User talk:Jc3s5h/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanking you for courtesy extended

Hello, Jc3s5h. You have new messages at Geofferybard's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Bard गीता 02:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 May 2011

Please weigh in so we can get this issue wrapped up thanks.

[[1]]Bard गीता 06:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 June 2011

The Signpost: 13 June 2011

The Signpost: 20 June 2011

The Signpost: 27 June 2011

The Signpost: 4 July 2011

The Signpost: 11 July 2011

re: the table in Electricity Generation

Hi. I am the one who posted that table "List of countries with Sources of electricity 2008". Apology for confusing source information in original posting. In that Section of Electricity generation#Production I had added two tables "Source of Electricity (World total year 2008)" and large one "Composition of Electricity by Resource" original data source of both tables are from IEA'site, in this link "Total production of the world" was 20260838 GWh which is 20261 TWh or 20 Pwh (decimal rounded). I useed CIA's data only to select countries which were top 20 populous or top 20 GDP PPP countries but not electricity data.

In CIA cite, it said Electricity production of 2007 est was 19.12 trillion KWh. CIA use short scales. Thus number will be 19,000,000,000,000,000 Wh which is 19000 tera watt. the number does not much exactly due to the difference of year and way of estimation by both CIA and IEA but digits match. IEA 20261 TWh or CIA 19000 TWh.

On 7/11, user 134.21.2.166 had changed TWh to GWh without any explanation (possible vandalism). Thank you for detecting it early. I added source info and description of comma to avoid confusion. I hope this explanation help. --Masaqui (talk) 04:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 July 2011

The Signpost: 25 July 2011

The Signpost: 01 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

SFN Template

Thanks for the heads up and for the correction, I was not familiar with the template. Quidam65 (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Universal Time

I would be interested in learning how my edit reversed the meaning in the entry UTC. The existing sentence "Since the difference between UTC and UT1 is not allowed to exceed 0.9 seconds, if high precision is not required, the general term Universal Time (UT) may be used." employed two negatives: 1. "the difference between UTC and UT1 is not allowed to exceed 0.9 seconds." 2. "If high precision is not required."

The topic being clarified is the meaning of Universal Time, not UTC. The entry in question clearly states "the general term Universal Time (UT) may be used".

Unlike a Dictionary, the current entry forces _through elimination_ the definition of Universal Time rather than stating the term (Universal Time) and then defining the attributes that differentiate it from UTC. Apart from clarity, you are forcing the reader to wait until the end of the sentence to create or assign a new term to those situations where UTC and UT1 is greater than 0.9 and/or it is agreed to or understood that high precision is not critical to the measurement. This type of writing is most often used in comedy, where we expect to be surprised.

My entry "The general term Universal Time (UT) can be used in situations where the difference between UTC and UT1 is greater than 0.9 seconds or when high precision is not required." could even be improved to "The general term Universal Time (UT) may be used in situations where it is known that the difference between UTC and UT1 is greater than 0.9 seconds or when precision is not critical to the application." Hschlarb (talk) 15:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

"Since the difference between UTC and UT1 is not allowed to exceed 0.9 seconds" is not an instruction to writers; it is required by Recommendation ITU-R TF.460-6 page 3, under the heading Tolerances, paragraph 1.2. Your version, "The general term Universal Time (UT) may be used in situations where it is known that the difference between UTC and UT1 is greater than 0.9 seconds" will never happen unless representatives of the world's government agree to change the recommendation and eliminate leap seconds, or some of the world's leading measurement laboratories screw up badly. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Is this better? "The term Universal Time (UT) may be used to describe those situations where technical accuracy falls within the maximum 0.9 second range of the standard, otherwise the more precise term UTC is preferred.[6]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hschlarb (talk • contribs) 21:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand what that passage means. What the original passage was trying to convey was that when there is no need to convey a precise time, UT may be used, since the distinctions between UTC and UT1 are not important for the purpose at hand. For example, an amateur radio operator might predict that radio conditions between the northeastern US and the UK will be good around 1000 UT tomorrow. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Why don't you just say that? From all of the cross references I have seen, what you are trying to say is "The term Universal Time is [a replacement for| an updated version of] Greenwich Mean Time used in situations where accuracy is not important while providing a common point of reference for users across different time zones. When greater precision is required, specific references to associated standards such as UTC and UT1 are preferred." Why introduce this 0.9 second business at all? While it may be technically accurate, the intent you seem to want to convey for UT is one of generality. Adding details to define generalities is showing itself to be counter productive. Hschlarb (talk) 01:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

What is...

the format specified in any style guide the reference section follows supposed to mean? Our MOS only allows three date formats... I know you have gripes about people conflating yyyy-mm-dd with 8601, but it seems the way these are employed, and the dates we are likely to deal with, across WP makes them the same, no? --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

No. If the yyyy-mm-dd format is confined to accessdates, then all conceivable meanings will result in writing the same numerals, because the Internet, with which the accesses are performed, was invented after all countries had adopted the Gregorian calendar (or perhaps the Revised Julian Calendar, which will have the same dates for several hundred years). But as soon as publication dates are thrown into the mix, non-Gregorian dates are possible. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

degree

Hi,

With degree, I wasn't sure about whether to give it a row of it's own originally. That's what I've tried now. If you disagree, feel free to revert again. Lightmouse (talk) 13:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

10 F equals 5.56 C

I had read the sentence on the Vermont page as if there was a comma after the average temperature, as in:

"... ; the rural northeastern section (dubbed the "Northeast Kingdom") often averages 10 °F (5.56 °C), colder than the southern areas of the state during winter."

There is clearly no comma after the closing parentheses following the temperature in celsius. I now understand that the context (and comma) construes a difference of averages, not an absolute average for the "northeastern" section. Additionally, it would have been (semantically) strange if a region by itself "often averages".

Sorry for being insensitive to the context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.131.101 (talk) 06:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Gregorian calendar

Properly-labelled minor edits which are in fact truly minor in nature -- consisting of adding exactly one (1) comma as clarificatory punctuation -- are hardly a high-priority in requiring edit summaries. It would be a shame if you let your apparent love of petty bureaucracy get in the way of other people trying to improve Wikipedia... AnonMoos (talk) 20:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Many mistakes have been introduced into calendar-related articles, including "Gregorian calendar". The diffs provided in Wikimedia are not very good, and it is next to impossible to find punctuation changes. Therefore you should give an indication of what you are changing. In other words, I suspect that you, and everyone else who edits articles, may have made a mistake and I want to be able to find the change to see if I agree with it or not. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Look for the red, look for the red... AnonMoos (talk) 16:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 September 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Coordinated Universal Time

