to articles. The 2017 edits were for a self-published book, which clearly does not meet WP:RS. Please read Wikipedia's "Conflict of interest" guideline. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)"
At https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Citing_yourself
"Citing yourself" states
"Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion: propose the edit on the article's talk page and allow others to review it."
I think I met everything here, except perhaps at WP:SELFPUB, where is says that self-published sources mainly aren't acceptable. It also says: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."
This is a pity. There are quite a few things in the daylight saving time pages on Wikipedia that aren't correct, or the pages might be missing information, or the information is old and hasn't been updated. My book, The Great Daylight Saving Time Controversy, is the only up-to-date publication on daylight saving time around the world, covering information on every country that has ever had daylight saving. The others (there are two) are more than 10 years old and tend to concentrate on the US and UK. I didn't try to find a literary agent or commercial publisher as they are taking on virtually nothing these days and also because I wanted the book to be timely (it has information up to the end of 2016) rather than spend years seeking an agent or publisher. My book is the only one that could be regarded as an encyclopedia on daylight saving, or the "bible" on the subject as the book was described by a reviewer on Amazon who gave it five stars.
Is there any way I can make edits to some of those daylight saving time pages or should I just forget about it?
Thanks
chrispy52 Chrispy52 (talk) 14:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- To get material from your self-published book in the article, two steps would be necessary. The first would be to establish that you are an expert in the field, which Wikipedia judges in accordance with this passage in the Identifying reliable sources guideline: "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications."
- So if you've published articles about daylight saving time in reliable sources, your book might qualify.
The other step is to avoid a conflict of interest. Since you presumably obtain revenue and recognition through sales of your books, the relevant material should be added by a neutral editor who has a copy of the book. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks. chrispy52. Chrispy52 (talk) 12:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
ENGVAR
I noticed that you added an American English tag to 12-hour clock after a recent change of ENGVAR. The spelling seems to have been British for three years after this edit], but perhaps I have missed an earlier edit that established American spelling? Dbfirs 07:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
- This 2006 edit introduced the word "Analog", which my spell checker tells me would be "Analogue" in British English. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, yes. Sorry, I missed that one, and also the 2005 use of "airplane" which my spell checker tells me is American. Apologies for doubting! Dbfirs 18:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Books and Bytes - Issue 22
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 22, April-May 2017
- New and expanded research accounts
- Global branches update
- Spotlight: OCLC Partnership
- Bytes in brief
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
IBM 308x
I created a template for all models of System/370, 4300, 308x, etc systems. It looks like I forgot to update this article when I removed the links. Peter Flass (talk) 13:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- I see you have added the template. I see no reason to also list the predecessor and successor systems now that the template is present. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- Exactly. the S/360 and S/370 articles were inconststent, with _some_ of the articles listing _some_of the predecessors and successors. Peter Flass (talk) 16:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Reverted edits: Coordinate Universal Time
Hello Jc3s5h, I'm still reasonably new to wikipedia and always looking for ways to learn more and improve. You reverted my edits on Coordinated Universal Time, would you explain why? Your edit summary simply says see talk page which contains 40 conversations, are you referring to a specific one? If you feel there are specific things I can do to improve them I'd be grateful for your input. I'm keen to help out! Cheers Swoophle (talk) 15:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- Please see Talk:Coordinated Universal Time#Reversion of edits cited to timeanddate.com. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Spam blacklist
Hey Jc3s5h!
Two weeks ago you made this edit to a reference desk archive page, giving as edit summary: "Remove website which attacks users, see Talk:Spam blacklist#www.heritage-history.com", though you presumably intended to link meta:Talk:Spam blacklist#www.heritage-history.com.
That site has not yet been added to either MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist or meta:Spam blacklist, and I'm not familiar with the protocol for dealing proposed blacklisted sites. Is it standard to remove links based on a proposed addition which has not yet been acted on?
Cheers! -- ToE 12:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- I don't know if it's standard, but the discussion of the blackist proposal explains why I deleted the citation; the site was promoting fake technical support. A week or so later I tried the site again, and it didn't have any obvious problem. I tried again just now, and my Firefox browser will not connect, stating "Your connection is not secure. The owner of www.heritage-history.com has configured their website improperly. To protect your information from being stolen, Firefox has not connected to this website." Upon clicking the "Advanced" button the browser reports "www.heritage-history.com uses an invalid security certificate. The certificate is only valid for *.secure.hostingprod.com"
- This raises the suspicion in my mind that the former owners of the domain have lost control of it. In order to defend myself from computer attacks, I am unwilling to investigate further. I believe we are justified in scrubbing www.heritage-history.com from the entire encyclopedia. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- Understood.
- I emailed the owner of the heritage-history site alerting them of the reported problem. He responded that they had noticed a change in the website behavior and had contacted their hosting company for support. In the mean time, they've replaced the site with a "Down For Maintenance" page. (Their email seemed sincere and appreciative.)
- I asked that he email me again when they think they have it working properly, and I'll let you know when that happens.
- Cheers! -- ToE 19:09, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
legal name
No natural person have name while legal person have legal name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vorpzn (talk • contribs) 06:09, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- A natural person usually has several name, some of which are considered legal names. At least in the United States, different government agencies have different ideas of what a "legal name" is. Nicknames are seldom considered legal names.
- The term "legal person" encompasses natural persons, corporations, bodies politic, and other entities recognized by law. Certainly the legal persons who are not natural persons have both legal names and nicknames. But our article "Legal name" only covers legal names of natural persons. When I read outside of Wikipedia, I get the general impression that the phrase "legal name" usually refers to the legal names of natural persons, and that some other phrase is used when discussing legal names of other-than-natural persons. Jc3s5h (talk) 09:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Partial revert?
On this edit, your comment suggests that you're reverting the previous change, but you only reverted part of it. Was this intentional? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitpicking polish (talk • contribs) 14:45, 22 August 2017 UTC (UTC)
- It's a little hard to sort out, but I just reverted to a version before the ban evasion. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Books and Bytes - Issue 23
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 23, June-July 2017
- Library card
- User Group update
- Global branches update
- Spotlight: Combating misinformation, fake news, and censorship
- Bytes in brief
Chinese, Arabic and Yoruba versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello, please discuss on the talk page. Regards. Bear-rings (talk) 14:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
- I used the contact feature at the Government Printing Office website and received the following information from T. Brooks:
Here are the figures you requested for distribution of Publications.
Astronomical Almanac, D 213.8:, item number 0394
o Selected by 554 Federal depository libraries
o Last shipped out in February of 2016
• Nautical Almanac, D 213. 11:, item number 0395
o Selected by 429 Federal depository libraries
o Last shipped out in May of 2016
- Not as good as knowing how many copies were sold, but this is a hint that the Astronomical Almanac might be more popular than the Nautical Almanac. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thank-you! Facts always trump theory. Great research! Please include it! Ray Van De Walker (talk) 22:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Books and Bytes - Issue 24
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 24, August-September 2017
- User Group update
- Global branches update
- Star Coordinator Award - last quarter's star coordinator: User:Csisc
- Wikimania Birds of a Feather session roundup
- Spotlight: Wiki Loves Archives
- Bytes in brief
Arabic, Kiswahili and Yoruba versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Jc3s5h. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Request for discussion at Talk:Vermont
Thank you for your interest in editing the article, Vermont. Could you look in on a question on the talk page at Talk:Vermont#Choice of verbiage and give your thoughts and opinion? Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 14:15, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Books and Bytes - Issue 25
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 25, October – November 2017
- OAWiki & #1Lib1Ref
- User Group update
- Global branches update
- Spotlight: Research libraries and Wikimedia
- Bytes in brief
Arabic, Korean and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Books and Bytes - Issue 26
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 26, December – January 2018
- #1Lib1Ref
- User Group update
- Global branches update
- Spotlight: What can we glean from OCLC’s experience with library staff learning Wikipedia?
- Bytes in brief
Arabic and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Dear Jc3s5h, much as your emphasis on technical language is appreciated, a rough translation into plain English would not go amiss (which I tried to introduce in brackets). I think I shall stick to reading the French wikipedia version of physics articles, there is of course the same greek and latin terminology but they invariable provide a better own language translation and rough guide to those terms used so I am not left with a headache! Some of teh articles such as Right Ascension which is rooted in the zodiac read pretty "nul" and we are not doing anything to help people who have not undertaken a full greek and latin terms glossary beforehand in the spirit of principle here, are we? We are instead obsessed with the slight specifics of meaning given by scientific community so much so as to stifle and condemn in the strongest terms a plain English rough translation.- Adam37 Talk 17:35, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- The problem is it can't just be a "rough English translation". Ideally it would be an artfully worded passage that conveys the conceptual meaning without contradicting the current technical meaning. The current technical meaning may have become a term-of-art that implies conditions beyond the the original Greek or Latin meanings. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Year 2000 problem
Of course the Year 2000 problem was largely evident in 20th century software, unless you think it was a problem in future software that hadn't yet been written? Equally, there was plenty of software written at the time that did not have the problem, regardless of when it was written. So the date of the software itself is irrelevant and fussing about it in the lead just confuses things. The problem was with how dates were stored within the software, not on when the software itself was written.
This change has been challenged. I invite you to stop edit warring and discuss. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- I will dispute your error on the article talk page. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- Are you going to revert your changes to return the article to its previous state, before this edit was made? Then we can discuss what you think is wrong with it. Thanks. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- Apologies, I see you've done this. Thanks. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- Are you going to revert your changes to return the article to its previous state, before this edit was made? Then we can discuss what you think is wrong with it. Thanks. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- After reviewing the change, I see that on my first review the edit summary, which I disagree with, caused me to see the change in a negative way. On further review, I see the change to the text of the article is tolerable, despite the edit summary. Case closed. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Books & Bytes - Issue 27
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 27, February – March 2018
- #1Lib1Ref
- New collections
- Alexander Street (expansion)
- Cambridge University Press (expansion)
- User Group
- Global branches update
- Wiki Indaba Wikipedia + Library Discussions
- Spotlight: Using librarianship to create a more equitable internet: LGBTQ+ advocacy as a wiki-librarian
- Bytes in brief
Arabic, Chinese and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Your reversion of my edit to "Julian calendar"
Greetings and felicitations. I noticed that you reverted my edit to the Julian calendar article for the reason "Incorrect markup." I added the <blockquote> and <poem> tags per MOS:BLOCKQUOTE, with which my edit was entirely consistent. Also, my edit included the change of "p." to "pp.", in accordance with standard English usage—see Acronym#Representing plurals and possessives. (My changes to the carriage returns were to make editing the article easier.) In light of this, would you please be so kind as to undo your edit? —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- Would you please be so kind as to be more specific? That link does not lead to an extant section. —DocWatson42 (talk) 06:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- The discussion has been archived to Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/April 2018#<poem> and <blockquote>. The issue with the article has been resolved using <blockquote> and <br> markup. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:03, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
I have many sources that say that the zodiac
I have many sources that say that the zodiac 'Aquarius' is from the 20th Jan to the 18th of Feb. even the Aquarius Wikipedia said it.. I'm doing this for Uzicxer (talk) 11:58, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- I will respond on your talk page. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:03, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
So wait, I have a friend that was born in the 20th of January. So are they Aquarius or Capricorn? I'm doing this for Uzicxer (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh, and thanks for clearing things up. And yeah, I meant the text was contradicting itself I'm doing this for Uzicxer (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- Lets say my friend who was born 20 Jan. asks me what her sun sign is. So I get some more information: place of birth was Sidney, Australia. In January it's summer there, so the time is 11 hours ahead of UT1. Then I ask when she was born. Answer is 20 January 2005, 12:01 AM (which is 11:01 AM UT1). Then I bring up my Multiyear Interactive Computer Almanac, plug in the information, and it reports the apparent ecliptic longitude of the sun is 300.49426°. That's more than 300° so the sign is Aquarius.
