The Earth's rotation in 24 hours exactly is organised around a formal proof of cause,effect with values in support and it cannot be disproved.The 'sidereal time' value represents a specific line of reasoning based on timekeeping averages originating with John Flamsteed who inverted the references for daily and orbital motion and created a catastrophic situation in the process.
There is nothing worse than the 'fact' of the Earth rotating in the 'sidereal time' or rather,it exists on the same conceptual level as a flat Earth.The matter,which arises from Flamsteed ill-considered conclusion in the late 17th century by correlating the return of a star directly with planetary dynamics and specifically daily rotation, requires immediate attention insofar as a society which cannot express the basic facts of planetary shape,rotation and rotational characteristics contained in the fact that the Earth turns at 15 degrees per hour is in serious difficulties.
The simple formal proof for rotation in 24 hours -
Hi, I noticed that you prefer the article to be at 180th meridian as opposed to antimeridian, yet the edit summary says, "antimeridian depends on prime meridian". If this is the case, then would it not be better to name the article "antimeridian", since all the points on the antimeridian have an antipode on the prime meridian? Thanks. Set SailFor TheSeven Seas357° 30' 00" NET23:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's also something curious about it, if you compare it with another copy I found online at the AGU (searched because I had trouble trying to decipher one of the equations in the JPL copy). It turns out there is a big difference in legibility. I occasionally noticed that the pdfs in the JPL online database seem to be scrambled as if passed through some kind of rather bad OCR process. This is another of them! I can't think how it could be accidental.
The AGU page, besides offering an not-scrambled version, also shows a whole lot more material of related reference interest: Global Earth Physics (handbook) 1995.
With reference to this edit have you actually checked the reference to make sure it contains appropiate information? From your edit summary I get the impression you have added it on the assumption that it was what RadioFan meant to do. When I removed the strange bit of RadioFan's edit I left a message on their talk page saying what I'd done and from their reply I'm far from certain that they meant to duplicate the reference and instead it was just some weird error. Therefore unless you can confirm that the book is a good reference for that paragrah I don't think it should be included - at least without checking with RadioFan. Dpmuk (talk) 10:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, it seem that once again you have reverted my edit. Generally exponentiation is written using superscripts. The only reason that the page name didn't have this superscript is because html tags can't be used for page names to give the exponentiation required; but the link name can use html tags, so it should be perfectly justified to restore the superscript tags to the link name. Thanks. Set SailFor TheSeven Seas193° 27' 30" NET12:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found an exception to the general rule against piping in WP:PIPING for technical reasons, so I won't object. However, I think the short line under the superscript in linked names is ugly (104)—the underline indicating a link should be continuous with that under normally sized characters. You might consider replacing 10<sup>4</sup> with 10{{sup|4}} due to the smaller number of typed characters. Although personal preference, 10{{smallsup|4}} results in a smaller superscript font: 104 vs 104. — Joe Kress (talk) 00:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not use e-mail with Wikipedia. I do not know what you mean by a "bronze calendar". I have no interest whatsoever in proposed calendars, only in historical or existing calendars. — Joe Kress (talk) 07:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you seem to be editting the entire talk page, rather than just individual sections. This makes it harder for other readers to tell which section you've added your comments to. Thought you might like to know. --Michael C. Pricetalk07:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. Although I have "Enable section editing via [edit] links" checked in my preferences, I almost never use it. I always click on the "edit this page" tab, rather than a section of the page. I've used this method since before section editing was even allowed in Wikipedia. Indeed, just finding the section [edit] is difficult on talk pages with long active sections. I easily find edits anywhere within articles or talk pages by clicking on "hist" to the right of any articles or talk pages on my watchlist and then "compare selected revisions" since the last time I checked the page. This allows me to find multiple edits by editors (including vandals) anywhere on the page. A watchlist only indicates the last section edited by the last editor of any article or talk page, so that is useless for finding multiple edits. Clicking on the names of articles or talk pages on my watch list and then clicking on its history is indirect. Furthermore, clicking on the individual time/date of edits within an article's history is much too slow for me. Nevertheless, I'll try to use section editing on at least talk pages for those that don't use my technique. — Joe Kress (talk) 09:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just tried to use a section edit in an article and found it utterly useless if a reference is included, because the text of references are in another section which is not shown in "Show preview". — Joe Kress (talk) 22:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A workaround is to temporarily add a <references/> or {{reflist}} tag at the end of the section prior to previewing it, but that temporary tag must be removed before the edit is saved. — Joe Kress (talk) 00:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An article that you have been involved in editing, Wikipedia:Section , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. – imis☂01:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The calendar article of course if not a place for discussing unrelated history detail, but my view, as that of a person who's read some literature on the period, using the term "Sovier Union" to refer to anything that took place in 1918 sounds very anachronistic, while "Soviet Russia" is a commonly used and easily recognizable, even if not official, name for the polity that existed at the time. The actual calendar decree referred to the "Russian Republic", because the state did not receive the RSFSR name until the summer of 1918. The USSR was still a long way off, and in the intervening years the Bolsheviks did in fact have a lot of discussion as to whether various ethnic republics should legally be an autonomous states within the RSFSR, or separate states of the same level as the RSFSR.
It's quite true, as you said, that the Bolshevik decree applied (at least theoretically) to the entire territory of the post-1922 Soviet Union, as all of it was probably claimed by the then Russian Republic at the time (assuming they had time to think of such legal niceties). In practice things may have been less crystal clear: e.g., I would not be surprised if the Gregorian Calendar was in fact introduced earlier in German-controlled Ukraine and Belarus, or that cerain "White" governments during the Russian Civil War turned back the clock in the areas they controlled. (I don't actually know if any of that was the case; I do note though that in mid-May 1918, the New York Times may still have been rather confused about the current calendar situation in Moscow.)
Would you find acceptable the following rewrite/expansion of the relevant sections?
In Russia, the terms "Old Style" and "New Style" have the same significance as elsewhere. The start of the year was moved to 1 January in 1700, but the Gregorian calendar was introduced only after the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. According to the decree by the Council of the People's Commissars of the then "Russian Republic" dated March 9 [O.S. February 24] 1918, January 31, 1918 (Old style) was to be followed by February 14, 1918 (New style). Therefore, the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 is referred to as October Revolution, despite having started on 7 November under the Gregorian calendar (25 October [Julian calendar]).