Hi Jc3s5h, I'm not sure if you are aware that this article has been under review for sometime - unfortunately I get sidetracked now and then, but I would like to finish it completely, i.e. a "pass" or "fail" verdict at GA in the next week, otherwise the review will drag on into October. My comments, such as they are can be found at Talk:Coordinated Universal Time/GA1, which are transcluded into Talk:Coordinated Universal Time. Pyrotec (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do about your points, but I have been affected by Hurricane Irene, so I may not be too attentive to this. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I'd seen that you were reverting vandalism and good faith edits but apparently nothing else. It (the review) will be put On Hold within one week (I should/must finish it before then). After that, I not on wikipedia until early October. Pyrotec (talk) 17:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry if that comment came across as insensitive. If you have been personally affected, you certainly have my sympathy: I once got caught by the tail end of one during a two-week walking holiday in Iceland ten or so years ago, but all I got was very wet and cold - I got over it with no financial losses. In respect of the review: it comes down to a choice of me leaving it open a while for you to fix it, and I'm happy to leave it open for the rest of September (I shan't be editing after this week), or I close the review this week and you resubmit it at a later date. Pyrotec (talk) 11:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 September 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Help with calendar article

I noticed you commented intelligently on Gregorian calendar, and I'm hoping you can help with a dispute over Perpetual Calendar. If you check out the Discussion page, at the bottom you'll see the argument I've gotten into with a non-logged-in IP user who refuses to allow edits to his pet article. He insists that what he calls the "Exigian" calendar, which changes the Gregorian rule for '00 leap years, is the correct reckoning to use, and keeps reverting my efforts to make the article accurate for both Julian and Gregorian dates. My position is that if the article is to exist, it must at least cover the Gregorian calendar that is widely accepted throughout the world. If there were consensus to also include this "Exigian" proposal, (which not only has never been adopted by any country, scientific, religious, or other standards body, but doesn't even have an article on Wikipedia) that would be one thing, but it cannot cover this speculative system to the exclusion of the existing world standard. So far, it's been a one-on-one dispute, and before I resort to asking for arbitration, I'd like to get some other editors involved in the discussion. Maybe if a few of the knowledgeable editors from Gregorian Calendar would indicate their opinion on excluding Gregorian in favor of "Exigian", (s)he will stop asserting that there is some kind of consensus to do so.The Monster (talk) 14:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. It's not fun being the Lone Ranger.The Monster (talk) 16:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

AWB

Now that you have been removed (at your own request) from the list of users authorized to use AWB, it would be appropriate to remove the User AWB template from your user page. Chris the speller yack 17:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 September 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 09:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2011


Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 October 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Old Vermont laws

Have you thought about finding old editions of the Vermont Statutes Annotated in online library catalogues and (if necessary) requesting them via interlibrary loan? I suspect that they'd at least be available at the University of Vermont. Nyttend (talk) 11:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

At a Vermont college I was able to find the journal of the Vermont House and a book of the statutes from 1898. That was more or less sufficient for my purposes, although I may end up visiting the state archives and looking up the committee records from 1984. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 October 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you

Thankyou for participating in my request for adminship. Now I've got lots of extra buttons to try and avoid pressing by mistake... Redrose64 (talk) 15:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 October 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 10:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for correction

Thanks for [2] -- don't know how that happened! --Macrakis (talk) 13:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 October 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 10:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

t-back

See [3] Pass a Method talk 21:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 17:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Foot, and more

Thank you for your intervention at Foot (unit) a few days ago, which achieved very quickly what my arguments had not succeeded in achieving. I wonder if I could ask your opinion on another vaguely similar situation? Anthropic units has numerous problems: it's an essay, it's totally unreferenced, and the topic anyway appears not to have the meaning that the article ascribes to it. I have made a number of attempts to address these problems, the latest of which is a move request. One editor opposes any and every thing I do. For all I know that editor is perfectly right, but it doesn't feel that way, and I'd appreciate some comment, or advice on where to take the matter to get some comment. Thanks! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 November2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 November 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

UTC history

I have the original documents of things cited at http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/leapsecs/timescales.html#UTC and I'll assist with any questions if you are going to rewrite the history.Steven L Allen (talk) 22:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

See the most recent entry in http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/leapsecs/onlinebib.html for a pointer to the futureofutc.org preprints.Steven L Allen (talk) 07:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 November 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 November 2011

Talkback

Hello, Jc3s5h. You have new messages at Talk:Xyzzy.
Message added 23:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

mabdul 23:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Removal of RFC

The RFC appeared on Editing Wikipedia talk:Citing sources a page that says - "This page falls within the scope of WikiProject Manual of Style, a drive to identify and address contradictions and redundancies, improve language, and coordinate the pages that form the MoS guidelines" Please revert or assist in having it appear where it was needed. thx ... talknic (talk) 23:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 December 2011

re deleted addition

Hi there

My name is Steve and you recently reviewed an article i wrote reference to signal levels for aerial systems. Thank you for reviewing, however, i would like to know by your account what i have done wrong? I know i accidently had 1 x http which i could not erase too many.. i tried to delete it but could not figure out how.

What would you like to see, so that this is published please?

I am new to this obviously as you can see, but i do have over 30 years experience in this field. I am definitely technical and am a consultant in this field. I do know that this information is very useful for engineers and the public alike, as this 'lack' of information is often what causes people to be ripped off.

please can you advise me,it is much appreciated as i know your work is voluntary.

Best Regards

Steve — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerial Guy (talk • contribs) 17:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia's policy on verifiability and the guideline on identifying reliable sources, especially the self-published sources section. The minimum requirement to use an individual's web site as a reliable source would be that the individual has published books through respected publishers, or has published articles in reputable journals. Even then, established publishers and journals are preferred over self-published sources.
In addition, a citation to a web site should direct the reader to the precise part of the web site that supports the claim.
Finally, there are several digital and analog transmission formats around the world; I find it difficult to believe that one set of signal thresholds would apply to all these different formats and all the different receiving sets. I find it especially hard to believe that the maximum signal levels would be so close to the minimum levels. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jc3s5h. You have new messages at Talk:Xyzzy.
Message added 20:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

mabdul 20:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Your recent revert on Transistor

I noticed you just reverted my addition to article Transistor. I don't pretend to be an expert (I actually visited that article in order to understand how the transistor works), but I am reasonably sure the part shown in the illustration just above the 1 kΩ resistor is in fact an on/off switch. Again, I might well be wrong, but in that case what is the part I'm referring to? --Gutza T T+ 14:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The paragraph you edited was, I believe, a general description of the use of transistors as switches. The phrase "low-power applications such as logic gates" makes it clear that it would not necessarily be used in conjunction with any mechanical switches, because a mechanical switch would not fit on an integrated circuit chip.
I believe the diagram was only intended to illustrate the operating conditions for a transistor being used as a switch in one of a virtually unlimited number of configurations. I don't think it is intended to be a practical configuration that anyone would actually build, so it has no practical purpose. A transistor as a switch in that situation would be more desirable if it were controlled by some logic circuitry. If it were to be controlled by a single mechanical switch, a relay might be more desirable than a transistor. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, I agree that it's not intended to illustrate any practical setup. But that's particularly why I find it so important to explain the reason for using what appears like an overly complicated circuit, even if it's there only for illustrative purposes. I'm not fighting for my specific wording -- I actually mentioned that explicitly in the edit summary --, but I feel very strongly that an explanation along the lines of what I was trying to convey there is necessary at that point. I don't know how else to proceed about this but ask you to rephrase it in a more rigorous manner. --Gutza T T+ 14:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I explained the operation of the light-switch circuit a bit more fully, I hope you find it helpful. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 December 2011