- Another friend was born the same day, but in Hawaii. The time zone is 10 hours behind UT1. So the birth was at 12:01 AM Hawaii time, which is 2:01 PM UT1 on the previous day, 19 January. Plugging that in, the ecliptic longitude is 299.60385°, which is less than 300°, so this friend is a Capricorn. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Informal 3RR warning
You may have lost track, but you have reverted in Millennium 3 times in the past 22 hours. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:02, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
- Your counting is in error. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, it was Common Era. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Just a note to recognise you for keeping your cool under fire. If there is a barnstar for that, consider it awarded. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Verifiable
- Could you explain what you don't understand about this ] addition. Just wondering what is not clear?--Moxy (talk) 23:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- The addition "where it appears" might mean where the claim appears in the Wikipedia article, or it might mean the support for the claim must appear in the part of the cited source (e.g., if page 94 of a book is cited, but support for the claim is not on page 94 but on page 357, the verifiability policy would not be satisfied).
- Elsewhere in the policy, the phrase "inline citation" appears, especially:
All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material.
- The use of a different phrase suggests a different meaning is intended.
- In addition to the lack of clarity, if the addition is meant to say the citation must be close to the claim, then it is a change in the meaning of the policy, and consensus for the change should be sought on the talk page. The current policy is that the citation in the bibliography rather than near the supported passage, if the supported passage is not likely to be challenged and the supported passage is not a direct quotation. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 28
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 28, April – May 2018
- #1Bib1Ref
- New partners
- User Group update
- Global branches update
- Wikipedia Library global coordinators' meeting
- Spotlight: What are the ten most cited sources on Wikipedia? Let's ask the data
- Bytes in brief
Arabic, Chinese, Hindi, Italian and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Trusted_timestamping edits
I saw you had reverted an edit I made to the Trusted_timestamping page, where you removed chainstamp.io external link, and claimed that chainstamp.io sends files to a server. It does not. It only sends sha256 hashes to the server which is needed for any timestamping service like this. The site says specifically: "This web page processes your files into unique "fingerprints" (digital hashes) without sending their contents to our server. Only this digital fingerprint is shared with us and can be seen by others." Maybe you misinterpreted "their" in that sentence thinking it referred to "digital hashes" instead of "your files". It refers to "your files". "your files" contents are not sent to the server, only the digital finger print (hash) is.
Also perhaps you thought that because the site has a "submit" button that it is submitting the files themselves. This is also incorrect. Only the hashes are submitted. You can confirm this by reviewing the source code at https://github.com/Chainstamp/chainstamp.github.io or by observing your Network panel in developer mode in a chrome browser. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulg222 (talk • contribs) 12:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
So there is nothing misleading or risky at all about the site. I have gone ahead and added the link back in. Hopefully you will leave it alone. However, changing "their" in that sentence to just "your files" might be something the site can change even though it is immediately clear in the next sentence "Only this digital fingerprint is shared with us and can be seen by others". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulg222 (talk • contribs) 12:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- Please state your relationship to this site. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Can you please respond to what I said above? Acknowledge that you made a mistake? I am not aware that I've made any claims about being independent or otherwise with regards to the site. Let's stay on the topic at hand then we can discuss appropriate use of Wikipedia and who is allowed to make edits and why.Paulg222 (talk) 14:21, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
- I glanced at the code, and found that it clearly was not structured to be easily understandable by others. For example, it has no reasonable indenting pattern. So I am not able to confirm for myself that the code cannot upload a file from my computer.
- State your relationship to the company that provides the timestamping service. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:16, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Which code file is not structured to be easily understandable? Do you mean the 3rd party js libraries that are minified like bootstrap.min.js or vue.2.5.16.min.js? Are you concerned that these libraries have been altered from their original (because there are ways to check that by comparing to the originals from those sites)? The first party js files are non-minified and all indented and are easy to follow. Which one are you having trouble with?
Also as I mentioned you can also look at the Network tab in developer console to see what actually happens when you try the site. If you do that you can easily see what is actually sent to the backend server. Not that this is conclusive (perhaps the site randomly changes its behavior???), but it does provide clear evidence that your original statements (that files are being sent) is completely inaccurate.
As to my relationship, again, let us stay on topic. I have not asked about you or your motives. I think we are making progress here.Paulg222 (talk) 11:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- I have taken this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Security of external link and editor who won't deny COI.
- The link provides no encyclopedic content and fails WP:EL end of story. What happens on the other end is irrelevant, the link isn’t appropriate for the encyclopedia anyway. Canterbury Tail talk 13:01, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
You have failed to acknowledge or clear up your false and inaccurate claims about the website (that it submits the files to a server). Your first reversion of my edit said it was a security issue. Then I explained why you are wrong and that files are not submitted and explained how you can verify this. You did not acknowledge your mistake and made new inaccurate statements about the formatting of the source files, which I also addressed and also which you did not respond to. Now you are citing COI as your primary motive and that the link was not appropriate content. Which is it? Please clear up your false, inaccurate and misleading claims before diving into other topics. This was why I wanted to defer discussion of COI until the inaccuracies were resolved. I have no problem discussing COI once these other issues are resolved.
I will attempt to make some comments to the discussion on the Administrator page I do not know if I will be allowed to do that. Let this serve as your notice that I will be making comments about you there.Paulg222 (talk) 03:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- My attitude is all websites are harmful until proven trustworthy. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Did you mean to write "MoS"?
Did you mean to write:
'It should be "MS" because another expansion of "MS" is "more of the same"...' or should this reversion stand, please? --BushelCandle (talk) 00:25, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- I meant "MS". The whole thread is a joke, and my post recognizes that. Too bad you don't know the amusing expansion of "MS". Jc3s5h (talk) 00:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- I understood that it was tongue in cheek, but could you tell me the 'amusing expansion of "MS" ' so that I can go to sleep? Thanks! --BushelCandle (talk) 00:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- The sequence of degrees in science, at least in the US, are BS, MS and PhD. I'll let you guess the flippant expansion of BS. MS is more of the same. PhD is piled higher and deeper. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- I didn't know that; where I come from it's BSc, MSc, then PhD. Thanks, and goodnight!--BushelCandle (talk) 01:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- The sequence of degrees in science, at least in the US, are BS, MS and PhD. I'll let you guess the flippant expansion of BS. MS is more of the same. PhD is piled higher and deeper. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- I understood that it was tongue in cheek, but could you tell me the 'amusing expansion of "MS" ' so that I can go to sleep? Thanks! --BushelCandle (talk) 00:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Re: Your reversion of my edit to "Julian calendar"
(Link)
I've read the discussion, but I disagree—using </br> clutters up the quote unnecessarily, and, as I pointed out, the change I made was completely in line with the MOS, as opposed to the opinion of one Wikipedian, be they an administrator or not. If, as you indicate in your subsequent edit, there's a problem with the the MOS's prescription, perhaps you should take it up there? —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- The problem with using poem for something that is not a poem is the pseudo-poem may contain line breaks that are not apparent at a particular window width, but cause problems for readers who have set a different window width. I've had problems with this outside Wikipedia with things I've cut and pasted, where I didn't notice the line breaks until after I posted it where everybody could see it.
§ 5301. SHORT TITLE
This chapter may be cited as the Uniform Law on Notarial Acts.
§ 5302. UNIFORMITY OF APPLICATION AND CONSTRUCTION
In applying and construing this uniform act, consideration shall be given to
the need to promote uniformity of the law with respect to its subject matter
among states that enact it.[1]
- Try changing the width of your browser window while viewing the above block.
- I'll also point out that either method can display the correct results; the "poem" method requires the editor to make sure there aren't an unwanted line breaks, which can be tricky since they are not visible in the text editor (and to figure out why a <poem> entity is being used for something that isn't a poem, and go read up on how it works since most editors never edit poems). The <br/> method requires the extra text associated with typing <br/>. So it's just a matter of consensus among editors about which method is easier to work with. And editors don't own their contribution; other editors can change it if there is consensus. Jc3s5h (talk) 10:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- I was and am not claiming that I own(ed) my contributions—I am just discussing why you feel my contribution was so incorrect as to revert it, and giving my reasons for making the changes. Also, isn't the MOS by its very definition the consensus of Wikipedia's editors as to best practices? If feel it makes it easier I can include "MOS:BLOCKQUOTE" in future relevant edit summaries, so that editors can know the reason for the change, and easily find that reason. Lastly, if I'm adding poems tags, I'm working at a resolution where any additional line breaks are going to obvious. —DocWatson42 (talk) 21:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- In the plain text editor, there is no way to detect a single line break, except by making the window wider and narrower, to see what happens, or by deleting characters at the end of lines and seeing what happens. It might be obvious to you, because you might have the width of your window set just right, but it won't be obvious to the next editor. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
RfC: Remove the bullet point that starts "adding citation templates..."
I have changed your section headings introducing the RfC I have initiated to the same as the Ric itself. From:
- RFC to ease introduction of citation templates to articles not presently using them
to
- RfC: Remove the bullet point that starts "adding citation templates..."
I have done this under WP:TALK and the WP:RFC as titles are meant to be neutral. You have interpreted the proposal in a certain way, but I was careful to present the title in a different more neutral way. So I do not think that you interpretation was unbiased as one could equally as easily written:
- RFC to ease the removal of citation template in articles presently using them".