You responded here before I could revert myself, which I considered but delayed because I wanted to do more research. Similar to you, I suspected that "Russian Republic" in the Pravda article may be a new name for the entire Russian Empire before some regions (including Belarus and Ukraine) were ceded to Germany and subsequently became autonomous republics. The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk of 3 March 1918 makes this interpretation virtually certain. I was also uncertain how to mention the post-1922 Soviet Union. I have reverted myself and reworded the passage in Old Style and New Style dates to include the post-1922 Soviet Union.
I was aware of the Pravda article because it appeared in История календаря в России и в СССР (Calendar history in Russia and the USSR), chapter 19 in История календаря и хронология by Селешников (History of the calendar and chronology by Seleschnikov). Because it is so short and assuming you can read and write Russian, I would appreciate a literal translation of the Pravda article into English.
Thanks for the New York Times article. It is indeed quite confusing. All three dates in the article imply that May Day was celebrated on 1 May Julian, not Gregorian. That is, the date of the celebration itself (14 May), the date the correspondent cabled the story (15 May), and the date the newspaper printed it (17 May). Yet the article also states that the celebrations were held during Holy Week, that is, the week before Easter Sunday (not Bright Week, the week after Easter Sunday). In 1918, Julian Easter was 22 April in the Julian calendar and 5 May in the Gregorian calendar. No confusion is possible with the Gregorian Easter which was over a month earlier. Thus 1 May Gregorian was within Holy Week. I regard both as good evidence, so I don't know which calendar was used to determine when May Day should be celebrated.
I wrote the article Soviet calendar within which I mention two similar Time Magazine articles which were also confused. I see that Arhivarij has modified the previously incorrect Russian Wikipedia article Советский революционный календарь by adding much of the information I found and provided additional valuable information which I should include in the English article. By the way, Roscoe Lamont in The reform of the Julian calendar translated Peter the Great's AD 1699 (AM 7208) edict adopting 1 January as New Years Day beginning in 1700. — Joe Kress (talk) 23:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reverting and rewriting; I think it looks fine now. I added the full translation of the text to commons:File:Sovnarkom-Gregorian-Calendar-Decree-izo39.jpg. As to the May 1918 NYT article, my hypothesis is that May Day was in fact celebrated in Moscow on May 1, 1918 Gregorian calendar. But by the time the Moscow reporter's report made it to New York, it was already mid May (their earlier articles of the period complained about telegraph cables being cut in Finland, etc etc), and the NYT editor/staff writer there just assumed that the Russians were still on Julian calendar, and wrote the final text accordingly. I am sure they had fact checkers, but those probably weren't very up-to-date... Vmenkov (talk) 01:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for translating the Pravda article, which I have tweaked slightly. In Soviet calendar, Shilova (2007) and Malevsky-Malevitch (1933) disagree on whether International Worker's Day and the Day of the Proletarian Revolution was one or two days from 1917 to 1929. Of course, both may have been celebrated for two days but they may have had different kinds of celebrations on those days, which I also read was the case for the post-1929 21–22 January. My specific concern is whether one or both days were days of rest. Another possibility is that they were originally only one day of rest and were expanded to two days sometime between 1917 and 1929. Could you cast a deciding vote and provide an additonal reference? — Joe Kress (talk) 04:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Public holidays in Russia, 1921-2008
I've expanded that article a bit, based on the meticulously written ru:История праздников России (History of public holidays in Russia) and sources therein. It appears that May 2 and Nov 8 were indeed designated (national) public holidays only in 1928. But, as the write-up in that Russian article and the chart from it (see above) indicate, the full story is rather complicated, and I certainly won't have time and patience trying to write it up. The situation is complicated by the existence, until 1929, of up to 10 "special" holidays - additional public holidays (however, unpaid) which local governments were authorized to set. Those could be used both to extend the "May Holidays" and "November Holidays" into May 2 and Nov 8, and to provide workers with days off for major religious feasts. Vmenkov (talk) 08:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for editing the section I added to the Maya calendar article about the supplementary series. I forgot that Wikipedia uses the un-conventional convention that text in titles is not in Title Case. I also forgot that the text editor from which I cut and pasted the text adds invisible newlines. Also, I'm a crappy typist and proof-reader. Senor Cuete (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)Senor Cuete[reply]
Joe: Thanks for cleaning up the Long Count calendar section about correlations. I reiterate the self-deprecating comments above. I'll add some citations soon where you indicate they are needed in the reference about the lunar age. Senor Cuete (talk) 22:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)Senor Cuete[reply]
I will soon create a new article with more extensive tables for converting between the Julian and Gregorian calendar. It is presently at User:Jc3s5h/sandbox4. I would appreciate it if you would look it over, since I know you are interested in calendars. --Jc3s5h (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Enquiry about your reference/citation to Newcomb solar tables
I was interested to see your citation of Newcomb (1895) solar tables (vol.6 of 'A.P.A.E.') with a URL. It's puzzling, but when I try that link, I get to see the summary but the site won't let me see any of the text (although I have a few hard-copy photocopy extracts).