The Signpost: 19 December 2011

The Signpost: 26 December 2011

The Signpost: 02 January 2012

WP:UNITS: "Avoid mixing systems of measurement used for primary measures"

Hi Jc3s5h. I'm not sure I understand your revert of my change to WP:UNITS. I changed "avoid mixing systems of measurement used for primary measures" to "avoid mixing systems of measurement used for primary measures, other than for non-scientific UK-related articles". I'm not sure how this affects US-related articles. Perhaps you thought I added the original statement? Mixsynth (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Electrical units are always SI. Your version suggests that an article that list the units volts and feet first is OK if it is a UK article, but not OK if it is a US article. I suggest you bring it up on the guideline talk page to work out a version that gets across what you are trying to say without creating unwanted side affects. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I see. While what you say is true, doesn't the original statement "avoid mixing units of measurement used for primary measures" itself suggest that listing volts and feet is undesirable?
What I'm trying to do is remove the contradiction between "which units to use" advising that UK articles should mix metric and imperial and "how to present the units" advising against mixing metric and imperial. You can't use miles for distances and litres for volumes without mixing systems. If you could suggest how to rephrase the guidance to remove this contradiction without affecting introducing unexpected discrepancies, I'd be grateful, otherwise I'll open it up to the talk page as you suggest.
As you say though, US articles cannot use volts and feet without mixing systems either, so perhaps the simplest solution would be to remove the guideline to avoid mixing systems altogether – is it really necessary when "which units to use" is sufficient to avoid inconsistent usage? Mixsynth (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 January 2012

The Signpost: 16 January 2012

The Signpost: 23 January 2012

The Signpost: 30 January 2012

Calendar adopted by Greece in 1923

I've been doing some cleanup on the Julian calendar article. The first footnote says that the Ephemeris Supplement of the Nautical Almanac, 1961 edition, says that Greece adopted the Revised Julian calendar in 1923 not the Gregorian calendar. This seems rather unlikely since the Greek reform took effect on 1 March 1923 but the Orthodox synod did not propose the Revised Julian calendar until May 1923. According to the logs, you are responsible for introducing this statement. I don't have access to ESAE 1961. Can you give me the quote? --Chris Bennett (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Here are the relevant excerpts:

At a meetiong of the Congress of the Orthodox Oriental Churches held in Constantinople in May, 1923, the Julian calendar was replaced by a modified Gregorian calendar in which century years are leap years only when the division of the century number by 9 leaves a remainder of either 2 or 6, and Easter is determined by the astronomical Moon for the meridian of Jerusalem; see Milankovitch (8). The change was such that 1923 October 1, Julian calendar, became 1923 October 14 in the new calendar.

In the following list the dates of the official adoption of the Gregorian calendar are indicated in the form of double dates that give the corresponding Julian/Gregorian dates for the first day on which the Gregorian calendar was used. The authorities that were consulted are referred to by the numbers, in bold type, assiged to them in the list of references at the end of this sub-section. References 4 and 7 are considered the most reliable, while 6 and 12 should be reliable for the countries of their authors; 10 is not documented. [p. 413]

...
Greece'

See Milankoitch (8); a slightly modified form of the Gregorian calendar was introduced 1924 March 10/23. [p. 416]

...

8. Milankovitch, M. Das Ende des julianischen Kalenders und der neue Kalender der orientalischen Kirchen. Ast. Nach., 220, 379–384, 1924.

Where does the article say the Greek reform took effect 1 March 1923? All I can find in the article is "while Greece continued to use it until 1924". Jc3s5h (talk) 18:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I was relying on Gregorian calendar#Adoption in Europe, which gives the date 1 March 1923, though no source is given. According to Greek Old Calendarists, which also says Greece adopted the Gregorian calendar for civil use in 1923, the Church of Greece adopted the Revised Julian calendar in 1924. The cited article by Milankovitch is explicitly about church calendars, so doesn't appear to support the claim that the civil calendar is not Gregorian. My guess is that the author of ESAE 1961 confused church and state, but I suppose the only real way to settle it is to get a statement from an official Greek government source.

A translation of Milankoitch is available, and says nothing about civil calendars. The original paper is also available. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

That fits. And according to L. Holford-Strevens, A History of Time p. 42, it was the church "under state pressure" which made the shift of March 10/24 1924; the state had already adopted the Gregorian calendar (though no date is given). Mind you, the next clause says that church and state adopted it in Romania in 1924 -- most other sources I can find says the Romanian civil calendar became Gregorian in 1919.

Based on this, I propose to modify the Julian calendar article to say that it has been replaced as the civil calendar by the Gregorian calendar in all countries which formerly used it, and to modify the footnote to comment that ESAE 1961 applies to the church not the state. (I'll also correct the date in the later mention of Greek adoption.) Is this OK by you? --Chris Bennett (talk) 23:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we can say that ESAE says it was a church-only change to Revised Julian calendar in 1924; they seem to be giving a table for civil changes, and they seem to mean it was a civil change, or a civil & church change. So if it was a church-only change, I think ESAE would have to be regarded as in error and that source should be replaced with better sources.
Yes, that's what I was proposing to do. I think the H-S cite for Greece should be acceptable as verifying that it was a church-only change, since he is careful to separate the shift of dates from the adoption of the Revised Julian leap year rules. On closer examination, I propose to take out the first footnote entirely and attach this to the second footnote which cites ESAE, near the end, as the source for the discussion on transition from Julian to Gregorian. ESAE would still be the applicable reference, because of its table of civil changes, but would be superseded in this one case by H-S.
It's not ideal, since H-S doesn't give the date 1923, but that can be filled in later when found. After all, the Gregorian calendar article doesn't source this date either, and it's more important that it be sourced there than in Julian calendar since it is identified as the main article for that topic and includes a fairly comprehensive table. Alternately, by the same reasoning, we could simply take out Greece altogether, and punt the issue to Gregorian calendar. Not my preference -- it would be better to name the last country to hold on to the Julian calendar as the civil calendar. But it's an option.
It occurred to me today that we might be able to find a European Union enactment that would require all members to use the Gregorian calendar for civil affairs. If so, we might be able to say for sure which calendar Greece observes today without learning Greek. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I searched EUR-Lex. The only EU regulation mentioning the Gregorian calendar is one on metadata, which simply states "The default [temporal] reference system shall be the Gregorian calendar, with dates expressed in accordance with ISO 8601." --Chris Bennett (talk) 01:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
However, I did find the following table issued by the US Social Security administration: [4]. IMO this is clear and official enough. What do you think? --Chris Bennett (talk) 01:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I think the US SSA source is pretty convincing; if they got it wrong they would have people suing them. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Done. Thanks! --Chris Bennett (talk) 03:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Quotes always use original spelling

In this edit you "corrected" the spelling in an old quotation; the original spelling should have been left alone. ~~``