-- PBS (talk) 18:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- This change is unacceptable because the heading on the WP:Citing sources talk page only makes sense within the context of that talk page. The heading now implies the change is to be make to a bullet point in the project page associated with the talk page on which the notice appears. I will make appropriate changes. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- The RfC is not a proposal to "Ease switching of citations between citation templates or no citation templates" that is an interpretation not what the RfC proposes that is removing a bullet point. Whether that makes switching easier is debatable not a conclusion that ought to be presented before the debate as to do so is to present a particular POV. -- PBS (talk) 18:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- That is the clear purpose of the proposal. Maybe that's not how it will turn out, but that's what it's about. Be very careful any change you make does not conceal the purpose of the RFC; I will view meaningless headings as concealment. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- You may think is is the purpose but actually it is to treat such issues like any other content dispute and use the usual dispute resolution process, as such it does not make it easier or harder. Your wording is presenting a biased POV based on what I think is a misconception. -- PBS (talk) 09:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- If an editor, under the new wording, makes a change without seeking prior consensus, switches the citations from or to templates, and no one complains, it's easier. If someone complains and the editor has to have a discussion about it on the talk page, the effort is about the same, maybe a little more. But on average over a number of such changes by a number of editors, the effort will be less. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- There is no new wording there is only a removal of wording. I think you are employing false logic. If a person edits a page and changes lots of citations, and if that edit is reverted then far more time will have been spent by that editor making changes that are not kept, than if they were to gain consensus on the talk page first. So it is not necessary true that less effort will be expended. -- PBS (talk) 16:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- If an editor, under the new wording, makes a change without seeking prior consensus, switches the citations from or to templates, and no one complains, it's easier. If someone complains and the editor has to have a discussion about it on the talk page, the effort is about the same, maybe a little more. But on average over a number of such changes by a number of editors, the effort will be less. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- You may think is is the purpose but actually it is to treat such issues like any other content dispute and use the usual dispute resolution process, as such it does not make it easier or harder. Your wording is presenting a biased POV based on what I think is a misconception. -- PBS (talk) 09:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- That is the clear purpose of the proposal. Maybe that's not how it will turn out, but that's what it's about. Be very careful any change you make does not conceal the purpose of the RFC; I will view meaningless headings as concealment. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- The RfC is not a proposal to "Ease switching of citations between citation templates or no citation templates" that is an interpretation not what the RfC proposes that is removing a bullet point. Whether that makes switching easier is debatable not a conclusion that ought to be presented before the debate as to do so is to present a particular POV. -- PBS (talk) 18:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
What wording would you suggest that fairly describes the proposal, and conveys the potential importance, in a context other than Talk:Citing sources? Jc3s5h (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- How about "RfC: Remove the bullet point that starts "adding citation templates...", or if you prefer "Rfc: to remove a bullet point from WP:CITATION" and let the editor read the arguments and make up their own mind. -- PBS (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- I would view that as concealment of the RfC because it it gives hardly any information as to what the RfC is about. It would tend to prevent people who are interested in the topic from following the link because the fail to realize what it is about. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- I presume that you are not disputing that the current wording you have used "RfC: Ease switching of citations between citation templates or no citation templates" is not accurate. Its longer but how about 'Rfc: to remove a bullet point from WP:CITATION that starts "adding citation templates ..."'. -- PBS (talk) 10:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- I would view that as concealment of the RfC because it it gives hardly any information as to what the RfC is about. It would tend to prevent people who are interested in the topic from following the link because the fail to realize what it is about. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
The PENISS Prize
 |
The PENISS Prize | |
| On behalf of the People Encouraging Niceness (and/or Eschewing Nastiness) In Society Society, you are hereby awarded: The PENISS Prize is the highest (and sole) honour in the gift of The PENISS Society and is awarded irregularly, on merit. It entitles the awardee to the postnominal letters P.E.N.I.S.S. (in appropriate contexts, of course). It confers automatic membership of the Society, and it thus bestows the power to award the prize to others*, and they to others, in perpetuity. Remember, the more PENISSes in the world, the better for all of us. What a nice thought. Please continue your good work! * To present this award to others, simply type {{subst:User:JackofOz/PENISS}} on their talk page, and then sign and date your post. |
This is for your excellent work at Edward Smith-Stanley, 12th Earl of Derby. Congratulations, Jc3s5h. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:11, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Rods poles perches and short perches
As long as you are looking after the article fine! You may enjoy these references that I have found while husbanding Chain (unit) into a workable form.
- and
- then
Weights and Measures Acts (UK)#Statutes of uncertain date wlink
The aim is to find the first pulished ref to the chain, and whether Gunter invented it or standardised it.
In your article I would be disturbed that there is no ==Description== but the Lede is nonstandard and used for that purpose. I would be tempted to add ==Description== above the text, then rewrite the lede from scratch. Have a nice Sunday and do pop by for a coffee. ClemRutter (talk) 13:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. I find myself having to put this to practical use; I'm designing a garage which must be 50 feet from the edge of a road which is defined to be 3 rods wide. (But the difference between survey and international feet is undetectable in my case.) Jc3s5h (talk) 14:03, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Acre
Hi Jc3s5h, I've started a new section at talk:acre#Status in the United Kingdom so that we can work towards an consensus for the article. Please comment there. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 29
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 29, June – July 2018
- New partners
- Economic & Political Weekly–10 accounts
- Wikimania
- Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
- Global branches update
- Bytes in brief
Hindi, Italian and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
WP:No Original Research
Good catch, sorry! Mwr0 (talk) 00:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Banned user 92.24.107.165
While I was composing a reply to this user, you closed the thread, saying he was banned. So I self-reverted.
I can't find any evidence that he is banned. Is he an IP sock of a named user, or something? Can you point me at the info you were relying on? Thanks.
BTW: I have some animus about the use of the term GMT. It seems a lot of brits have a rather deep attachment to it, which I am inclined to attribute to a raw, jingoistic nationalism, and a refusal top face historical facts. They come to these articles on UTC and GMT, and insist that the GMT timescale has some meaning. I'm used to this kind of POV nonsense on articles about Trump, Corbyn, Israel, Palestine, Ukraine. But why do people get all nationalistic about timescales?
Oh, I dunno. Peeps is weird. MrDemeanour (talk) 16:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
- The first edit by 92.24.107.165 contained a false unsigned template making mention of 2A00:23C0:8302:3A01:4D29:7E05:B827:DF27 (talk · contribs). That IP was blocked as a sockpuppet of the banned user Vote (X) for Change. 92.24.107.165's edit was essentially a restoration of this edit by the blocked IP. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for explaining. For some reason, I now seem to have a gag reaction. I kinda wish I hadn't asked. MrDemeanour (talk) 18:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
- Not sure how to proceed with this troll (I've now been caught twice, which I'm ashamed of). The address 92.24.107.165 is not listed as a sock of Vote (X) for Change. It's TalkTalk, and I presume the user is on DHCP - we can't really block the entire range. Does one simply ignore/delete? I seek your advice - apparently you have history with this user.
MrDemeanour (talk) 12:38, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- The list of addressed on the long term abuse page is only a partial list. I wouldn't add an IP to that list unless an administrator had blocked the address (I am not an administrator). Usually administrators don't block an IP address unless the socking is still going on, or the same address has been used over a period of days, months, or years.
- While cell phone and home IP addresses are almost always dynamic, institutions that offer computers to their patrons, such as libraries and universities, often have static addresses. Longer-term blocks on these addresses can be useful. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- That IP has now been blocked (for a week). It seems that most admins will block a sock of Vote X without any fuss.
- I guess I will need to keep my eyes peeled for this user.
- Thanks for your help. MrDemeanour (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Greenwich Mean Time
I just spent half an hour trying to find evidence that either NPL or NIST broadcast an offset between GMT and UTC. Neither of them mention it on their website. NIST publish a PDF explaining exactly what is in their time broadcasts; There is no such offset. Neither site seems to refer to GMT at all. So I deleted the (uncited) para, only to find that you already rolled back, on the grounds of banned editor! I wish I had noticed that before I went off on my wild goose chase. Rather confusing, because my edit doesn't appear in the log.
Why are timescales controversial? It's not like people are dying, like in Israel/Palestine articles.
This banned user is not the only editor that seems to regret the demise of GMT. Are they all jingoistic Brits who pronounce it "Grin-itch"? It's British legislators that pronounced in 1975(?) that UK civil time was GMT, at a time when no such timescale was defined. And it is the BBC World Service that announces daily "The time now is four hours GMT" - a formulation that sounds official, but is unlike any other way of expressing time in English.
Actually, I think some Canadians are even more anal about such matters than even us Brits.
Anyway, thanks for your work on these timescale pages. MrDemeanour (talk) 11:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
- Various sources regard GMT as
- inherently ambiguous (that's my position)
- equal to UT1
- equal to UT2
- equal to UTC
- Since there is no precise agreement about what GMT is, there can be no agreement about what the offset is between GMT and anything else.
- The only broadcast I know of from NPL is Time from NPL (MSF). This broadcast is meant to be received by automated devices, not human ears, and gives UTC. It does not contain an offset.
- WWV (radio station) from NIST gives UTC with a combination of ticks, tones, and voice announcements; it can be received by ear (common) or automatic device (rare). Usually the seconds ticks are single ticks, but some of the clicks are double clicks. By counting the number of double clicks and noting whether they begin at second one or second nine, you can find the difference between UT1 and UTC, to the nearest 0.1 s. (See the article for details.)
- As for what Parliament has declared is British civil time, they've declared it to be GMT since the late 19th or early 20th century, and never passed a law saying whether it's UTC or not. But they've implied it's UTC by providing funds for NPL and the associated time broadcasts. The US was somewhat similar; it took around 30 years between when NIST started broadcasting UTC with leap seconds (1972) and the time Congress actually mentioned UTC in the time legislation. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Pls. mind not to revert a whole bunch of edits when you only mean to target a few
see Julian calendar. Thanks! Arminden (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Never mind the Almanacs
"Never mind; I figured it out. The notes the Astronomical Almanac were misleading. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)"
I have hit what seems to be the same problem but I don't even have a copy of the almanac.
Chapront 2002 gives polynomials for various lunar parameters as polynomials of time in julian centuries. It seems there is a method to convert this to general polynomials to give the same info as periods. While it is quite simple to derive the period in one specific year from Chapront's formulae, I can not see how to get a similarly generalised polynomial to give the period.
If this is what you figured out, can you please help me figure it too?
Many thanks. --Pediatriste (talk) 22:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- What talk page was that written on? Jc3s5h (talk) 22:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Anomalistic year
I'm trying to find the algorithm used to calculate year lengths in the Astronomical Almanac. The notes on page L8 say they are derived from the paper
- Simon, JL, P Bretagnon, J. Charpront, M. Chapront-Touzé, G. Francou, and J. Laskar (1994). Numerical Expressions for Precession Formulae and Mean Elements for te Moon and the Planets. Astronomy and Astrophysics 282, 663-683. Paper available through Astrophysics Data System.