Certainly the work is out of copyright, and some of the neighboring volumes in the series are visible on archive.org (and I don't have trouble with other books on google generally). I wonder if you know of any way, or could suggest any way, that I could get to see the downloaded pdf of Newcomb vol.6? Terry0051 (talk) 02:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may be a victim of Google books selective geographic availability. Some books which Google uploads, even those in the public domain, are only available to United States users or may only be available to United Kingdom users, etc. I found two editions of volume 6 on my United States English Google books site, [1] and [2]. If that is not the problem, you might try another Google books site. Just change the language code in https://books.google.com/books?hl=en I have found books written in Latin on the Russian Google books site that were not even listed on the English Google books site. I just checked the Russian site (hl=ru) and the same two 1898 editions are listed for "other editions" (Другие издания) of "astronomical papers prepared for the use of the american ephemeris and nautical almanac". "Other editions" is usually the last link under any edition that is listed under a specific title. — Joe Kress (talk) 08:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information. I didn't know about selective geographic availability, and it looks as if you're right. I tried all the links and parameters you suggested, with negative result. I'm in the UK. Maybe someone at Google checked the wrong box and accidentally switched off availability here. I guess I'll have to try and see if there's any way I can get to see a download made from where it is available. Terry0051 (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two comments that do not bear exactly on accessing this data. (1) It is probable that this work was never under copyright, because by law, writing created by US federal employees in the course of their duties is in the public domain. (2) Google books seem to have a rough time classifying old astronomy books; I have seen several classified as juvenile non-fiction (or maybe it was juvenile fiction). --Jc3s5h (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I learned about selective geographic availability from complaints to HASTRO-L, The History of Astronomy Discussion Group. Some readers were searching for astronomical articles published in the 1950s which were avaiable online to US readers but not to European readers. This problem is not limited to astronomy books. I discovered that Google books had a very hard to find book on calculating the date of Easter while searching for something else, The ecclesiastical calendar: Its theory and construction by Samuel Butcher (1877). I mentioned it to an anonymous editor on Talk:Computus, but he could not access its image via Google, nor via the link to Google books provided by the Internet Archive, even though it was published in London, not the US (he did not reveal his country). He was able to access the corrupt text provided by the Internet Archive. I just checked the University of Leiden and Gallica, Bibliotheque nationale de France, but neither had this series, which is not surprising since most of their books and articles are European. As far as I can see, virtually all astronomy books on Google are classified as juvenile nonfiction, so I pay no attention to that. — Joe Kress (talk) 23:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first print was by C.H.Beck-Munic 1992 "Juristenkalender/Steuerberaterkalender". The next print by "Max-Planck-Institut" Heidelberg, see by "Sterne und Weltraum" 5/93. The next print was a poster in special nr.5 from march in year 2000 by "Sterne und Weltraum".
Thank you, but I have already read this twice, including User talk:Jc3s5h#perpedual calendar. I understand that your perpetual calendar, or something quite similar, was published previously. That only reinforces your copyright. But you cannot retain a copyright for any image that you place on Wikimedia Commons. You must remove the copyright symbol "( C )" from the image or the entire image may be deleted. For your convenience I repeat this paragraph via Google translate:
Vielen Dank, aber ich habe schon gelesen das auf User talk:Jc3s5h#perpedual calendar. Ich verstehe, dass Ihr ewiger Kalender, oder etwas ganz Ähnliches, die bisher veröffentlicht wurde. Das verstärkt nur Ihr Urheberrecht. Aber man kann nicht behalten ein Urheberrecht für jedes Bild, die Sie auf Wikimedia Commons. Sie müssen das Verlagsrecht-Symbol zu entfernen "( C )" aus dem Bild oder das gesamte Bild gelöscht werden können. Ich wiederhole dies mit Google übersetzer. — Joe Kress (talk) 20:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Joe, I believe that is incorrect. The terms of the Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License, for example, contains the phrase "Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright) license..." (emphasis added). Non-exclusive means that the licensor retains the copyright, and is free to grant additional licenses to others, or under other terms. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further consideration, you're probably right. The Berne Convention, now accepted by the United States, does not require any copyright symbol, in contrast with former United States copyright law, which did. That is, a copyright under the Berne Convention is automatic (no symbol), whereas former US law required both registration in the Library of Congress and a distinct copyright symbol. Thus the presence of a copyright symbol does not affect the copyright status of the work. I was thinking in terms of the old law rather than current law. — Joe Kress (talk) 22:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You might be interested to know that an incorrect calendar conversion procedure is being repeatedly introduced into Gregorian calendar. An interesting coincidence is that for the two years (1200 and 2800) I checked, the procedure works for converting between the New Calendar and Julian calendar, but not the Gregorian calendar. Since the IP editor is an advocate of the New Calendar, I wonder if this is a matter of what the editor is familiar with, or what the editor advocates. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning, Joe. Can I debunk a falsehood which you, Simon Cassidy and most of the other usual suspects have been putting out for many years now? See e.g. User talk:Sebsf#Gregorian calendar. The claim is that Gregory XIII's Bull mandates the use of the observed vernal equinox in the regulation of the Gregorian calendar. That's exactly what the claim is - bull.
As Gregory says, the object of the reform is to prevent the vernal equinox receding towards the winter months - i.e. to make the calendar year approximate to the length of the mean tropical year. He didn't make a very good job of it - the equinox still recedes although at a much slower rate - one day in 3,323 years compared to one day in 128 years under Julius Caesar's system.
That is why astronomers and Eastern European governments got together last century and introduced the new leap year rule, to reduce the rate of slippage to one day in 44,000 years. The observed equinox is a red herring - to keep it on March 21 eight leap days have to be intercalated every 33 years, a solution rejected by Gregory primarily because it messes up the Easter tables. The new leap year rules haven't been widely publicised because of the misinformation campaign, so here they are.
Step 1 - divide the year's last two digits by four - if there is no remainder the year is a leap year unless the last two digits are 00, in which case it probably is not.
Step 2 - if the last two digits are 00, ignore them and divide the rest of the number by nine. If there is a remainder of two or seven the year is a leap year. If not, it isn't.
The next bit concerns the Easter tables. You are clued up on them, but others aren't, so please bear with me.
In Clavius' theory, there is a solar correction (SOL) which postpones the date of the paschal full moon by one day in most centennial years. There is also a lunar correction (LUN) in 32 per cent of centennial years which advances the date of the paschal full moon by one day. This is averaged out over a long period to one thirtieth of a lunation.
My table shows the cumulative effect of the two corrections over a full 900 - year cycle.
Correction date
Sunday Letter(s)
SOL
LUN
Cypher
1600
BA
0
0
0
1700
C
+1
0
+1
1800
E
+2
-1
+1
1900
G
+3
-1
+2
2000
BA
+3
-1
+2
2100
C
+4
-2
+2
2200
E
+5
-2
+3
2300
G
+6
-2
+4
2400
B
+7
-3
+4
The cypher is the combined effect of the two corrections. In 1582 there was a one - off advance in the date of the paschal full moon by four days, and a one - off removal of ten days from the calendar, giving a net retardation of six days. If, therefore, the cypher is added to the ten days dropped and then LUN is added (disregarding the minus sign) this gives the difference between the two calendars.
The beauty of the new system is that the cypher increases by four every 900 years until 4199. It is the only arrangement of the 900 - year cycle which produces this result, and eliminates the defect of Clavius' theory in which the movement of the date of the paschal full moon sometimes goes into reverse.