Woops. Sorry about that. I've added an entry to my bot's exception list so it won't happen again. Cheers, CmdrObot (talk) 22:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
STOP! Bots cannot reliably detect quotes! Your bot messed up [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inch&diff=prev&oldid=475226511 AGAIN! You must manually inspect every spelling change to see if it is within a quote. This is your final warning. The next time, I seek to have your bot approval revoked. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, after quite a while attempting to do this somewhat decently, I'm *painfully* aware that bots can't reliably detect quoted text in wiki markup. There are a couple of rules of thumb, and a few obvious cases, but in general it's not easy. Alas, humans, while better, aren't always great at it either.
Contrary to what you said, I do inspect, and always have inspected every change my bot makes, but I'm afraid sometimes I do mess up, and I welcome correction on this, even if it's only to prompt me to stop for the night because I'm getting unreliable/paying insufficient attention. Also, if I've made a systematic error that can be readily identified, I go back and fix them up.
However please stop with the authoritarian tone of voice. I have to say I was really annoyed by your 'final warning', especially since it was for a second 'offence'. I'm a volunteer making a good faith effort and it makes me considerably less inclined to want to continue if I have to field this sort of comment.
Anyhow, apart from that, thanks for the feedback. I will try to watch out more carefully for quoted text--I'm kinda surprised I was caught by 'mariage' because it's one of those annoying words that shows up now and then where the correct French spelling is incorrect (modern) English spelling. Cheers, CmdrObot (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Prime

Please do not change the HTML entity ″ to ″ because it is too difficult to tell the difference between ″ and ". Jc3s5h (talk) 15:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

OK. Added to my html entities exception list! Cheers, CmdrObot (talk) 15:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 February 2012

"Canadian SI policy"

You're obviously not familiar with what Canada's policies are with regard to the use of the SI. The Canadian government wouldn't allow formal publication of ANY material that contradicted its own laws or regulations. Canada, for probably the millionth time, allows EITHER the Canadian/imperial or metric systems to be used (this was done as a compromise in the 1980s to pacify growing public backlash against forced metrication). The article I listed (http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/rail/1996/r96c0135/r96c0135.asp) is in full compliance with Canadian law. 173.180.210.51 (talk) 23:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I've read a number of the useful edits you have made to several articles, explaining that many customary units of measure are still perfectly lawful, in a general sense, in Canada. However, that does not mean the Canadian government might not have a policy about what measurements to use in government documents, which could be different from what the general public is allowed to use.
In any case, the article is about SI, not about measurement units in Canada. The other two citations are sufficient for the purposes of the article about SI. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
The Canadian government gives precedence to SI units in many walks of life (as does the British government), but in sectors that have not been metricated--like Canadian railways (much like UK roads), construction, etc--Canadian imperial units are standard and legally permitted.
Again, do you seriously think the Canadian government would allow a government department such as the Transportation Safety Board of Canada to publish ANY material that contradicted Canadian law or "policy" (answer: absolutely not)? The government signed off on the final report (http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/rail/1996/r96c0135/r96c0135.asp). You can read ALL the similar reports that make use of Canadian imperial measurements. Furthermore, I invite you to study the Act that governs the continued and perfectly legal use of customary Canadian units (http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/W-6/page-3.html#h-5 - USE OF UNITS OF MEASUREMENT 7. No person shall, in trade, use or provide for the use of a unit of measurement unless (a) that unit of measurement is set out and defined in Schedule I or II; or (b) the use of that unit of measurement is authorized by the regulations. Schedule II "Canadian Units of Measurement" http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/W-6/page-14.html#h-17). Could you imagine if I implied the continued use of imperial measurements on British roads contradicted British SI policy? I assure you, Canadian imperial units can be--and are--legally used by government OR members of the public. 173.180.210.51 (talk) 00:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
It really doesn't matter, because the quote is longer than appropriate for a point that really is peripheral to the article, which is about the International System of Units. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 February 2012

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers

Hi Jc3s5h, you made this reversion to "Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers" with the summary: "Undo change to guideline; pre-DeFacto version was accepted for about 3 years." Can you explain in the ongoing discussion at "Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Findings (hence action)" when and where that previous version "was accepted". I've searched for it, and asked about it at the article's talkpage, but no justification for the change has been found. If, as you assert, you know there was acceptance, can you show us when and where it was please. Thanks. -- de Facto (talk). 21:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Jc3s5h: I do not think de Facto meant to be disruptive in moving things around on the talk page. It is policy to add new new topics below older topics so a good bit of what s/he did was compliant with that. I think we will get the most benefit from assuming good faith and moving forward with the proposals and RfC. I hope you agree. Jojalozzo 20:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Please stop misrepresenting me and changing the context of my comments

Hi Jc3s5h, I can see that you disagree with my view that the un-discussed and un-approved change to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers should be reverted, but please discuss it rationally, and in context on the talkpage.

But, please:

  1. Do not misrepresent me as you did here.
  2. Do not separate my comment from the context in which they were made as you did here.
  3. Do not threaten me as you did here.

Thank you. -- de Facto (talk). 20:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I will not tolerate attempts to suppress an RfC. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Please explain what you mean by that remark, and its relevance to my criticism of your behaviour. -- de Facto (talk). 08:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2012

Vermont

MLA, I would say. Neutralitytalk 19:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I definitely defer to whatever the current iteration of the MLA manual says. It was also six years ago, so the MLA format may have changed in the interim. Neutralitytalk 19:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

cite xxx

I have noticed that you have been escaping {{cite xxx}} like {{tl|cite news}}. That just makes it link to the template page. It is a typing aid and when used directly like {{cite xxx}}, then it links to Wikipedia:Citation templates. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 18:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit notes at WP:MOS

Please assume good faith. If the MoS is very poorly written, so that it does not make clear whether the word or is intended to be read in the inclusive or exclusive, then the clarification should be in the text. Misinterpretation of badly presented examples does not indicate an intent to do anything. "I wear a blue tie every weekday, or red if it is Thursday" means that I wear red ties every Thursday. Kevin McE (talk) 21:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Neither defence of your position nor apology: that shows a basic lack of integrity. Kevin McE (talk) 18:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Still nothing to say? You made an accusation against me: you need to either be able to defend it, or have the simple decency to retract it and apologise. Kevin McE (talk) 13:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Selective deletion?

Hi Jc3s5h, I notice that you deleted my recent addition to the "Metrication" article, with this edit, on the grounds that there wasn't cited a reliable source to support it. Fair enough, Wiki policy expects that article content can be verified from reliable sources (and I have since re-added the content in question with appropriate citations).

However, I wondered what made you pick my single sentence, out of the huge quantity of unsupported content in that grossly under referenced article, or are you actually planning to similarly delete all the other unsupported content too? -- de Facto (talk). 22:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I often revert newly-added unsourced content, because there is some hope that the person who added it might have a reliable source at hand, but forgot to add it, or didn't know it was an expectation of material on Wikipedia. Older material might have been added based on the general references which are present in many articles, but it would take more time to spend going through the article history, figuring out who added it, and asking him/her what the source was. Of course, the degree of doubt I have in the material influences how much effort I will put into figuring out if it is really unsourced or not. It's a lot easier to tell for newly-added material. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2012

Mediation Cabal: Request for participation

Dear Jc3s5h: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the Mediation Cabal, which is a Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.