So I was able to implement the algorithm for the tropical year and the sidereal year, but haven't figured out the anomalistic year. Do you know of an explanation of how the anomalistic year length is calculated? -- Jc3s5h 15:56, 10 October 2012
- Never mind; I figured it out. The notes the Astronomical Almanac were misleading. -- Jc3s5h 20:18, 11 October 2012
Here's the almanac page [7] and here's the paper: [8]. 89.243.8.191 (talk) 11:38, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
The Chapront (not Charpront) paper is here: [9]. 89.243.8.191 (talk) 11:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- I'll look in my computer to see if I can find what I did. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:47, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I decided to use the corresponding section of the 2017 almanac, page L9–L10. It states the anomalistic year is
The variable l′ is the mean anomaly and is taken from Simon et al. (1994) §3.5b. It's a polynomial in t, which is straightforward to differentiate. Jc3s5h (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 16:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
— Newslinger talk 16:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Books & Bytes, Issue 30
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 30, August – Septmeber 2018
- Library Card translation
- Spotlight: 1Lib1Ref spreads to the Southern Hemisphere and beyond
- Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
- Global branches update
- Bytes in brief
French version of Books & Bytes is now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions reminder
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have recently shown interest in the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Excessively personalizing style discussions, at at WT:MOSNUM today, is not a safe activity. When you do this, you attract negative admin attention to everyone working in the topic area. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- I've just taken a look at the (overly-long) MOSNUM discussion; FWIW, I can't see why SMcCandlish has seen fit to template you. I see no excessive personalising. Perhaps I'm missing something - SMcCandlish seems to believe you are wikistalking him; I know nothing about that. MrDemeanour (talk) 19:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Jc3s5h. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Reversion of my Edit in "Second"
I doubt any commonly available mechanical shutter can achieve 1/8000 s, and an electronic function that records light for 1/8000 isn't really a shutter. Please provide a citation to a reliable source if there really are mechanical shutters that can do this.)
I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. Mechanical shutter speeds up to 1/8000 of a second are very common, even in consumer-level cameras. Here are three of many examples:
Nikon D7500, consumer-level DSLR. "1/8000 to 30 sec. in steps of 1/3 or 1/2 EV Bulb, Time, X250" <https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/dslr-cameras/d7500.html#tab-ProductDetail-ProductTabs-TechSpecs>
Canon EOS 80D, consumer-level DSLR. 1/8000 to 30 seconds <https://downloads.canon.com/nw/camera/products/eos/80d/specifications/canon-eos-80d-specification-chart.pdf>
Sony Alpha 7 consumer-level mirrorless camera "Still images: 1/8000 to 30 sec, Bulb" <https://www.sony.com/electronics/interchangeable-lens-cameras/ilce-7-body-kit/specifications>
At the lower end, consumer cameras may have shutter speeds from 1/4000 to 30 sec. Speeds of 1/1000 sec have been common since the 1970's, possibly earlier.
A look at camera specs at <https://www.bhphotovideo.com> or <https://www.adorama.com> would be a quick way to confirm the veracity of my edit. Kindly restore my edit.
Thanks!
David Illig — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daffydd (talk • contribs) 16:54, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
- I must confess I'm not familiar with the latest medium and high end electronic cameras. I read this web page which seems to indicate a high shutter speed, such as 1/8000 second, is a hybrid; the exposure begins electronically and ends mechanically. The pros and cons section seems to indicate this hybrid method is not fully equivalent to a mechanical exposure of 1/8000 second with respect to blur due to subject motion. (This is distinct from blur due to vibration caused by the shutter itself.) I'm not sure a simple statement that shutter speeds can be as high as 1/8000 second is satisfactory.
- If a specification of a film camera with a shutter speed of 1/8000 second could be found, that would clearly settle the matter. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
- I see that at least one film camera, the Nikon F6, is capable of 1/8000 shutter speed. But the statement in the article before your change stated " Camera shutter speeds usually range from 1⁄60 second to 1⁄250 second." So the statement is not about the capabilities of cameras, but rather, it is about what shutter speeds photographers usually use. Considering that the highest speeds require the camera be restricted to certain modes, such as "mirror up", and the need to use large lens openings at high shutter speeds, I'm not persuaded that speeds above 1/250 second are "usual". Indeed, considering the difficulty of finding out what "usual" shutter speeds are in an age when casual photographers aren't even aware of shutter speeds, perhaps the whole sentence should be deleted, since it is only marginally related to the article "Second". Jc3s5h (talk) 18:02, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Changes in duration of capricorn
All the sources have the duration of capricorn as: 22nd December to 19th January. Only the Wikipedia showing 21st December to 20th January, that's not right. So kindly change the duration of capricorn. Love 957 (talk) 06:22, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Since this applies equally to all astrological signs I am copying your post to Talk:Zodiac. On that talk page, please provide the sources. The verifiability policy, in a nutshell, states:
 | This page in a nutshell: Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations. |
- After you post some of the sources you are referring to at Talk:Zodiac I will respond on that page. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:17, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Books & Bytes, Issue 31
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 31, October – Novemeber 2018
- OAWiki
- Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
- Global branches update
- Bytes in brief
French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!
Read the full newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
imbedded/subscripted citations
I hadn't come across that policy before, so thank you. It does seem very rare in wikipedia, indeed rather rare in books though probably the norm in academic papers. Since it is so easy nowadays to keep track of footnotes and have automatic renumbering, I suspect that it will eventually fall out of use. I give it fifty years! :-)
- The parenthetical citations come in handy when sources are cited several times; readers who are paying attention to the citations can see where a statement is supported without having to follow the link to the footnote. Jc3s5h (talk) 04:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
An invitation to discussion
I kindly invite you to the discussion on Template talk:Infobox election#The Bolding issue to decide whether to bold the winner in the election infobox. Lmmnhn (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Where angels fear to tread
Reading Archive #3, I think that maybe I've intervened above my pay grade and that the anon editor may be the same person who tried to push a POV in the past. If so, then it I regret doing so, but only just. It was a kneejerk reaction to seeing a talk page protected indefinitely but the main space left open! That to me is anathema. How else is wp:Communication is required supposed to work? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- It is not clear if the current anon editor is the same one that lead to the indefinite protection of the talk page, and long periods where the article was protected. But I do think that if the talk page is indefinitely protected, the article should be too. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Changing the name of a case after a "Notice of substitution"?
What can you tell me about the standard naming protocol when a public official is sued in his / her official capacity, and a party to a suit is replaced after an election?
I ask, because this recently happened in Fish v. Kobach: In this case, Kris Kobach was sued in his official capacity as Secretary of State of Kansas. "Final" rulings in this case were issued June 18 and 19, 2018, but Secretary Kobach appealed. I believe the appeal is still active, though it's harder for me to track the appeal than primary case itself. (The "www.courtlistener.com/recap" system developed by the "Free Law Project" sends me emails when there is any change in the case in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, but the last I checked, that software did not work with the relevant appellate court.)
After the 2018 election, Kobach was replaced by Scott Schwab, sworn in on January 14, 2019. On January 18 the office of Kansas Attorney General filed a "Notice of substitution" in this case, replacing Kobach as the defendant with Schwab.[1] I'm prepared to make appropriate changes to the Wikipedia article on Fish v. Kobach, but I could use help determining what's appropriate.
Obviously, this kind of thing happens sufficiently often that there's an official protocol for this called a "Notice of substitution". There surely must be a standard protocol for this type of thing. However, since it doesn't happen often, I've so far not found any documentation for such a protocol.
If you are not the right person to contact with this, whom would you suggest I ask? I posted a question on this on the "To Do" list on Wikipedia:WikiProject Law on 2019-01-23 and got no replies in ~9 days.
References
Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 10:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't know the answer, and don't know who to ask. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Meter
I note your reversion, and please leave it that way because nobody is ever going to agree. However, I don't think the reasons given are correct. As far as I am aware every metric country just adopted the BIPM metre because that is where it was defined. The US is an anomaly after redefining the name in its Metric Convention or the Treaty of the Meter and now reflected in NIST. This is ironic because it doesn't even use metric. There is no British or any other country spelling, just BIPM vs the USA. Ex nihil (talk) : Ex nihil (talk) 04:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- I suggest clicking on some of the languages on the left edge of the window to see the articles about the meter in the various Wikipedia languages. There are many different names for the meter in various countries.
- You use the phrase "its [US's] Metric Convention or the Treaty of the Meter". The Convention du Mètre is an international treaty that was signed by the US; it doesn't belong exclusively to the US. It is written in French and obviously must be translated into various languages and enacted into law in the various countries in order to have effect. The Wikipedia article Metrication in the United States mentions a number of these laws.
- The main way the metric system is enforced in the US is the establishment of NIST, which provides training and calibration services to the several states. The states, in turn, provide measurement laboratories where the public and businesses may go to voluntarily have their measuring devices calibrated. The states also have weights and measures inspectors who visit fuel stations, supermarkets, and other businesses to inspect measuring devices and enforce the measurement laws. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Astronomical symbols, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ceres (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Julian Calendar
Dear Jc3s5h..What do you mean by "First line of new table is false"?!--Maher27777 (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- Reading the rest of the table, we can discern the meaning of line 2, 3, and so on to the end of the table. Line 2 means that the actual day that was 159,378 days before today was named October 5, 1582 in the Julian calendar, or named October 15, 1582 in the Gregorian calendar. But how can we interpret the first line of the table, which I reproduce?
| Date (Julian) | Date (Gregorian) | Dif. (days) |
|---|---|---|
| October 4, 1582 | October 4, 1582 | 0 |
- I can only think of two interpretations.
- The Gregorian calendar mentioned is literally the calendar ordered by Pope Gregory XIII, which, by his order, did not go into force until October 15, 1582 (by it's own reckoning), and so did not exist on the Julian calendar date October 4, 1582. So the table is false because it has an entry where there should not be an entry.
- The nomenclature is sloppy, and "Gregorian" really means "proleptic Gregorian calendar", in which case the entry should be October 14, 1582.
- Either way the row in the table is wrong. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Books & Bytes, Issue 32
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 32, January – February 2019
- #1Lib1Ref
- New and expanded partners
- Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
- Global branches update
- Bytes in brief
French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Computus#Gregorian calendar
There is an astonishing absence of citations for the essential statement of first principles at Computus#Gregorian calendar. You provided the equivalent citations recently at Gregorian calendar, so rather than have me copy your work (badly), may I suggest that you do the needful? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- I looked at your addition of a template indicating the "Gregorian calendar" section needed more and better citations, and I agree. However, the whole section is so convoluted and verbose that if I were going to touch it, I'd rewrite the whole thing.