The next thing is to see how the quantities are manipulated to give the date of Easter Sunday. Let's take an actual year - 2410. To do the calculation you'll need a copy of the Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England or the Church of Ireland. If you speak Welsh you can use the Book of Common Prayer of the Church in Wales. If you don't have access to the book
you can access the relevant table at [3]. You'll need the Sunday Letter for the year, which is easy to find. The table gives the Sunday Letters of every centennial year from 1600 to 2400 - it can be extended because every 900 years the Sunday Letter cycles forwards two places (e.g. B becomes D and GF becomes BA). A leap year has two letters - one for January and February and the other for March to December. As Easter falls in March or April, reference in this explanation to the Sunday Letter of a leap year is a reference to the second letter. Every year the Sunday Letter cycles back one place (two if the second year is a leap year). Also, every eleven years the Sunday Letter repeats, provided that the first year of the eleven is not exactly divisible by four. The entire sequence repeats every 28 years. If a centennial year falls within any of these periods these alignments may break down, so use them only if the intervening centennial year is a leap year. If you want to start your eleven - year period from a year which is exactly divisible by four, work out the Sunday Letter for the preceding or following year and apply the eleven - year rule from there.
For 2410 we see from the table that the Sunday Letter for 2400 is B and it's not a leap year. So the Sunday Letter for 2401 is A, for 2412 also A, for 2411 C and for 2410 D. We now need the Golden Number for 2410. The rule is, add one to the year and divide by nineteen - the remainder is the Golden Number but if there is no remainder the Golden Number is nineteen. For 2410 the Golden Number is 17.
The table tells us that the cypher for 2410 is 4, so we look for 4 in the prayer book table under Golden Number 17. It is marked against March 21, so in that year the paschal full moon falls on March 21. All Sundays are marked D in the second column, the next one is March 22, so that is Easter Day.
Now, in 2410 the vernal equinox falls on Saturday afternoon March 21 at 4.23 Greenwich Mean Time. The full moon falls on Sunday March 22 at 9.38 A.M. So a March 29 Easter would have been better, but at least the table puts Easter in the right month. Clavius fares abysmally - his Easter is on April 25, the (wrong) full moon having fallen on Monday 19th at 6.28 P.M.
The combined Easter table below gives Catholic Easter for 1900 - 2199 (both dates inclusive) and Orthodox Easter for 1900 - 2099 (both dates inclusive). It is taken from the back of a calendar - in the actual table the Golden Numbers are bracketed into three groups, A, B, and C, which I have represented by ordinary type (for group A), italic type (for group B), and bold type (for group C). The accompanying text does not mention Orthodox Easter - the rule which I have added at the end is mine. The period of validity is not given but is as above. The instructions are as follows.
The calendar cards are printed both sides to cover all possible day/date variations in ordinary and leap years. March, April, July and December have cards to themselves. A year is normally a leap year if its last two digits divide exactly by four. If the last two figures are 00, then the year is not a leap year unless it gives remainder two or seven when its other digits are divided by nine. A year which is not a leap year ends on the same day of the week as that on which it began.
The date of Easter is found from numbers which are allotted to certain dates as indicated in the table at left. For any particular year, the number which is taken is the same as the remainder that is obtained when one is added to the year and the total divided by nineteen. If there is no remainder 19 is taken.
If the number is in Group A, Easter falls on the Sunday following the date against which that number appears. If the number is in Group B, Easter falls on the Sunday of the week commencing with the date against which that number appears.
If the number is in Group C, the date against which it appears is to be treated as a day of March, and Easter falls on the day after the Saturday following that date.
For Orthodox Easter, ignore the brackets. Easter is the Sunday after the Wednesday following the date against which the number appears.
Since you seem very knowledgeable about astronomy I'd like to ask you for your opinion on a recent addition to this page. It looks like fringe science to me. Martijn Meijering (talk) 10:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
Joe Kress, that was precisely my point, there were a number of people between India and Mongolia that were dropped by limiting the eastern extent to India. Maybe you can come up with a better phrasing to make it clear that various people between India and Mongolia keep informally using the Chinese calendar up to the present. Thanks, Barefact (talk) 08:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Joe: I have successfully started an arbitration request on Wikipedia::Arbitration/Requests/Case/Astronomical year numbering dispute. You are requested to submit your statement in 500 words or less to the referenced case. SamSammy (Samhastings) 16:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sexagenary cycle has NO relationship with the Chinese calendar (農曆) and the lunar year. Sexagenary cycle also has its own way to record months, days, and even hours. Sexagenary cycle begins itself with Lichun. --LC.Lau (talk) 13:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your careful reading of my edits to the latitude article. There are a great many shortcomings to the article as it stands and I shall shortly post a list of suggested changes on the discussion page. In the meantime you might like to look at a provisional rewrite of the first sections at User:Peter Mercator/Draft for Latitude. Your gut reaction would be appreciated but remember this not a final draft! It is, however, a major rewrite, Peter Mercator (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Mister Kress, Verzeihung bitte für mein langes Schweigen, es hat private Gründe. Am 17.Januar 2010 entfernte der IP 62.31.226.77 die Datei „Gregorian calendar“ wegen eines vermeintlichen Fehlers innerhalb der Datei . Es betrifft den Umrechnungshinweis in meiner Datei
„File: Permanent calendar.png“ und damit auch die Tabelle „Difference between Gregorian and Julian calendar dates“ im Originalartikel in englischer Sprache („Gregorian calendar“). Sie, Mister Joe, haben jedoch am 22.Februar 2010 die richtige Datei in den Originalartikel hinein gegeben und damit Übereinstimmung herbei geführt. Danke dafür. Nun kann die „File: Permanent calendar.png“ wieder in den Artikel hinein ! Wie denken Sie darüber ? LenderCarl (es folgt die google-Übersetzung)
Dear Mr. Kress, your forgiveness for my long silence, it has private reasons. On Jan 17, 2010, the remote IP 62.31.226.77 the file "Gregorian calendar" because of an alleged error in the file. It relates to the conversion notice in my file
File: Permanent calendar.png "and therefore the table" Difference between Gregorian and Julian calendar dates "in the original article in English (" Gregorian calendar "). You, Mister Joe, but they have the correct file on 22 Feb 2010 added to the original article into and brought out to ensure consistency. Thank you for that. Now the "File: Permanent calendar.png" into it again in the article! How do you think?