The request can be found at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort.

If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the case talk page, the MedCab talk page, or you can ask the mediator, Mr. Stradivarius, at their talk page. MedcabBot (talk) 15:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 March 2012

I like your user page

For my user ID, I simply chose a drunken character from fiction.
Autobiographically, Varlaam (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:V mediation step two

Hello Jc3s5h, and thanks again for taking part in the MedCab mediation about Wikipedia:Verifiability. I noticed that you haven't yet submitted a draft of the lede as I outlined in the instructions for step two, so I am just sending this message as a reminder. The deadline was 10:00 am (UTC) on Sunday, March 11, but as there are still eight drafts left to come in I am extending this by a day, to 10:00 am (UTC) on Monday, March 12. To recap, I would like you to draft your ideal version of the lead to the policy and post it on the mediation page, without any commentary. You can find the full instructions at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Step two. Please let me know if you have any questions, and I would especially appreciate you getting in touch if you may have difficulty meeting the new deadline. Best wishes — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 March 2012

The Signpost: 19 March 2012

WP:V mediation straw poll

Hello Jc3s5h, this is just to let you know that we are having a straw poll about how many drafts to include in the proposed RfC about Wikipedia:Verifiability. The result of this straw poll will have a large effect on the direction the mediation takes, so if you could let us know your preferred number over at the mediation page, I would be very grateful. I am thinking of leaving the discussion open at least until 10am (UTC) on Thursday, March 22, and possibly longer if we require more time to reach a consensus. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 16:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 March 2012

WP:V mediation compromise drafts

Hello Jc3s5h, this is just to let you know that to help find compromise drafts at the verifiability mediation, I would like each mediation participant to submit at least one draft at one work group that includes the best of all the previously submitted drafts of that work group. This will probably make more sense if you look at this section on the mediation page, but if anything is still unclear, just let me know. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 17:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: Voltage doubler

The reason for the invisible file was that I wasn't sure if it should be assigned a figure number. On the one hand, it should be inserted in series. On the other hand, all of the other figures are line drawings of circuits that are part of the exposition, and it's a photograph that's not nearly as important. So I left it commented out until I figured out what to do. (Any suggestions?)

As for the reference, fair cop; I was being lazy. Let's look for some references:

That's probably the best citation. Is that good enough to put it back? Any ideas on the figure-numbering issue? 71.41.210.146 (talk) 11:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

  • I agree US Patent 3,713,018 is a sufficient citation to put the text back. But the exterior of a power supply isn't very informative, and we don't have a citation saying that the power supply in the picture used the circuit under discussion, so I wouldn't put the photo back in. I suppose you could say something like "The power supply in figure X can be switched between 120V and 240 V with the switch near the power socket; one circuit that could be used for this purpose is a modification of the circuit in figure W..." but that seems rather wordy. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

What's annoying is that I'm into VnT territory. In any computer power supply with such a switch, that's the circuit used. I'd jump out of a plane with a parachute whose release depended on that being true for a random ATX power supply with a switch. I even know it's verifiable, because the statement can certainly be found in many electronics textbooks, especially ones about power supplies. But I don't have any such textbooks handy to refer to, and it's not often stated explicitly anywhere but textbooks, because it's so widely known it's not worth repeating. (E.g. find an explicit citation stating that the New York subway trains ride on the right side of a track pair.) Anyway, thanks. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:V mediation step five

Hello Jc3s5h, this is another update about the verifiability mediation. We have now started step five, in which we will work towards deciding a final draft for each work group. I would like you to submit a statement about this - have a look at the mediation page to see the details of what you should include. The deadline for this step is 10.00 am on Friday 6th April (UTC), and unlike the other steps I am going to be strict about it. If you don't leave a statement by the deadline, then you won't be able to participate in steps six or seven. If you think you are going to be late turning in your statement, please let me know as soon as possible - I can't promise anything, but it will be much easier to work out alternative arrangements now than it would be after the deadline has passed. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 17:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 April 2012

The Signpost: 09 April 2012

The Signpost: 16 April 2012

resource request

Hi,

I've uploaded the law journal article that you requested at the resource exchange. You can find a link to the article at that page. Best, GabrielF (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 April 2012

The Signpost: 30 April 2012

Reliability

FYI Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wikipedia_reliability#Reliability_of_self_published_books. Would you like to join that project? Membership is free. History2007 (talk) 04:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

For some reason, I don't seem to encounter the kinds of books described in the above page in the type of research I find interesting. So I think I'll leave this to others. Thanks for making me aware of the project. Jc3s5h (talk) 04:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
No problem. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 05:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 May 2012

Markup vs. punctuation

I think you are confusing markup with punctuation. Various forms of dashes (em-dash, en-dash, etc.) are a simple punctuation, and as such there is rarely a need to enter them as HTML entities. cherkash (talk) 02:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

In the case of an expression like UTC−1, when looking at the rendered character, it isn't clear whether the separating character is a dash or a minus sign. Either could make sense unless one is already accustomed to the notation. When in edit mode, it is obvious which it is if html entities are used, but hard to tell if characters are used. It is also difficult for an editor who knows the correct notation to check if an earlier editor got it right unless html entities are used. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

FYI:

For Your Information (no action required, but you may choose to participate):

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wtshymanski

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Wtshymanski

--Guy Macon (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 May 2012

The Signpost: 21 May 2012

English variant on the Certificate Authority article?

I noticed you added a UK English template to the page. It seems, from looking at the article history, that the original editors used US English--and there is still a fair amount of US English spellings in the text. Was there any discussion of this? If there was, I apologize because I missed it.

Thanks! — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 19:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I viewed the page in edit mode with my spell checker on, and could see no errors when it was set to British English, and one error when it was set to American English (plus a bunch of errors for URLs and that sort of thing.) Maybe I overlooked some errors. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2012

The Signpost: 04 June 2012

The Signpost: 11 June 2012

Changes of the length of day

In order to meet your critiques, I have canceled the first paragraph of my article "Changes of the length of day", because everything in this paragraph is already contained in the article "Earth's rotation", probably better formulated. My main subject are the short periodic variations of the length of the mean solar day. To my knowledge, this is mainly caused by the interaction between Earth's surface and the atmosphere (see the citations in the article, in particlular the papers by Hide).

What is wrong in my sentence about the lunar tidal torque? Why do you not improve this sentence?