- Many people know about the Gregorian calendar leap year rules, no matter what religion they adhere to (if any). But the Gregorian calendar also has rules that create an approximation of the phases of the Moon, and those rules are used to compute the date of Easter. Many sources that address the leap year rules, which are widely used for secular purposes, ignore the lunar aspects of the calendar. I have two sources that address this, but I've been hoping that someone who's been through the intricacies of the Gregorian computus would rewrite that section. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- 'Where angels fear to tread' indeed! Just as well I decided not to rush in. :-) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought I was correcting 66 into 56 and made a typo.
I made a huge mistake there. I don't know why, Thank you for the correction. Barjimoa (talk) 12:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Election box no change
It means that the same party has been re-elected i.e. same party hold. Benawu2 (talk) 22:29, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Coordinated Universal Time
Good morning, your revision https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coordinated_Universal_Time&diff=893449727&oldid=893409411 Latest revision as of 12:13, 21 April 2019
Jc3s5h,
on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGzjH07lrWk. Can you tell me why hearing UTC is not appropriate to you and if I get a general consensus on the talk page will you provide your opinion?
Thank you in advance for your timely answer WP:LOL Mitchellhobbs (talk) 12:50, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- You added links to Youtube at the end of a statement that amateur radio operators use UTC because they communicate over multiple time zones. Because of the position of your addition, and the fact that it is a footnote, it will be interpreted as a citation which proves the statement is true. The Wikipedia Verifiability policy requires that citations be to reliable sources. Youtube videos are not ordinarily reliable sources (although they could be if they are published by a reliable organization, such as Time magazine or the ARRL. The Youtube videos you added are not reliable sources so have no place in Wikipedia. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:11, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- thanks for your answer ~ do you think if I find a reliable source to allow people to hear UTC rather than just read about it ~ the we can talk about it here ~ and after we agree, it can be edited on the UTC page? Mitchellhobbs (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- Any recording of a radio time signal obviously does not let a person listen to UTC, precisely because it is a recording. The point of listening to a time signal is to find out what time it is, and listening to a recording of a time signal tells the listener nothing at all about the time.
- If one ones to know what a particular radio time signal sounds like, one can go to the article about the particular signal and see if there is a sample of the sound available. In the case of WWV (radio station) a sample is available; see the upper right corner of the article. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- Why don't you have link on UTC for that article ~ mitch ~ Mitchellhobbs (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- There is a link, use your browser search feature to find "WWV" in the "Coordinated Universal Time" article. It isn't very noticeable. However, UTC is connected to such a wide variety of other articles that if we put a list of them in the article, the list would be quite long. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:11, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for your time Jacks~ I'll be keeping watch here and I'll try to work something out for the layman who has not even heard of "WWV" ~ On a personal note I served in the US Navy under President Reagan ~ in the Radio room and "WWV" is like a lullaby to me Mitchellhobbs (talk) 14:20, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Effect of global warming on Vermont's ski industry
You are invited to offer your perspective at Talk:Vermont#Effect of global warming on Vermont's ski industry. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 20:24, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Epoch
I don't fully understand / agree with your revert. Regarding Anno Domini, Anno Lucius is still in use, and is effectively a pre-modern era. Perhaps that should be moved as well? Regarding Unix Time, I don't see how it's any less of a "calendar era" than Before Present. Could you explain these inconsistencies? Or do you think they should be cleaned up as well? McKay (talk) 03:04, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- The structure of the article is that each era is mentioned under one heading. Your change caused anno Domini to be listed under two headings, pre-modern and modern. With one possible exception, all the epochs listed as modern were established within the last few hundred years. All the ones under the per-modern heading were established long ago, whether they are still in use or not.
- I don't consider Unix time to be a calendar epoch because it counts seconds, and thus is not used for a calendar. Calendars count days and larger units. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:43, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Barnstar of Good Humor |
| I was just going to ping you to WT:V, when I discovered that you had already replied, with exactly the information I'd hoped you'd be able to explain (so much better than I can). Thanks for exceeding expectations! WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC) |
Books & Bytes, Issue 33
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 33, March – April 2019
- #1Lib1Ref
- Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
- Global branches update
- Bytes in brief
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
24-hour clock
Regarding your revert on the 24-hour clock page, it's true that they might not always coincide. In that case, it's even more true that they're not the same thing or synonymous, which means saying "GMT (or UTC)" is incorrect. Unless you have a better suggestion, I'm going to change it to "(which usually coincides with UTC)". —Getsnoopy (talk) 02:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- I've added what I hope is an accurate but brief clarification. Please discuss at Talk:24-hour clock if you think further clarification is needed. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Caesar
A few days ago you undid one of my edits where I added a link, claiming that a citation was not good enough, but if you look you will see I added no references at all, only linked a page.★Trekker (talk) 17:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Books & Bytes Issue 34, May – June 2019
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 34, May – June 2019
- Partnerships
- #1Lib1Ref
- Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
- Global branches update
- Bytes in brief
French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!
Read the full newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
User @Jc3s5h: reverted your two edits to this article. You had changed two section headings to specify boldface text. But you should not do this; the ===== indicates you want a fifth-level head, and you should let the MediaWiki software and the Wikipedia style sheet decide what font is used. Otherwise, your fifth-level heads will be strangely different from other fifth-level heads throughout the encyclopedia. Jc3s5h said (in his Edit Summary) that, if you believe fifth-level heads don't look good, you should make a proposal to change them everywhere in the encyclopedia. Cheers! Spike-from-NH (talk) 04:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Spike-from-NH: I believe you have the sequence of edits mixed up. I removed the boldface for the same reasons you object to it. Jc3s5h (talk) 09:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I didn't mix up the sequence! What I did is send this to the wrong person! Will send it to the right person now. Sorry to bother you! Spike-from-NH (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I reverted your contribution in this article. I realize that you might have suppressed my work because it is alike a paragraph in the article History of the metre. I did not mentionned it because I am also the author of those sections in the latter article and was also the author of the precedent version of the paragraph you restored. As you obviously did not restored it because of his quality but for a erroneous reason, I reverted your reversion.
Charles Inigo (talk) 18:02, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- The passage seemed to me to have been written in the 1800s and so the perspective was confusing. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:54, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Re Talk: Century
I don't know if this is just because I'm in a different time zone to you, but your comment, which shows to me as having originally been made at 23:14, 1 September 2019 and was then amended by your edit at 23:45, has your appended note stating "expanded 19:44 UT", which looks rather strange. Should that last timing have been 23:44 UTC? Blurryman (talk) 17:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- I probably forgot to convert to UT. I used to keep my computer set to UT, but a charity I work with installed a calendar app that doesn't work on computers set to timezones outside the continental United States, so I finally gave in and changed it. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Epoche
About the wiki/Julian_Day, I noticed By Lilian Day and Rata Die a remark 17, telling: "This is an epoch starting with day 1 instead of 0." This applies also to .NET in Windows. REXX datetime counts from 0, this is different. In the column Calculation there is mentioned (JD − 1721424.5) concerning Rata Die and .NET. This is OK. In my argumentation by editing the wikipewdia-page, I mentioned that .NET epoche starts with 1, not 0. What else to explain ? You restored the old wrong description. J v Otterloo (who are you ?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JvanOt (talk • contribs) 16:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Why talk on your talk page about edits on another page which itself has a talk page?
Jc3s5h, go back to the "calendar reform" talk page and explain there why a national newspaper is not a suitable source for wikipedia leading you to delete a single sentence and image while the first whole section of the page has a comment from wikipedia saying "This section does not cite any sources" and you leave the entire section there. Maybe a non-sourced poor introduction to the page is setting up the page for failure? This really needs discussing on the pages talk page so a wider audience can contribute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgru001 (talk • contribs) 08:52, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 35, July – August 2019
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 35, July – August 2019
- Wikimania
- We're building something great, but..
- Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
- A Wikibrarian's story
- Bytes in brief
On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
International System of Units
Regarding your recent revert, how is saying the international spelling of the units is "metre" and "litre" a falsehood? I admit the sentence structure is a bit confusing, so I'll reword it. Getsnoopy (talk) 20:25, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- SI only specifies the unit symbols, not the spelling of the complete word. "The international and American spellings for certain SI units differ" indicates there are only two ways to spell a unit name, the American way and the international way. But go to the Wikipedia article about any SI unit you like, and look at the left edge of the window, under "Languages". You will see dozens of different spellings for each unit name. 22:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Jc3s5h: This is English Wikipedia, so obviously it's assumed that that's what's being referred to. If one were to use your logic, then saying "British spelling" and "American spelling" would be a "falsehood" as well, since there are no "British" or "American" languages; Britain has Scottish Gaelic, Irish Gaelic, Welsh, etc. ways of spelling the units just as much as English, and the US doesn't have an official language at all, so technically any language could be considered to be used in the US. The point is that there's an international way of spelling the units in English, and there's an American way of spelling the units in English. This is notwithstanding the fact that the SI Brochure in English specifically states that it will use the spelling outlined in the ISO 80000 series, which is the BIPM specifying how to spell the word in English. So insofar as French and English are concerned, the BIPM outlines how to spell the units; outside of those languages, it allows for each language to set its own spelling standards. Getsnoopy (talk) 20:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
- I disagree. English-only spelling might be implied for most common nouns. But for SI the symbols are the same in all languages, so implications that might be OK for other words are invalid for SI units. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:51, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Jc3s5h: You didn't seem to catch the fact that that's exactly my point: the way the article is worded right now, "British spelling" and "American spelling" are incorrect according to you since the SI transcends languages and there are no languages called "British" or "American". Either way, I'll be rewording it. Getsnoopy (talk) 00:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- I disagree. English-only spelling might be implied for most common nouns. But for SI the symbols are the same in all languages, so implications that might be OK for other words are invalid for SI units. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:51, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Jc3s5h: This is English Wikipedia, so obviously it's assumed that that's what's being referred to. If one were to use your logic, then saying "British spelling" and "American spelling" would be a "falsehood" as well, since there are no "British" or "American" languages; Britain has Scottish Gaelic, Irish Gaelic, Welsh, etc. ways of spelling the units just as much as English, and the US doesn't have an official language at all, so technically any language could be considered to be used in the US. The point is that there's an international way of spelling the units in English, and there's an American way of spelling the units in English. This is notwithstanding the fact that the SI Brochure in English specifically states that it will use the spelling outlined in the ISO 80000 series, which is the BIPM specifying how to spell the word in English. So insofar as French and English are concerned, the BIPM outlines how to spell the units; outside of those languages, it allows for each language to set its own spelling standards. Getsnoopy (talk) 20:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
| Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Books & Bytes – Issue 36
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 36, September – October 2019
- #1Lib1Ref January 2020
- #1Lib1Ref 2019 stories and learnings
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,
Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.