--LenderCarl (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You reverted a change I made to Leap second in which I replaced the confusing abbreviation "cy" with "century". I had not understood immediately what "cy" meant and cy is not helpful. I can't find any references in Wikipedia's manual of style to "cy" being a recognised abbreviation for century. You refer to the original source as using "cy" but as this is neither a quotation nor an exact copy of what is in it, I can't see how that overrides the MoS. Bazza (talk) 14:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Joe Kress, for your interest in adding clarity to The World Calendar page @ World Calendar. It could help if I understood ’rv’ and the meaning/relevance of (rv - date is more important than weekday) but so far I need to question whether your 01:36, 21 March 2011 entry improves Line 41.
WAS: Every date is assigned (the same) weekday. = Yes, but does not exactly account for Worlds Day and Leapyear Day.
YOUR NEW: Every weekday is assigned to (the same) date. = No because that can be read as if every date is (the same) date; 365 or 366 days, all the same date.
See if this sounds any closer to you: ‘Each day is assigned an exact and repetitive date relative to week and month.’
At least a small "explanation" !... So, is the name "the World Calendar" a RTM, with these "intempestive" capital letters everywhere ?
And then why never quotation marks ?...
All the best agains covid virus. :-( François from Paris, France, and (little) "armorican" Brittany... (VirguloMane, April 2nd 2020)
See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Capitalization of The. If "The" is regarded as part of the name of a work by its author or is used outside Wikipedia with "The", then Wikipedia's Manual of Style requires that it be capitalized mid-sentence. I don't know what RTM means, nor do I know what quotation marks have to do with this, unless they are scare quotes which Wikipedia's Manual of Style also frowns upon, see WP:MOS#Typographic conformity, search for "scare-quoting". However, the fifth pillar of Wikipedia's Five pillars is "Wikipedia has no firm rules" so any rule may be ignored unless other editors object, then consensus must be reached on the talk page of the article. — Joe Kress (talk) 19:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the standard way of signing comments on talk pages is to type four tildes (~~~~). Wikipedia then automatically replaces them with your user name (if you signed in under that name), talk page link, and the date and time. You can personalize your signature by clicking on Preferences at the top of any page. — Joe Kress (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have reverted my Talk:Roche limit (ASEAN Exchange) with statement I have made in wrong place.
Where I should write it, because if I don't mistaken Roche limit want me to know him if I made a new article. Thank you so much.Gsarwa (talk) 01:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Joe, I noticed that you have moved the external link to the Umm al-Qura calendar at the bottom of the Islamic calendar page to one of the footnotes. For many people looking for a reliable Islamic date converter, such as the Umm al-Qura date converter, it will now be more difficult to find.
The Umm al-Qura calendar is one of the most used Islamic calendars and now Wikipedians are directed to some less reliable calendar converters which do not always give any indication on which algorithms they are based. AstroLynx (talk) 08:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that a link could not be both a reference and an external link, but I can't find any such prohibition, so I'm reinstating your external link. — Joe Kress (talk) 03:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have been trying to find the modern origin of the 11th-month rule for the Chinese calendar. I have an article written by Liu Baolin which gives the rule, but it does not say where the rule came from. At one point in the discussion page of the Chinese calendar you wrote: "Nevertheless, the modern rule that dōngzhì must be in month 11 is probably that due to Liu Baolin, the former director about 1990 of the Purple Mountain Observatory near Nanjing….— Joe Kress (talk) 00:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)" Could you tell where you got that? I would really like to find something on it.--Stone-turner (talk) 04:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One could in principle, have a rule that fixes one given month of the year to always contain its own principal term.
I think the choice of the 11th month for this (IMO a bad choice) may be because the Sui starts with the 11th month. Karl (talk) 10:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My Liu Baolin source does not mention the origin of the rule, he only states the rule. Liu Baolin and F. Richard Stephenson (Durham University, England) wrote two papers about 1990 but did not publish either at that time. Both were published in 1998 in the obscure journal Orion. Both of these papers are referred to (by author, not title) within the Chinese calendar section of "Chapter 12: Calendars" in the Explanatory supplement to the Astronomical Almanac (1992), most of which is at Calendars by L. E. Doggett. Calendrical calculations (1997) by Dershowitz and Reingold also refers to them. The papers were:
Liu Baolin and F. Richard Stephenson, "The Chinese calendar and its operational rules"
published: Orion, Jahrgang 56, Nr. 286, Juni 1998, 16–19. [4]
F. Richard Stephenson and Liu Baolin, "A brief contemporary history of the Chinese calendar"
published: Orion, Jahrgang 56, Nr. 287, August 1998, 33–38. [5]
While discussing the 2033–34 irregularity, the first paper states the rule: "In these extraordinary cases, the rule for determining the intercalary month is as follows: The month containing the Winter Solstice must be the Eleventh month. If there are 13 months from one Eleventh month to the next Eleventh month, that month after the Winter Solstice which contains no Zhongqi is an intercalary month." In this paper, Liu mentions his Newly compiled perpetual Chinese calendar published in 1984 by the Purple Mountain Observatory, referred to at Talk:Chinese calendar#Month 11 rule is not always true as 新编万年历; 1840~2050年.
In the second paper Liu states that he was the chief author of a series of books giving tables of the Chinese calendar according to modern calculations to replace the erroneous Wannian Shu tables, last published in 1910 using 18th-century methods with tables extended to 2108. Among these books, only the 1840–2050 book included the 2033–34 irregularity, so only it would have included the new rule. Its first edition was in 1959 according to Liu, implying that this rule was in existance at least that early and may have been devised by Liu himself. — Joe Kress (talk) 07:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information. But, the 1959 book was 二百年历表 : 1821-2020年, so it did not include 2033. Therefore the 1984 book was probably the first modern table to include it.--Stone-turner (talk) 17:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Liu mentions five books he authored (listed in the order they appear in the second paper):
Pocket 20-year Chinese calendar, 1981–2000 (1986).
200-year Chinese calendar, 1821–2020 (1959).
100-year Chinese calendar, 1901–2000 (1979).
Pocket 10-year Chinese calendar (many editions since 1962).
Newly compiled perpetual Chinese calendar, 1840–2050 (1959, 1978, 1984).