Yours sincerely, Bnland 11:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bnland (talk • contribs)

I didn't work to improve the article because I couldn't tell what it was supposed to be about. Also, I feel it makes more sense to consolodate this information in the ΔT article. I intend to improve the ΔT article, but am waiting for a book through inter-library loan.
As for the sentence about lunar tidal torque, it is only one of the two leading causes of the net slowing of the Earth's rotation. Lunar tides increase length of day by +2.3 ms day-1 century-1. The other leading cause is the gradual change in the figure of the Earth due to post-glacial rebound causes a shortening of the day by -0.6 ms day-1 giving a net change of -1.7 ms day-1. See TIME From Earth Rotation to Atomic Physics by McCarthy and Seidelmann (2009) p. 53–4.
I have a question which you might be able to answer while I'm waiting for the book I ordered, about how the tidal slowing works. Of course the Moon's gravity causes a bulge in the ocean both on the side of Earth near the Moon, and the opposite side. If the bulges were exactly on the line between the Earth and Moon, there would be little slowing, but the tidal friction makes the bulge slightly off-line. The Moon's gravity, acting on the off-center bulge, creates a torque which slows the Earth's rotation, and this momentum must be transferred to the Moon's orbit by conservation of momentum. So although friction is involved, the effect is mainly a momentum transfer. It is not like a toy top where the slowing of the top is caused directly by friction. Have I got that right? Jc3s5h (talk) 13:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 June 2012

The Signpost: 25 June 2012

Authority control integration

Thanks very much for your comments on the authority control proposal on the Village Pump. We've refined it and worked out some more details after the discussion - hopefully addressing your concerns about the documentation! - and there is now a community Request for Comment to approve it being implemented. Any comments gratefully received! Andrew Gray (talk) 09:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

coi template on User talk:Dsbirkett

I think you meant to use ...subst:uw-coi|... instead of ...uw-coi|... on that talk page. Nczempin (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 July 2012

The Signpost: 09 July 2012

Bundling citations

With regards to your though 1. in Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Bundling citations please see Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria#Footnote ordering -- PBS (talk) 07:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 July 2012

The Signpost: 23 July 2012

Thank you

Thank you for drawing my attention to the fact that WP:MOS#Allowable typographical changes mandated gross errors in punctuation: I have removed the offending clause. Kevin McE (talk) 21:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 July 2012

The Signpost: 06 August 2012

The Signpost: 13 August 2012

August 2012

Hello, I'm Elizium23. Your recent edit to the page Albertus Magnus appears to have added incorrect information, so I removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Elizium23 (talk) 17:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 August 2012

Credo Reference

I'm sorry to report that there were not enough accounts available for you to have one. I have you on our list though and if more become available we will notify you promptly.

We're continually working to bring resources like Credo to Wikipedia editors, and this will very hopefully not be your last opportunity to sign up for one. If you haven't already, please check out WP:HighBeam and WP:Questia, where accounts are still available. Cheers, Ocaasi 19:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 August 2012

Sigma9HD is a yagi?

According to the Sigma9HD specs it is a yagi. It is a very new patented design, with circular directors and dipole.

Sigma9HD specs:- http://www.fracarro.com/international/download/prodottitvsat/Aerials/Sigma9HD.pdf

Thanks for keeping the TV Antennas wiki clean =] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dezmonditoz (talk • contribs) 16:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't look like a Yagi. The datasheet claims "Fracarro’s original patented design enables particular directivity (with the maximum reduction in interference) and a high gain comparable with an aerial twice its length." Without saying so in so many words, this implies it isn't a Yagi because it is patented, and the patent(s) (if any) on Yagis would have expired decades ago. Also, if it is comparable in gain and directivity to aerials twice the length, just what kind of aerial are they comparing to? Wouldn't they compare it to a Yagi?
Also, can you point out where the company released the image to the public domain? Jc3s5h (talk) 17:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Opening sentence in specifications states "New series of wideband Yagi aerials with F connector and double reflector." It is a yagi. As the source country is Italy not the US, not sure how the law is applied here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dezmonditoz (talk • contribs) 07:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't find any clear definition of how closely an antenna must match the original Yagi-Uda design to still be called a Yagi, so I suppose we could go by the manufacturer's designation. As for the picture, there are copyright treaties among most countries, including Italy and the United States. Everything you find on the web is automatically copyrighted. You must find a written license or dedication to the public domain. See Commons:Licensing. Please indicate where you found this dedication to the public domain, otherwise I will have to nominate the image for deletion from Commons. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 September 2012

The Signpost: 10 September 2012

The Signpost: 17 September 2012

The Signpost: 24 September 2012

The Signpost: 01 October 2012

The Signpost: 08 October 2012

Removed information

We're waiting for FrankH to replace what we removed from Year? It won't wait long. I'd rather have the concept off by a few nanoseconds. Happy editing! — CpiralCpiral 06:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Year is obviously a broad article. Effects that are only about 1/20th of the total variation, and which appear to be too small to experimentally verify, and which are ignored by the Astronomical Almanac and not mentioned in any edition, including the 2012 edition, of the Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac, don't seem to me to be something to mention in a broad article. Now if someone can cite a source showing that although solar mass loss is a small effect over a few thousand years, but becomes the dominant effect over millions or billions of years, then it would be worth mentioning. But I don't think it belongs until such a source is found. Jc3s5h (talk) 09:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Please take notice that this matter is discussed on Talk:Year, and please direct further discussion there. Jc3s5h (talk) 10:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 October 2012

The Signpost: 22 October 2012

Curly quote usage.

Ok, I had seen both quotes styles used. I was not aware the nice one were forbidden and only uggly allowed in Wikipedia.
Nonetheless, I note the argument in the MOS:QUOTEMARKS page are essentially meaningless:
  • Typographical, or curly, quotation marks and apostrophes might be read more efficiently; and many think they look more professional.
    Yes
  • But for practical reasons the straight versions are recommended, and double rather than single quotation marks as primary.
    Unclear.
  • Consistency keeps searches predictable
    Do we really need to search for quote?
    • Wikipedia searching:
      If yes, you can search for " Category:Children’s books " and find it
    • Google uses double quotation marks to keep a sequence of words intact
      This is google language and is not related to wikipedia style.
      To be exact the true argument would be we coul imagine that Google ould give different results for Category:Children’s books and for Category:Children's books.
      The fact is Google does not differentiate. The results are the exact same.
    • Browser searching:
      I agree this is probably the most tangible argument.
      Two wrongs do not make a right: if browsers do wrong and are not able to handle common web pages, a bug should probably be open in browser bug tickets
  • Straight quotation marks are easier to type in reliably, and to edit. They are available on every keyboard.
    That's right. However english wikipedia is not limited to using the set of characters available on each computer keyboard.
Regards 86.75.160.141 (talk) 12:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Text file

Hello, there is one sentence which is not understandable (to me) in text file article. It stands:

«A simple text file needs no additional metadata to assist the reader in interpretation, and therefore may contain no data at all, which is a case of zero byte file.»

Nonetheless, if the reader do not know the encoding he cannot interpret a the text file, or at least not correctly. Or what is encoding, if it is not metadata?