I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!
From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.
If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.
Thank you!
--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 37
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 37, November – December 2019
- #1Lib1Ref
- Wikimedia and Libraries User Group
On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
For clarification
I did not intend to "remove" the comment, I moved it here. While I was moving it. I was writing my thoughts into it, but you seem to have undo it before I finished writing. WildEric19 (talk) 14:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Your message regarding WP:ERA on "decade"
Hello. I got your message regarding WP:ERA. Specifically, there were a few reasons why I changed it.
1) The manual of style specifically says Use either the BC–AD or the BCE–CE notation consistently within the same article. Exception: do not change direct quotations, titles, etc. Two paragraphs down, the article uses "common era". Therefore, there is no consistency in the article. My edit established consistency to use "common era" throughout, per WP:ERA.
2) The terminology you seem to be insistent is needlessly religiously loaded. If it said "AD" or the like, it would be less jarring. However, spelled out, it is both confusing to the reader (no one says "anno Domini", see WP:PLA) and religiously loaded, causing WP:NPOV problems.
I'm not going to place it back, but I think you should reconsider your stance as using the manual of style you are beating me over the head with, I think I have the better claim. 73.254.89.77 (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Need your help
Hey Jc3s5h, I need your help with Frond at the decade talk page here. He wants to add "nth decade of the century", but I disagree because I agreed with your viewpoint and it would completely contradict the Century article that explains the difference between a strict and general calculation of centuries. I think you're better at explaining things. This isn't required, but I recommend a back-up. I'll help you out when you need it. Thanks. WildEric19 (talk) 18:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
1 year
You said the source does not contain the word Tuesday. But it does contain. Bro, page 182 in the argument XV of Dionysius the Tuesday is mentioned. Olab2000 (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- I was confused. I obtained a pdf from the SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System, and it appeared to be text, so I searched for "Tuesday". But it turned out to be an image, so searching doesn't work.
- Teres appears to be providing his own translation of Migne p. 506. He quotes, in translation, Argument XV:
- The birth of Jesus Christ in Bethlehem is celebrated after the first solstice, when the days begin to lengthen. . . . The first equinox fell on 25 March, when day and night were equal. This is the date of the Annunciation, when the angel Gabriel greeted St Mary with the words: "The holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will cover you with its shadow. And so the child you shall bring forth willl be holy and will be called Son of God" [Luke 1:35]. . . . From 25 March to 25 December there are 271 days. In other words, according to the number of days, Jesus Christ was conceived on Sunday 25 March, and he was born on Tuesday 25 December. He was crucified 33 years and 3 months afterwards. This period amounts to 12,143 days. According to the number of days, his passion took place on Friday 25 March. {Ellipsis and square brackets in original.}
But Sunday 25 March and Tuesday 25 December of what year? Blackburn & Holford-Strevens (1999, corrected reprinting 2003, pp 774–5) dispute the authenticity of this Argumentum:
- The feria of Sunday for the Annunciation and Tuesday for the Nativity are also propounded in a calendar rule appended to those of Dionysius Exiguus but making nonsense of his era, for they imply 4 BC, AD 3, or AD 8.
- Numerous other sources indicate that the observance of leap years in Rome was confused from 45 BC until AD 8; it was in AD 8 that Augustus completed corrections, and leap years in the Julian calendar have been observed according to the intent of Julius Caesar from AD 9 until modern times. But in the confused period, it's impossible to state which weekday goes with which date.
I think the version of Saturday is from the android calendar where i actually found a bug in year 1582. The october 15 there is monday. Ten days where removed by the pope Gregorius. So the 4 october should be sunday. In my smartphone it is thursday because the ten days were not removed in the year schedule. So all the days before october 15th 1582 are wrong. Saturday + 3 days = Tuesday (if we fix the bug in 1582) Olab2000 (talk) 04:44, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- Where the article claims AD 1 starts on a Saturday it links to "Common year starting on Saturday" which references van Gent. I haven't had a chance to read van Gent yet, but be careful with it. It is about ISO 8601, which always uses the Gregorian calendar, even before 1582. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- A calendar converter I've come to rely on is https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/calendar/
- I've compared it to several other reliable ones, such as the calendar system built into the Emacs editor and the Julian date calculator at the US Naval Observatory (which is currently offline for maintenance). I've never found an error with fourmilab. You just have to watch out for a weird convention at that site. For years before AD 1 in the Gregorian calendar that site uses 0, -1, -2.... But for the Julian calendar, there is no year 0 and it uses -1, -2,.... I don't know of any other site that uses that convention. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:53, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
This converter that you gave the link shows that 4 october 1582 is monday and the 15th is friday. But the Pope didnot change the name of the following day. Only the number. Olab2000 (talk) 07:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
- The way the converter works is you enter any date you want in the box for the calendar is stated in. To use your example of 4 October 1582, as far as the Pope was concerned, that was a Julian calendar date (but many countries did not convert for a century or more). So we enter "1582 October 4" in the box for the Julian calendar, about 1/5 of the way down the page. Then push "Calculate". The web site shows that was a Thursday.
- To see what the date for the same physical day was in the Gregorian calendar, scroll up to the top of the page and see that it was Thursday 14 October 1582. The next day, according to the Pope, was 15 October 1582, Gregorian calendar. So put that date in the Gregorian calendar box, and push "Calculate. Observe that the site correctly calculates that the next day is indeed a Friday.
- Then scroll down to the Julian calendar box and observe the date is 5 October 1582, a Friday. If you could travel back to England in a time machine to that day, that's what someone on the street would have told you the date was.
- The key to understanding the converter site is that all the dates and times appearing on the site are the dates for the same physical day. When you change any of them and click "Calculate" they all change to represent that day in various calendars. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
In England 5th october. In Spain 15th october 1582 was monday. But i want to go back to your amendment where you noted the reason that the word "tuesday" was not mentioned. Let it be the version because there are already different versions. Olab2000 (talk) 08:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
25 december of the first year Before Christ could be indeed Tuesday. And the first day of the Common Era (the Day when the name of our lord Jesus was revealed as devised by Dionysius was also Tuesday. There is logic and common sense. If we doubt the year we doubt then all the years of the history. Olab2000 (talk) 08:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- In countries that adopted the Gregorian calendar when the Pope asked them to, on 15 October 1582, that day was a Friday. My source for that is https://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/monthly.html?year=1582&month=10&country=16 in addition to the Fourmilab calculator I previously mentioned.
- We can test timeanddate.com by comparing a date listed on page 442 of the highly respected book by Nachum Dershowitz and Edward Reingold. They state 10 June 1648 was a Wednesday in the Gregorian calendar; timeanddate.com agrees.
- What is your source for your claim that 15 October 1582 was a Monday. Until you give that source I will not consider the rest of your post. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
References
- Blackburn, B; Holford-Strevens, L (1999). The Oxford Companion to the Year: An exploration of calendar customs and time-reckoning (corrected reprinting 2003 ed.). Oxford University Press.
- Migne, J. P. (1865). Patrologia Latina. Vol. 67. Paris.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) Cited by Teres but not read by me. - Teres, Gustav (October 1984). "Time computations and Dionysius Exiguus". Journal for the History of Astronomy. 15 (3): 177–188.
- van Gent, Robert (2017). "The Mathematics of the ISO 8601 Calendar". Utrecht University, Department of Mathematics. Retrieved 20 July 2017.
complex numbers with underscores
I am not sure what you meant by Talk:Electrical resistance and conductance - this link of your revert is a little bit unspecific. Please tell me what is wrong with using dedicated symbols for complex numbers, so they can be easily discriminated from real numbers. The underscore was something I learned in my math classes, and it is used in physics as well. --Gunnar (talk) 17:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- Perhaps you looked at the talk page before I had a chance to write about the issue. Please see Talk:Electrical resistance and conductance#Underline complex numbers? Jc3s5h (talk) 18:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
I made a few changes on decade
So I wanted to end this whole "debate" with Blurryman and Frond so I decided to try and appeal to both of us and them, see the new changes I made. If you disagree, please feel free to adjust it. If you think we should go back to the old way, be my guest but I'm hoping we all can agree on something. WildEric19 (talk) 05:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
I think you accidentally undid my edit
Hey Jc3s5h, I want to confirm if your revert is done intentionally or by accident here. The reason why I wanted to ask you this is because of the edit summary you left, which tells me you probably reverted the wrong edit. If it was done intentionally, I apologize and will restore your edit. Thanks. WildEric19 (talk) 15:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- I only meant to remove the word "ordinal". Jc3s5h (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Western hemisphere
... used to be defined as 'west of the Iron Curtain'. Defining it as 0° to -180° is a more recent invention, though clearly a more defensible one. I'm afraid I don't care that much about the sensitivities Finnish Orthodoxy to spend any more time on it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:10, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- I personally feel the various definitions make the term useless; I consider it destroyed. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Metonic 19-year lunar cycles
Dear Jc3s5h, for the moment I would like to restrict myself to only try to clarify ambiguities, for example: "The Metonic cycle is a 19-year lunisolar cycle. An important application of the Metonic cycle in the Julian calendar is the Metonic 19-year lunar cycle. Around AD 260 the Alexandrian computist Anatolius, who became bishop of Laodicea in AD 268, was the first to construct a version of this efficient computistical instrument for determining the date of Easter Sunday.". Sincerely, --Jan Zu (talk) 12:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC) Then I would like to contribute to this page without referring to my book (read it!). Agreed? Sincerely, Jan Zu (talk) 03:21, 19 March 2020 (UTC) (Jan Zuidhoek)
- Referring to the page by the rejected fork name Metonic 19-year lunar cycles rather than the long-standing name Metonic cycle is not a good sign. And no, I will not read the book. The low quality of your edits makes me feel sure the book is equally bad. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Dear Jc3s5h, First of all: let us eliminate the cause of misunderstanding that the term ‘Metonic 19-year lunar cycle’ (being a lunar cycle, like the 8-year lunar cycle of bishop Dionysius of Alexandria) would be the same as the term ‘Metonic cycle’ (being a lunisolar cycle, like the Callippic cycle). Secondly: I am sorry, but all things I wrote in the page are supported by references to books like Mc Carthy & Breen (2003), Declercq (2000), Mosshammer (2008), and Zuidhoek (2019). I understand that you bother with the plain fact that Zuidhoek = Jan Zu. But this quesion is no real problem. After all, it is possible, of course, to reduce the required references to the first three out of four books. Don’t worry, I do not look after my own interests: Promoting my book is no more than promoting (the third century!) computist Anatolius. So, in order to fulfill my contribution to the Wikipedia page “Metonic cycle” I would like to create a new rather relevant (i.c. relevant in view of Dionysius Exiguus’ Paschal table) subsection “Application in the Julian calendar” with references only to Mc Carthy & Breen (2003), Declercq (2000), and Mosshammer (2008), and (if you should so desire) without referring to Zuidhoek (2019). Please allow me to do that. Sincerely, Jan Zu (talk) 08:42, 20 March 2020 (UTC) (Jan Zu)
- The Julian calendar was created around half a century before Jesus of Nazareth was born, and nearly a century before his death. The article "Julian calendar" is about the solar calendar. The "months" in that calendar are only nominally lunar months and the Julian calendar does not contain any mechanism to align the months to actual cycles of the moon. The computation of Easter is covered in "Computus" and is a separate matter from the Julian calendar. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:17, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Dear Jc3s5h,
1) Why do you ignore the difference between the terms ‘Metonic cycle’ (also called ‘cycle of Meton’) and ‘Metonic 19-year lunar cycle’?