You have given the second book above (二百年历表 literally means 200-year Chinese calendar), not the 1959 edition of the last. On the other hand, a new edition is published either because the previous edition is out-of-print, new information is added, or errors have been discovered. The last reason opens the possiblility that Liu might have changed his mind concerning how to handle the 2033–34 irregularity. I doubt this because Liu meticulously lists all errors (long vs short months) in the Wannian Shu between 1910 and 2108, indicating he would mention his own 'error'. Only copies of the 1959 and 1978 editions would settle this issue. — Joe Kress (talk) 19:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The full title of Orion is Orion : Zeitschrift der Schweizerischen Astronomischen Gesellschaft (Journal of the Swiss Astronomical Society). It began in 1943, confirming its 1998 volume (Jahrgang) is 56. Furthermore, F. Richard Stephenson and Reny O. Montandon published "Conversion of the Chinese cyclical calendar into the Julian or Gregorian calendar and vice-versa" in the same journal: Jahrgang 56, Nr. 289, Dezember 1998, 11–15. [6][7]. — Joe Kress (talk) 23:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
re: Timeline of the far future. I've tried to preserve as much information as possible in the merge but there has been a significant amount of data loss due to my inability to locate proper sources. I want you to know that I'm still searching for good sources for the missing information and when I find them it is going back in. Serendipodous19:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I've had a discussion with an astronomer over at bautforum.com and, apparently, the occultation predictions made on that site are impossible, which might explain why the creator deleted it. Serendipodous10:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know why you removed the brackets, please explain?
The formula shown on the page (winthout brackets) will only work in certain programming languages, due to order of precidence of arithmetic operators.
If you actually try to use the formula (without brackets) using standard mathematics, either on paper or spreadsheet, the formula WILL NOT WORK. It will always give a wrong answer as arithmetic operators are evaluated in order of BIDMAS, not order as per certain programming languages.
Before you remove these brackets again, please just try the calcualtion for yourself. It is very confusing because the answer is always wrong in Excel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.57.243.14 (talk) 09:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After the article's name in the first sentence, Year zero, you added the phrase "is an imaginary year that is between 1 BC and AD 1." In the Julian or Gregorian calendars as used by historians no year zero exists, imaginary or otherwise, but a year zero does exist when those calendars are used by astronomers. In the latter case it corresponds to the historical year 1 BC, with negative numbers before year 0 (not any years labeled "BC"), and positive numbers after year 0 (not any years labeled "AD"). — Joe Kress (talk) 01:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Difference between Gregorian and Julian calendar dates
Hello, ich schrieb ihnen am 28.Januar 2011 und habe Sie darauf hin gewiesen, dass von Ihnen die Tabelle (in leicht geänderter Form) aus meiner Bild-Datei: „Permanent_calendar.png“ entnommen wurde!
Ich erwarte von Ihnen das sofortige Anbringen des entsprechenden Copyright-Hinweises. Hello, I wrote to them on Jan 28, 2011, and you've pointed out the fact that you have the table (in slightly modified form) from my image file: "Permanent_calendar.png" was taken!
I expect you to immediately attach the appropriate copyright notice.--LenderCarl (talk) 19:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. When you recently edited International Date Line, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page PM (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
That link was intentional because that disambiguation page defined the intended meaning in its lead (p. m. = afternoon), and none of the other pages listed even mentioned that meaning. A better link is probably 12-hour clock, which it the redirect link of AM/PM. — Joe Kress (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've been doing some cleanup on the Julian calendar article. One point was to add sources for the various attempts to rename months by different emperors. The text included mention of an attempt to rename "November" as "Romanus", separate from Commodus' renaming of all the months of the year. Ploughing through the logs, I see you added this in 2004. I'm not able to find a source for it, and Scott's article on honorific months, which is pretty comprehensive, knows nothing about it. Can you tell me where it comes from?
I searched the usual suspects but could not find my source. Because I did not name another emperor for Romanus in the article, neither did my source, whatever that was. So neither I nor my source realized that Romanus was solely due to Commodus.
However, my search did find that P. W. Wilson in The romance of the calendar (1937, p. 112) conflated Caesar's unnamed months with Cassius Dio's story (54.21.5) about the corrupt procurator of Gaul who insisted that two more months occurred after December, named either Undécember and Duodécember (accent on first e) or Undecimber and Duodecimber (I've seen both pairs). Wilson's words were:
... we have a sidelight on what was involved in "the year of confusion" as it was called. According to Dion Cassius, the historian, there was a governor in Gaul who insisted that, in the lengthened year, two months' extra taxes should be paid! The extra months were called Undecimber and Duodecimber. Julius Caesar determined that never again should the calendar fall into a similar condition.
Wilson ignored the consuls named by Cassius Dio in that story's chapter (21) that indicated it occurred in 15 BC, not 46 BC.
I do not know whether Wilson was the first to conflate these stories. However, I did find Undecimber/Duodecimber also used for two extra months that actually were part of the 'ten-month' calendar of Romulus in the opinion of some scholars. — Joe Kress (talk) 05:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nice reference, thanks, I'll note it as an example. Personally, I think the '10-month' calendar results from confusing December as the last month of a January-based year with December as the 10th month of a March-based year in which the 11th and 12th months were January and February, not Undecimber and Duodecimber. Too many very archaic festivals in these months for them not to have existed. --Chris Bennett (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. When you recently edited IERS Reference Meridian, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Datum (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. When you recently edited Precession, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eccentricity (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
You sometimes say, if there a more things name Abc Classname, then the class name should get lower case, because the term is not a proper name. But only because there are several George Rose or several Black River these are still proper names, albeit ambiguous ones. Compare:
a black river - descriptive
Black River - defined rivers by that name, it doesn't matter there are many.
Thanks for fixing the broken graphic.
I did the edit yesterday to replace the deleted one with a new one, but for some reason it didn't "take".
Wiki Commons also had some kind of problem with the deleted one - it refused to update it, which is why I had to replace it with a new one... maybe it's my network here...? Tfr000 (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
re:axial precession. At this point, with my mistake fixed (nice of that guy to point it out, but he could have been less of a dick about it) the issue now comes down to sources. The sources I'm using specify 13,000 for a half-precessional cycle and for Vega being the North Star. Your sources appear to be fairly solid too (though one of them is broken), but perhaps the length of the Great Year is still not fully fixed. Serendipodous12:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I've decided to go back to 11th millennium and beyond to see if I can track down any citations for data that I haven't been able to cite or refute. I'm keeping a truncated version of the old article in my userspace for reference. If you want to help me track some of these down, that would be great.