Another question is what is the interest on this phrase about zero byte file? In the same way we could write that a book does not need any preface or any epilogue, and therefore may contain no page at all, which is a case of zero page book... is this intended to vehicle any idea? 86.75.160.141 (talk) 22:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course one must know what character encoding is used, such as ASCII or EBCDIC. But usually this is customary on a particular family of computers used in a certain country, such as IBM PC compatible computers used in the United States, so it need not be stated explicitly. Metadata is data about the data. For example, if a file consisted of a list of headstone engravings from a cemetery, the metadata might be a map showing where the graves are, or the dates when the engraving was copied down. Such metadata might be stored in a different file, or even exist only on paper.
Sometimes, especially in the Unix operating systems, the mere existence of a file is used as a signal of some kind, instructing programs how to operate. Or, the creation of a zero-byte file might be a preliminary step just before the file is filled with data. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 October 2012

The Signpost: 05 November 2012

The Signpost: 12 November 2012

SignNow

I have declined speedy deletion on the article SignNow, which you tagged for deletion under criterion G11, as I do not believe the article copy as it currently exists meets the standard of being unambiguously and exclusively promotional. If you disagree, you should nominate this article for deletion at AfD. Note that WP:CSD says "There is strong consensus that the creators and major contributors of pages and media files should be warned of a speedy deletion nomination", which you failed to do. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 15:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 November 2012

Your "Gregorian calendar" revert

The edit you've reverted contained many more changes than the one you objected to. Changing citation style of one reference to use a "cite book" template is a very minor thing. If you really strongly object to structured information and prefer manually formatted entries, then you should change just that. What you did, is throwing out the baby with the bath water: you discarded a lot of extra added information in the citation (and other changes in the article) just because you didn't like one thing that was easily fixable with an incremental change instead of a revert. This is really a poor form of editorship. Don't do this again. I'm going to revert your revert back (since it was really done in bad faith), and you should do an incremental change to it as you see fit. cherkash (talk) 19:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see the extent of the other changes, sorry. I do hope you will review your script to make sure it doesn't introduce citation templates into article that are not using them. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Funny, you did the exact same thing to my edit on United States customary units. I actually was about to use the term "baby with the bath water" in reference to it too. You need to look at what's going on in some of these edits, and when there's something that should be changed, do it discretely; particularly when the user has a clue and fixing the problem isn't onerous. Shadowjams (talk) 05:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
You mean this edit which has an edit description "clean up, soft hyphens, unicodify using AWB" but which really adds conversion factors? I give very little deference to bot edits, even when manually reviewed. An inaccurate edit summary does not enhance my level of deference. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Jc3s5h:Proposal on YYYY-MM-DD numerical dates

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Jc3s5h:Proposal on YYYY-MM-DD numerical dates, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Wikipedia:Mosnum/proposal on YYYY-MM-DD numerical dates. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. MadmanBot (talk) 15:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 November 2012

Periods in equations

Regarding this edit I personally agree with you that placing punctuation at the end of a display formula does not aid clarity. But it is the standard style for mathematical journals and books and is part of our MOS, see MOS:MATH#PUNC. So you probably shouldn't be reverting people who are going around applying it. SpinningSpark 07:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 December 2012

The Signpost: 10 December 2012

Verdy p's edits to the Julian calendar article.

I see you have corrected his most recent mistakes. Could you please takes a look at his earlier edits? There are other errors and most of what he's added, which is quite a lot, really doesn't add anything of value. I've tried talking to him, see User talk:Verdy p#Julian calendar edits, and he fixed a couple of errors, but no luck on getting him to think about whether his edits are relevant or useful. --71.136.32.166 (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 December 2012

The Signpost: 24 December 2012

Voltage Controlled Bipolar Edits

Please do not revert my edits on the correct description of the operation of the bipolar transistor unless you can provide a true physics based explanation as to why the collector current is actually *controlled* by the base current.

Please do not revert my edits unless you can explain why the description I gave as to the current being controlled by the base emitter voltage, as clearly given by the Gummel Poon paper I cited, is false.

The reality is that, the base current controlled description of the transistor is simply an “old wives tale”. It is impossible, in general, to competently design transistor circuits with such a false understanding of transistor operation. The number of carries entering the base terminal does not control the collector/emitter current. It’s that simple.

It is not an “exaggeration” to clearly explain the true voltage controlled nature of the bipolar transistor. It is necessary in order to correct the very common misunderstanding that leads to much effort being wasted in remedial instruction to new junior analog designers that are unable to design correctly due to such misunderstandings.

If you wish to discuss this further you can email at [email protected], remove the _removethis Kevin aylward (talk) 11:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Clarification

Hello Jc3s5h,

In a MOSNUM discussion you stated: "... there is no doubt in my mind that every time Michael Glass edits this guideline it is for the purpose of advancing his campaign to metricate the world, starting with Wikipedia." The truth is considerably less colourful.

  • Many of my edits to MOSNUM have been copy edits that have made no difference to the actual policy. Please see [5], [6] and

[7]

  • When I propose changes in policy I make it clear what I want to change and why. See [8] You will notice that this proposed change was thoroughly revised and discussed before the change was made.
  • Even though you did not agree with one of my edits to MOSNUM I hope you will agree that I was upfront about proposing it. See [9]

I hope this clarifies my position, but if you have any further concerns, please get back to me.

Have a Happy New Year. Michael Glass (talk) 03:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 December 2012

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

3RR BS

Don't post fake 3RR warnings to people's talk pages to further your own WP:ERA agenda.—Machine Elf 1735 19:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I stand by the warning. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Rubbish, then consider yourself warned to stay off my talk page.—Machine Elf 1735 19:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

Formula for determination of dominical letter of a year

For the Gregorian calendar, the formula is

for the Julian calendar it is


where

  • DL = dominical letter (A = 1,..., G = 0)
  • y = (year - 1) mod 100
  • c = [(year - 1)/100].

Note: For a leap year, the second letter = the first letter - 1.
For 2013, where y = 12, c = 20, DL = (0 + 20 + 0) mod 7 = 6 = F.
For 1582, where y = 81, c = 15, DL = (2 + 16 + 1 + 2) mod 7 = 0 = G


What's wrong? --183.250.0.247 (talk) 04:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Q5968661

You must follow Wikipedia's No original research policy and cite the reliable source from which you obtained the formula. If you made it up yourself, go publish it somewhere else; Wikipedia is not the place to publish original ideas. Jc3s5h (talk) 04:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
It is not an original idea at all! It is common knowledge! Everyone can understand it and prove it including yourself! --Q5968661 (talk) 08:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Proving it requires a reliable description of the rule and confidence in one's math ability, or skill in computer programming and a reliable long list of dominical letters. So thanks for providing a citation to the book. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2013

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

The Signpost: 04 February 2013

The Signpost: 11 February 2013

The Signpost: 18 February 2013

Thank you

Thanx for undoing the mess. Thought I was OK. I ended up finding the incorrect "ref" and corrected it. Page seems fine

CW Charles.O.Wilson (talk) 21:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your remove! --Q5968661 (talk) 14:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Filter

It worked - but my filter only checked for "radiondistics", not "radiondistica". Might need to do something about it... - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 21:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

An administrator added "\bradiondistics\.altervista\.org\b" the external web site to the black list. I hadn't noticed that was a "radiondistica" as well. We'll see if there are further problems. Thanks. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2013