2) The first three sentences of your argument are completely beside the point. Concerning your last sentence: if we consider Dionysius Exiguus’ Paschal table (this is a table for the computation of Easter, see for example Declercq (2000) 197-200 or www.janzuidhoek.net/Recondiony.htm) then we see that all dates in the table of the computist Dionysius Exiguus are Julian calendar dates. Unbelievable that you think that computus and Julian calendar are separate matter. Paschal tables are characterized by their lunar cycles, lunar cycles are always (from Anatolius to Bede) periodic sequences of Alexandrian calendar or Julian calendar dates of the Paschal full moon. Both Anatolius and Dionysius Exiguus had (different) 19-year lunar cycles, which because of their common Metonic structure (being one of the most important applications of the cycle of Meton!), are called Metonic 19-year lunar cycles.
3) I conclude that you have no reasonable argument at all to restrain me from fulfilling my contribution to the Wikipedia page “Metonic cycle”. Actually, I would like to create a new subsection “Application in the Julian calendar” with references to Mc Carthy & Breen (2003), Declercq (2000), and Mosshammer (2008), and (this is my concession) without referring to Zuidhoek (2019). Please allow me to do that.
Let us try to clarify the ambiguities instead of obscure the facts!
Sincerely, Jan Zu (talk) 20:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Since Jan Zu refuses to acknowledge the scope of the "Julian calendar" article and that the Metonic cycle is out of scope, I see no alternative but dispute resolution. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jan Zu. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Dear Jc3s5h,
I declare that:
1) my name is Jan Zuidhoek (born 20-8-1938) and I live in Zwolle (Netherlands);
2) I have no more than one Wikipedia account, which is named Jan Zu;
3) my book is [Jan Zuidhoek (2019) Reconstructing Metonic 19-year Lunar Cycles (on the basis of NASA’s Six Millenium Catalog of Phases of the Moon): Zwolle] and has ISBN 9789090324678;
4) its editor JZ is myself (which is legal in the Netherlands);
5) my peer is Daniel P. Mc Carthy, the author of [Daniel P. Mc Carthy & Aidan Breen (2003) The ante-Nicene Christian Pasch De ratione paschali (The Paschal tract of Anatolius, bishop of Laodicea): Dublin], which has ISBN 9781851826971;
6) if your accusation “Jan Zu refuses to acknowledge the scope of the "Julian calendar" article and that the Metonic cycle is out of scope” means that I do not acknowledge that the Metonic cycle has no application in the Julian calendar then you are right just because of the example of the fact of science that the dates of the Metonic 19-year lunar cycle being part of Dionysius Exiguus’ Paschal table and of Bede’s Easter table are Julian calendar dates;
7) my only motive is to try to clarify ambiguities, witness my argument:
“Dear Jc3s5h,
1) Why do you ignore the difference between the terms ‘Metonic cycle’ (also called ‘cycle of Meton’) and ‘Metonic 19-year lunar cycle’?
2) The first three sentences of your argument are completely beside the point. Concerning your last sentence: if we consider Dionysius Exiguus’ Paschal table (this is a table for the computation of Easter, see for example Declercq (2000) 197-200 or www.janzuidhoek.net/Recondiony.htm) then we see that all dates in the table of the computist Dionysius Exiguus are Julian calendar dates. Unbelievable that you think that computus and Julian calendar are separate matter. Paschal tables are characterized by their lunar cycles, lunar cycles are always (from Anatolius to Bede) periodic sequences of Alexandrian calendar or Julian calendar dates of the Paschal full moon. Both Anatolius and Dionysius Exiguus had (different) 19-year lunar cycles, which because of their common Metonic structure (an application of the cycle of Meton!) are called Metonic 19-year lunar cycles.
3) I conclude that you have no reasonable argument at all to restrain me from fulfilling my contribution to the Wikipedia page “Metonic cycle”. Actually, I would like to create a new subsection “Application in the Julian calendar” with references to Mc Carthy & Breen (2003), Declercq (2000), and Mosshammer (2008), and (this is my concession) without referring to Zuidhoek (2019). Please allow me to do that.
Let us try to clarify the ambiguities instead of obscure the facts!
Sincerely, Jan Zu”.
Sincerely, Jan Zu (talk) 07:41, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Dear Jc3s5h,
8) my colleagues (among others Mc Carthy, Ó Cróinín, Warntjes, Mosshammer, Holford-Strevens) know me also as the author of the article [Zuidhoek, J. (2017) “The initial year of De ratione paschali and the relevance of its paschal dates”, Studia Traditionis Theologiae 26: 71-93], to which my book is a sequel;
9) the cycle of Meton has not only applications in traditional calendars: As a matter of fact, its historically most important application in the Julian calendar is the Metonic 19-year lunar cycle being part of Dionysius Exiguus’ Paschal table and of Beda Venerabilis’ Easter table) (DE and BV were great computists).
Let us try to clarify the ambiguities!
Sincerely, Jan Zu (talk) 09:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Dear Jc3s5h,
I am sorry, but it is not the (not computistical) Metonic (19-year) cycle itself which can be considered to be “this efficient computistical instrument”, but the (computistical) Metonic 19-year lunar cycle, which is by definition an application of the Metonic cycle in the Julian or in the Alexandrian calendar. The Metonic cycle was discovered by Meton or by the Babylonians in the fifth century BC; Anatolius’ (Metonic) 19-year lunar cycle was invented by Anatolius around AD 260 (on the basis of the Metonic cycle). Use this (or ask an expert to use this) to improve the paragraph in question of your Wikipedia page, please.
Sincerely, Jan Zu (talk) 23:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
DEFAULTSORT edits
Dear Jc3s5h, In the Category:Time formatting bug]], I added a zero to Escher year before 10,000 in defaultsort so it would easy to put in numerical order.
Sincerely, User:Randey1970 15:15, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- In your comment, "Category:Time formatting bug]]" is not proper markup in the wikitext editor, so I don't know what it means. To provide a useful link that we can discuss, please do the following:
- Go to the page you edited.
- Click the "View history" tab.
- In the little circles you see near the beginning of each edit listing, click the open circles until the edit just before yours (in time) has an open circle with a black dot, and is a little to the left, and your edit has the open circle with a black dot and is a little to the right.
- Click the box that says "Compare selected revisions".
- In your browser address bar, copy the URL to your clipboard.
- Add a reply here, and paste the URL of your edit from the previous step.
- Jc3s5h (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Dear Jc3s5h,
You are right: the right reference is Zuidhoek (2017) 74. Thank you! Sincerely, Jan Zu (talk) 23:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Issue 38, January – April 2020
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 38, January – April 2020
- New partnership
- Global roundup
On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --15:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Reverted Edit
Based on personal experiences, the border patrol does not look at the passports until you reenter the United States limits, at least via Lukeville Border Patrol Headquarters and Sonora. I am speaking in lieu of my edit you reverted. Lindjosh (talk) 00:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)Joshua Lindgren
- Based on the reliable sources I've read, including the ones cited in the article, it is unlawful for a US citizen to leave or enter the US unless in possession of a US passport. It is rare for US border agents to inspect the credentials of anyone leaving the country (whatever their nationality), but those citizens who leave the country without a passport are nonetheless breaking the law. Jc3s5h (talk) 08:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Alright, look at this and tell me if you think it is okay
It is the lead section of this article, in which I created. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration Lindjosh (talk) 02:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Lindjosh: I'm not sure why you put this on my talk page, since I have never followed this article. Nonetheless, I'll suggest this change:
was the
foreigndomestic policy of the United States
- Jc3s5h (talk) 10:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC )
- @Lindjosh: Ha ha, well I had made some comments at Talk:Domestic_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration#New_Lead_Section, though I didn't bother to add a ping.... I kind of presume that people usually "watch" pages that they care about (disclaimer about bad idea to assume things). Anyway, I'm skeptical about using the lede from the "foreign policy" page as an example. Having a lede that primarily consists of uninteresting information just does not seem like a really good idea. Fabrickator (talk) 10:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 39, May – June 2020
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 39, May – June 2020
- Library Card Platform
- New partnerships
- ProQuest
- Springer Nature
- BioOne
- CEEOL
- IWA Publishing
- ICE Publishing
- Bytes in brief
On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Computus - Reverted Edit
Hi there! I understand your justification for reverting my edit, and agree that it did fall foul of WP:ELNO, however I am not sure that the rule is being applied particularly consistently in this case. I note that the links to Clive Feather's page, David Madore's page and the archive of Holger Oertel's page also fail to meet this standard, by virtue of being personal websites by people that are not recognized authorities.
Just to be clear, I am in no way suggesting that these links should be removed, as I personally found them very informative and it would be a shame to remove useful information that other people could benefit from in the future. It does however seem a bit inconsistent, so I would like to know if there is something I am missing.
I added the new link, as it appeared similarly useful and informative - the rule that you mentioned didn't even cross my mind, as personal websites by a software developer with an interest in trains, a mathematician specializing in algebraic geometry and an engineer with an interest in saxon history were already included in the article! Again - please don't see this as an argument to remove the links I mention above. Especially David Madore's - his website was an exceptionally useful thing to read. To me as a user, it is irrelevant that he isn't a "recognized authority" - what he has written on his website is verifiable with sufficient effort, and provides a roadmap through a fairly impenetrable morass of calculations and history.