The half precessional cycle is indeed 13,000 years, but when Vega becomes the north star is a specific year not dependent per se on the cycle itself, just when the celestial north pole happens to pass Vega. That year is somewhat dependent on opinion, similar to when Polaris became the north star (the north pole has not yet reached its closest approach to Polaris), especially because Vega is much brighter than Polaris. Philip C. Plait in Bad Astronomy, on the same page that contains his already cited "bad astronomy" that Earth's north pole will point toward the Sun in December, page 55, states that Earth's northern axis will point near Vega in AD 14,000 or so. I'll continue to try to find better sources. — Joe Kress (talk) 04:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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 (talk) 15:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm troubled by the anomalous sexagesimal notation used in the article sexagesimal (using semicolons following modern time notation), so I'm preparing a rewrite on notation as a lead in to converting the article to standard (Neugebauer) notation. I note that you put some good material on sexagesimal notation in the article on Positional notation, but didn't provide links to references. Do you have sources available for the material you added.
One thing that intrigues me is that you credit Neugebauer with creating the standard semicolon / comma notation in the 30s; it sounds right -- I imagine it's in his early German writings?
My references would be to modern usage of the semicolon / comma notation in publications of Babylonian texts, including those by Neugebauer himself. I beleive the statement that he invented the notation appears in one of the eulogies/biographies prepared when he died. — Joe Kress (talk) 21:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Washington Monument may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
The cornerstone was a {{convert|24,500|lb|kg|adj=on}} marble block {{convert|2.5|ft|m} high and {{convert|6.5|ft|m}} square with a large hole for a zinc case filled
, including the 100-foot stone but not the [[United States Capitol|Capitol]] stone.<ref name=Jacob>[[Judith M. Jacob, [https://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/wamo/stones.pdf ''The Washington
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Washington Monument, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mason. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Washington Monument, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Knoll. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Congratulatons! You're even more of a calendar geek than I am.
I've got a question for you, though: Do you really think that level of detail is appropriate to the article?
I went through a whole process to get the article Shemini Atzeret to GA status. I got it there. Then a couple of high-falutin' Wikipedia types beat the article up, claiming too many classical sources, not enough academic sources, too much halachic detail of a sort not interesting to a Wikipedia reader, etc., etc. They killed it so badly that it's now a complete mess. Eventually (actually, probably pretty soon), I'm going to go fix it.
I'll grant that your sources are all published and in English, so you won't have the same problems on that account as I did. Still, I'm also feeling quite burned on the question of how much detail seems to be acceptable in articles on Judaism. And I just wonder if the Four Gates section, with all the detail, demonstration of how often Molad Tishrei is delayed, etc., isn't just going to overwhelm people.
I actually know a decent amount about this, and it's certainly not obvious to me how the table there demonstrates the proposition that "in 39% of years 1 Tishrei is not postponed beyond the day containing molad Tishrei, 47% are postponed one day, and 14% are postponed two days". I think I'm supposed to compare the moment of molad Tishrei to the Rosh Hashanah day-of-week. But it's not obvious to me, and most people will just be bewildered by it. (At minimum, I'd urge you to color-code sections to show 0 days, 1 day, 2 days.)
Look, what you did there is a nice piece of work, unquestionably. Still, you might consider the question of whether a section like that ought to be spun out into a second article. I just don't know.
Thanks, and I am also expert in the Gregorian, Julian, Islamic and Chinese calendars, but not the Hindu calendar. As you noted, my sources are secondary rather than primary, which is highly encouraged for Wikipedia sources, see WP:SCHOLARSHIP. However, although Bushwick and Poznanski are primarily English, they have some Hebrew as well, whereas Resnikoff is entirely English. English sources are highly recommended because then editors can check them for themselves — non-English sources are permitted only when the information they contain is not available in any English source (see WP:NONENG). Even if the English source is only a translated version of the Hebrew primary source, in some respects it becomes a secondary source itself. By its very argumentative nature, even the Talmud can be considered a secondary source regarding the neutral point of view requirement, even though it is not published in a scholarly reliable source per se. The postponements are already in the article in significant detail (at Rosh Hashanah postponement) and have been there for many years, so no argument can arise on that point. Furthermore, I only refer to them in general terms in the Four gates section, not specifically. However I am in a quandary whether the calculation of the molad Tishrei of a specific anno mundi year belongs in the Four gates section or in the postponement section.
The Hebrew calendar article as a whole is already quite bloated, having been written by several editors over several years, so the same information appears in several places. If anyone has a lot of time on their hands, it would benefit from a thorough rewrite. This Four gates section is only a very small section of the whole article, so its removal would not make the article more readable, but it would significantly detract from the article. In general, I am against splitting an article into many smaller articles. The four gates is primarily a method to easily determine the annual Hebrew calendar of a specific anno mundi year, that is, exactly how each day of its 12 or 13 months should be partitioned into several weekly rows, especially when printed or displayed. The postponements and the delay percentages are not critical to it and may be removed without undue damage to the section itself.
You are correct that the day of the week for molad Tishrei is compared to the day of the week for 1 Tishrei or Rosh Hashanah to determine the delay percentages. But they must be calculated for each day of the week, even when those days are not listed among the limits for molad Tishrei. These percentages may already be mentioned in my sources although I did not specifically check for them. For your information, the detailed calculations follow. — Joe Kress (talk) 21:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delay: 1 Tishrei, from - to, years, parts, fraction (% of 7d × % of 19y)
Thank you, Joe. I actually had a pretty good sense of the calculation already. My point was more that if the table itself was supposed to make the calculation transparent or obvious, it didn't succeed.
This article is horribly bloated. You're right about that! I've looked at it, wanting to take a big bite out of it, more than once. And then I don't even know where to begin. So I don't.
FWIW: Possibly the Rosh Hashanah postponements section and the Four gates section have to merge. But until/unless they do, I think the molad Tishrei calculations probably belong in whichever is first, because they are germain to both. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I found the delay percentages in Remy Landau's "Hebrew calendar science and myths" at The Postponement Frequencies, so I don't run afoul of the Wikipedia policy of No original research, wherein only routine calculations are permitted, such as the examples at WP: CALC. I was considering breaking out molad Tishrei as a separate section before the postponement section, but one larger section is another possibility. — Joe Kress (talk) 21:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Joe Kress. 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.
Hello, Joe Kress. 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.
Hey. I noticed that you uploaded a file that currently appears at Ussher chronology, containing a scan of the first page of Ussher's Annals of the Old Testament, page 1. Just out of curiosity, did you get that by taking a page out of a PDF of the whole book, or did you physically take a picture? Because if there's a PDF of the whole thing floating around on the internet right now, I'd be very interested in that. Alephb (talk) 11:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure the English version you link to is an unacknowledged rip-off of a 2003 revision. I'm not positive about that, but it's certainly not an untouched 1658. Anyhow, thanks for trying. I figured the 1658 English wasn't online but it was worth the hail Mary pass of asking. Thanks again. 01:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
You may be able to access and make a PDF image of the entire original 1658 version at Early English Books Online (I'm not sure if this requires a library that subscribes to it). Search for Author Keywords: James Ussher and Title Keywords: Annals of the World. Their PDF instructions are in their FAQ. Click the left icon marked "Add to your Marked List" when you hover the cursor over it, then click "Marked List" in the black bars at the top of the page. On the resulting page click "Download document image sets in PDF format".
My interest in the document is his use of the Julian Period created by Joseph Justus Scaliger. At the end of the first paragraph of his Latin chronology is the phrase "in anno Juliani Periodæ 710" which is mistranslated in the English version as "in the year of the Julian Calendar, 710." and the years 710 and 4004 on the right are transposed into the wrong columns. — Joe Kress (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to require subscription, but thanks for the direction. Maybe some day I'll find a library I can access it through. In the meantime, my Latin is decent enough that I can translate little sections for myself, and there's always that bootleg English copy if I get hung up. Alephb (talk) 01:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I found it! Both parts of the Annals are at archive.org. Scroll down to the download options, select PDF, and both volumes appear as separate PDF files. Just to be complete, the Latin parts are on Google Books at Annales Veteris Testamenti and Annalium Pars Posterior. Both Latin parts are reprinted in The Whole Works of the Most Rev. James Ussher (1847), occupying volumes 8-11 and part of 12. But the English parts are not in his Whole Works. — Joe Kress (talk) 20:47, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
RM: Hijra (South Asia) → Hijra (transgender group)
Hello, Joe Kress. 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.
I'm trying to improve the "Sidereal time" article and would appreciate it if you could look at my progress so far, at User:Jc3s5h/sandbox. I've removed some sections from the existing article and replaced them with the top-level section "Modern definition" and some sub-headings. If you have any comments, they would be welcome in the talk page of the sandbox. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:52, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to find out about two periods which IIRC combine to give the circa 26ka precession figure. I seem to recall that there were two precessions acting in opposing senses, one with a period of about 21ka , the other longer ( 44ka ?). They apparently combine to give the observed result of ~26ka.
Can you point me to what these periods relate to? I don't seem to be able to find any mention now I need it.
General precession consists of lunisolar precession and planetary precession. Lunisolar precession is constant at 50.4712"/yr over millions of years which appears to be cyclical relative to the fixed stars with a period of 25,678 yr. Planetary precession is Earth's orbit being gravitationally attracted periodically by other planets, notably Jupiter and Saturn, changing its tilt relative to the celestial sphere. This secular resonance produces a cyclical precession of 50.3017"/yr (25,765 yr), but with an amplitude of less than one tenth of lunisolar precession. It is composed of three orbital parameters, f = s6 – g6 + g5; where s6 is the precession rate of both Jupiter's and Saturn's nodes, –26.347855"/yr (49,188 yr); g6 is the average precession rate of Saturn's longitude of perihelion, +28.2450"/yr (45,884 yr); and g5 is the average precession rate of Jupiter's longitude of perihelion, +4.257452"/yr (304,407 yr). Another secular resonance with the same magnitude as the Jupiter-Saturn resonance is 2p – f = 50.6408"/yr (25,592 yr). Many other much smaller resonances are also present. Yr is Earth's year not that of Jupiter or Saturn. See Laskar 1993 and Laskar 2004. This may be what you alluded to. — Joe Kress (talk) 19:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your new edit to Computus citing Hefele's 1883 History of the Christian Councils. Reading between the lines of his treatment, there was dispute in the 19th century about what exactly had been decided at Nicaea. Although more recent scholarship has looked in some detail at the matter, there are still disputes about what was decided at Nicaea. Just a heads up that I'll probably rewrite your addition once I have time to dig into Mosshammer (2008) and Nothaft (2018) to clarify what the bishops at Nicaea did and didn't decide. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 01:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the Mosshammer (2008) reference (The Easter Computus and the Origins of the Christian Era), which I have. He states (p. 52) "This denial to Nicaea of any Paschal rule may have gone too far." Concluding, "It is therefore fair to say that the Council 'apparently' or 'implicitly' endorsed the rule of the equinox, even if it published no rule as such." Earlier (p. 51) he states that Constantine said that the council's "prohibition against keeping Passover 'with the Jews' was interpreted in ancient times as directed specifically against Quartodecimanism and as precluding the observation of Easter on the 14th day of the moon, even if that day was a Sunday." Thus Mosshammer attributes Hefele's rules to the Council, in some fashion. I do not have access to Nothaft (2018) (Scandalous Error). — Joe Kress (talk) 02:35, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty much what I see in Mosshammer, although just before his comment on the Council implicitly endorsing the rule of the equinox, he says that "By deferring to Rome and Alexandria the council endorsed whatever [my emphasis] methods were in use by those churches and relied on the bishops of Rome and Alexandria to resolve any differences". After digging into Nothaft, I find that he has nothing to say about the question of Nicaea. He mainly talks about the later influence of Dionysius's false attribution of the 19-year Alexandrian cycle to the council. If this article's historical component is to be brought up to date, it should discuss that claim and its influence.
Hello, Joe Kress. 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.
Thanks for uploading File:A.Wynn Howell portrait.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
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.
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 0, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page None (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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.
An article that you have been involved in editing, Wikipedia:Section , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. – imis☂ 01:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Washington Monument may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