Thanks. Felixaldonso (talk) 01:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I don't have time to overhaul every article that I edit. But once I edit an article, it stays on my watchlist until I manually remove it. I take a quick glance at new edits to articles on the list. Any efforts you could make to review the whole article and fix any problems you notice would be appreciated. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Earth's Rotation slowing undo
Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask this. You undid my edit to the sentence
Analysis of historical astronomical records shows a slowing trend of about 2.3 milliseconds per century since the 8th century BCE.[2]
The original cited resource more specifically said LOD (Lenth of day). It is the day that is increasing by 2.3 milliseconds, not the century. You were correct that the original article said "per century" but the wikipedia article omits the "LOD" length of day reference in this sentence which gives the impression that the earth's rotation is slowing at 2.3 milliseconds per century. Would you consider editing to at least make it clear that this 2.3 milliseconds per century is referring to the length of day rather than the whole 100 years?
2607:F2C0:95C5:5600:E9E1:6852:C929:D57 (talk) 12:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- I've tried to clarify it. It seemed clear enough to me, but then, I studied science and engineering at university, and I received lower grades on tests if I didn't get the units of measure exactly correct. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Your edit addresses my concerns, thank you. I'm a layman, and this all started with me copying and pasting the paragraph in a message to my nuclear physicist brother in law asking him how this kind of accuracy could be possible. He pointed out it was the 2.3 ms per day, not per century and that it must be a typo. So after that I figured the change would be warranted. Your way was better than mine, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F2C0:95C5:5600:E9E1:6852:C929:D57 (talk) 14:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Using SPS
Thanks for your comment at WT:USINGSPS. By the way: "...has skipped some steps in his {{their|Mathglot}} exposition." As far as "skipping some steps", you're right; I wage a constant battle between brevity, and attempting to include every possible detail and possible objections. I opted for brevity here, as I've been criticized for being too wordy before; perhaps not the right choice in this case. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
"Electoral" curiosity
I reconsider my request; I was obviously misinformed, that's all. Once the machine counted the votes, it was the poll workers who processed the percentages, right? Actually, doing it was a relatively simple operation. Can this reasoning of mine be correct? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.41.100.198 (talk) 01:29, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- What matters is the count. If the law says a person needs a plurality of the votes, candidate A gets 21,202, candidate B gets 21,201, and all the other candidates get less, then A wins. What the percentage is does not matter to the official who certifies the result. In my experience, poll workers do not process percentages, they process counts. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Ok, you've made yourself perfectly clear, but then who's in charge? When I follow an Election night, the votes show up, sure, but so do the percentages. Does Networks do that? Somebody's gotta take care of it, don't you think? That's the part I'm curious about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.41.100.198 (talk) 02:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- The news media conduct exit polls, where they ask people who just left the polling places how they voted. They make projections based partly on that. The election officials release preliminary figures shortly after the polls close; the news media use those results to refine their news stories. Finally, all the numbers are finalized and the official results are certified. The amount of time this takes varies from one jurisdiction to another. It can also vary if complications arise, such as a need for a recount. Unless the election is really close, the release of the official certified results aren't usually mentioned by the press, but it will be available on some obscure government website.
- If you're really interested, the counting process in some places is open to the public. You can go sit in a chair off to the side on election night and watch. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Jesus Christ the human
Hello!
I'm pretty new to Wikidata and am trying to understand how things work. I made an edit to the item Jesus Christ, adding a statement stating that it is an instance of human, which you removed, calling it an "extraordinary claim." I think it is pretty obvious that the strongest claim to what Jesus is an "instance of" is that he was a human. The English Wikipedia article states that "Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically" which attests to this. Can I add the Wikipedia article as a reference to my statement? I'd be very happy if you helped.
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ofyalcin (talk • contribs) 00:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- It's widely known that Christians consider Jesus to be God. It's also widely known that some historians, some Christians, and Islam considers him to be human. Since there are different points of view, one or more suitable reliable sources should be cited.
- None of the various language Wikipedia editions are reliable sources and none of them should be cited for anything. That they are is an embarrassment to Wikidata and the Wikimedia Foundation. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Request for example
Hello. Could you please provide an example for this statement from WP:NPOV. I have difficulty understanding it.
"Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information"
If there is disagreement, how can it be considered uncontested? The entire sentence seems long and complicated to me. Maybe it can be broken into two simpler sentences. Thanks in advance. 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- This is rather strange wording, and I'm not quite what that phrase is supposed to mean. It was introduced in 20010 in this edit by Ludwigs2.
- The overall meaning of the paragraph is that attribution is normally used if there are varying views about an issue, so it's important to indicate who is making a statement. But this approach is used when it isn't necessary, it makes it seem as if a statement is controversial, when it really isn't. For example,
- Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is a book. Little Women is a book. Lindsey Fraser thinks Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is a book.
- Phrasing it this way implies that everyone agrees the first two are books, but there is some controversy about whether the first work about Harry Potter is really a book or not. Jc3s5h (talk) 04:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Astronomical symbols
Good Morning!
Since I was in the midst of what has turned out to be a very long series of minor edits on the Astronomical symbols article when you reverted it, I overwrote your reversion with the (many) new edits I made. Specifically, there are now four footnotes, one for each of the equinoxes and solstices. You are correct in your comment that the boundary lines between constellations are modern, however, the actual constellations of the zodiac were not modern inventions. The use of the constellations to orient oneself to the astrological reference frame of signs made perfect sense during Ptolemy's time, since the signs were (mostly) in the constellations they were named after. Other issues, like the classical era astronomers being quite flexible about what star a constellation might be in (the constellation Libra, for example, was carved off of the constellation Scorpio, and still called "the claws of the Scorpion", and the impingement of Ophiuchus on the zodiac was at the time ignored).
The astrometric practice at the time was to pick a standard star that's on the ecliptic (e.g. Spica, Antares, Regulus, etc.) and measure distances from two of them, one on either side. Other, more careful measurements (Ptolemy used water clocks, the Babylonian astronomers are thought to have used the daily motion of the moon across the sky, among other things) were used to establish distances between standard stars. So the actual tracking of planets was done relative to "station stars", not the signs. (We think that there were about 30 such stars, but that's based on the Egyptian decans.) You might say that the signs were a convenient way to divide up the sky into an artificially equally-spaced system of co-ordinates measured along the ecliptic. The places of the station stars along the ecliptic was the anchor to reality, but the signs that (almost) matched the constellations probably made the numerical calculations seem more real – connecting them to something one could see, or broadly refer to. And note that the zodiacal constellations are not evenly spaced, although the zodiacal signs are.
The point of the footnotes is to make clear that that doesn't work well anymore. Precession has shifted the locations of the seasonal points over almost two whole signs, and astrologers have decided that it's more important to keep the co-ordinate system aligned with the seasons. For slightly different reasons, astronomers also want to be oriented to the seasonal points, but leave the constellations as they stand, and allow the zero point (♈) of the co-ordinate system to slowly drift across them. We now use a few dozen quazars instead of station stars, and have collected vast catalogues of guide stars that tie a collection of somewhat uniformly distributed, moderately bright stars to the quazar reference frame. The guide stars visible in any one astro-photo are used to orient the picture to the quazar reference frame, using pretty much the same measuring technique as Claudius Ptolemy.
107.242.121.31 (talk) 13:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- I see that now there are footnotes.
- Phrases such as "very nearly on the modern border between Gemini and Taurus" are a problem, because the reader might be thinking of looking at a star map that covers the entire heavens, or might be thinking of a telescopic observation. What counts as "very nearly" in one context does not in another context. It would be better to say something like "nearly (< x units of angular measure)". Jc3s5h (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, I think I can do that. I was, in fact, thinking on a star-chart scale, and was trying to be mindful that astrologers don't care about where the stars are located; they only care about the planets' locations relative to the spring equinox. The precessional motion takes 25,860 years to make a full 360° circuit (or approximately that, the slow rate is itself changing even more slowly). So the location of the equinox takes approximately 72 years to shift west by 1°, which is approximately the same distance that the sun moves against the background stars during any one day.
- On that scale, it didn't seem important to be precise. I'll look up how long during each year the sun takes to cross out of Pisces into Aquarius, after crossing the equinox point; that might give an understandable scale to the issue, although it does beg the argument that the sign boundaries do not work like the constellation boundaries.
107.242.121.47 (talk) 03:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 40
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 40, July – August 2020
- New partnerships
- Al Manhal
- Ancestry
- RILM
- #1Lib1Ref May 2020 report
- AfLIA hires a Wikipedian-in-Residence
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Quotes and inline text
You reverted my request for clarification in Decade, where I asked for clarification. I understand [sic] as used in quotations, but here the section is normal text, which should be backed by citations, not quotes:
- A rarer approach groups years [...] with the years 1–10 described as "the 1st decade", years 11–20 "the 2nd decade", and so on; later decades are more usually described as 'the Nth decade of the Mth century' (using the strict interpretation of 'century')[a]. For example, "the second decad of the 12th. Cent." [sic];[3] “The last decade of that century”;[4] "1st decade of the 16th century";[5] "third decade of the 16th century";[6] "the first decade of the 18th century".[7]
This boils down to about:
- Decades can be described as 'the Nth decade of the Mth century', for example "the second decad of the 12th. Cent." [sic], "1st decade of the 16th century", “The last decade of that century”, ...
The examples are about how a decade can be described, not how they have been described. And to use a different spelling for one item in such a list is confusing. The [sic] in this context means that spelling can or should be used. If you think about how the paragraph ideally would be phrased, the result would be something like "for example the first decade (or decad) of ..." (if the archaic spelling is worth mentioning, probably it should be moved to the first sentence of the article).
So now we use archaic spelling in the article text because of an old source, and that is not normal practice. These examples should give guidance to the reader on how to write, not information on how somebody wrote in a specific instance. If the latter, the context should be given inline.
–LPfi (talk) 13:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- "Decade" is an article, not part of a style manual. Describing what people have written is a legitimate approach. We have no obligation to figure out what people should do.
- My personal opinion about what to do would is to avoid anything like "3rd decade of the 19th century" and just use write "the 1920s".
- The reason given in your clarification request was "When is one supposed to use 'decad'?" which makes it all about the spelling. The answer, which is to use modern spelling except when quoting from an old source, is too obvious to require stating in the article. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Updates to Julian calendar and Gregorian calendar
I expect you have them on your watchlist but just in case... There have been a bunch of edits to these ari that you might want to review. Sometimes my "corrections" to poor edits have introduced other less obvious errors. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- Your edits seem fine. I did spot an unrelated mistake in Gregorian calendar which I fixed. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:55, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Calendar (New Style) Act 1750
I notice that you are a regular editor at Computus, so I wondered if perhaps you might be able to advise at Talk:Calendar (New Style) Act 1750#Deceiving the Church of England? I suspect that we may have a very long-standing, credible, but unsupported assertion.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)