UTC origins: I would like to show you CCIR Recommendation 374

I hold great respect for McCarthy and Seidelmann but the assertion they made about the origin of UTC is not supported by the text of the CCIR document. The citation for the 1963 official origin of UTC is invalid. How can we produce better text about this?Steven L Allen (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The exact wording on p. 227 is "The original form of UTC was formalized in CCIR Recommendation 374 in 1963." Have you read TIME From Earth Rotation to Atomic Physics? Is there some subtle difference between what is in the Wikipedia article and what is in TIME...' that makes the Wikipedia article wrong? Have you read the CCIR Recommendation? What does it say?
Do you have some alternate source that indicates when the original form of UTC began as something more than an agreement between the US and UK? Of the several steps toward coordination that must have occurred around 1963, which is the one you consider most important, that should be presented to our readers? Jc3s5h (talk) 21:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
My copy of McCarthy and Seidelmann was signed by the authors at the 2011 meeting on the future of UTC, and I'm working with Seidelmann on the next meeting. I can say that there is a disconnect between what the folks inside the time service bureaus believed and what was available to anyone outside. Such subtlety of the wording underlies some of the ongoing contention as ITU-R members compare the written record with the current claims. The first known use of UTC was by Guinot of the BIH in the first edition of Bulletin Horaire that he edited in 1964, but page 62 of the English edition of Guinot's memoir "The Measurement of Time: Time, Frequency and the Atomic Clock" says he did not invent it. The reports to and proceedings of the IAU General Assemblies in 1961, 1967, 1970, 1973, and 1976 reveal more of what was understood at the time. It is definitely a mistake to imply that the players had common understanding, vocabulary, goals or foresight, and the CCIR wrote nothing about "UTC" until 1974. How can I share CCIR 374 and the rest in a way that does not publish what is not mine to publish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven L Allen (talk • contribs) 22:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
It sounds like the concern is about more than just the nomenclature "UTC", it seems to be about the methodology of arriving at a common atomic time scale, an agreement about the difference between the atomic time scale and UT2, and a systematic way of deciding when to make time steps and frequency adjustments in UTC. If you are relying on unpublished sources, then Wikipedia is not the first place for you to publish a synopsis of those sources. But you could publish a synopsis in some reliable publication and then you, or another editor, could quote, paraphrase, or summarize the synopsis in the Wikipedia article.
In the mean time, is there some summary that is published in a reliable source that comes closer to describing the situation than Time...? Jc3s5h (talk) 00:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Everything is published and I am looking at the original contemporary documents. CCIR Rec 374 is on page 193 of Volume III of the Documents of the Xth Plenary Assembly of the CCIR in Geneva in 1963. It requires broadcasts to track UT2 and does not contain the term UTC nor the word coordinated. The US government reprinted CCIR Rec 460 on on page 31 of Monograph 140, "Time and frequency: theory and fundamentals" (Byron E. Blair, 1974) visible at http://digicoll.manoa.hawaii.edu/techreports/PDF/NBS140.pdf and although it introduces leap seconds it still does not contain the term UTC nor the word coordinated. In 1966 Hans D. Preuss of the Department of Geodetic Science at Ohio State University wrote report number 70, "The Determination and Distribution of Precise Time" as part of a contract for NASA visible at http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19660020453_1966020453.pdf In table 5.3 it is evident that as late as 1964 the USNO and US NBS were maintaining two different scales called coordinated with broadcasts that had 4 different offsets spanning over 5 milliseconds, and on page 154 it can be seen that as late at 1965 the USNO was calling their time scale by the name "UT2C". I have not found Rec 460-1 in any lending library and had to obtain it directly from the ITU-R librarian.
Whereas the surviving folks from the time service bureaus want to believe that they were using UTC from 1963, the contemporary records show that not even inside the time service bureaus did they have a common vocabulary. The whole decade of the 1960s was a struggle to figure out what they wanted to be doing and how they wanted to describe it. The regulatory documents from the CCIR were not sharing that vocabulary, behind a paywall then, and almost impossible to obtain now. But it is unsupported by the contemporary documents and misleading to assert that the CCIR did anything official with UTC in 1963. The first two versions of CCIR Rec 374 both specified UT2. The 1967 IAU General Assembly used the term "UTC" when discussing CCIR Rec 374-1 which only mentions UT2. The first version of Rec 460 simply said "Universal Time", gave no instructions on how leap seconds should be implemented, and prescribed that the instructions would come later. Not until CCIR Rec 460-1 in 1974 was there any regulatory document mentioning UTC. Steven L Allen (talk) 06:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
McCarthy and Seidelmann on p. 227 state "the original form of UTC was formalized in CCIR Recommendation 374 in 1963". I don't think this means that the time scale was named "UTC", but rather that the countries involved had agreed on a method for broadcasting a coordinated time scale. Also, I don't think this rules out the possibility of broadcasting other time scales for particular purposes, just as now GPS time is broadcast by satellites. Finally, leap seconds were not introduced until 1972 so I wouldn't expect to find them in earlier documents. I'll have to take a look at the links you provided when I get a chance. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
While inside NBS Monograph 140 be sure to look at pages 381 and 382 with the documents that show the USNO and NBS were using different frequency offsets and steps until 1968-10-01, so that until that time the "coordination" inherent in the formula for "UTC" was not even consistent within one country, let alone internationally. The Preuss document is a good example of a contemporary document written by someone outside the time service bureaus and regulatory agencies. I think it is a disservice to the wikipedia readers to use the term UTC for 1963 without including text pointing out the differences and confusion among outsiders that Preuss makes evident.Steven L Allen (talk) 15:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The Preuss document seems to show that "coordinated" time was widely available in much of the world in 1966, as shown in table 5.5. (I note the definition of "coordinated" on page 92.) So the user of time signals was likely to have coordinated time, which approximated UT2, available but also may have had other broadcast time scales which also approximated UT2, but according to a different scheme. So the main advantage we have today is that time and frequency radio stations (including satellites) either broadcast UTC or something substantially different, like GPS time. Today, any subtle discrepancy in how UTC is derived is likely to be swamped by variations in radio propagation, so the main choice is in the frequency and distance to the station, rather than the station's methodology. So some modification of the article text to reflect the complexity is probably in order. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 March 2013

The Signpost: 11 March 2013

The Signpost: 18 March 2013

The Signpost: 25 March 2013

The Signpost: 01 April 2013

The Signpost: 08 April 2013

The Signpost: 15 April 2013

The Signpost: 22 April 2013

EMR

When deleting other users contributions, plz add a useful justification! There are no wikipedia pages which do exist only to be linked to other wikipedia articels (as you wrote). Even the "disambiguation page lists" alwazs contain list items for which no wikipedia page does exist yet. If you intended to be of any help, then you should have linked the new list item to a wikipedia page. (Just if you really do believe this to be necessary) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.83.196.125 (talk) 09:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Disambiguation dos and don'ts. In particular, notice the third entry in the "Don't" column, which reads "Don't add references or external links." Jc3s5h (talk) 12:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 April 2013

The Signpost: 06 May 2013

The Signpost: 13 May 2013

My edits to "International Atomic Time"

Thanks for pointing out Wikipedia does not have a house citation style. I hope I used the citation format as used in some time related articles.--Francis Flinch (talk) 15:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 May 2013

The Signpost: 27 May 2013

The Signpost: 05 June 2013

Epoch (reference date)

Your comment related to your revision to "Epoch (reference date)" on "22:15, 11 June 2013"‎, "(Date in article inconsistent with date in citation. Delete information that misrepresents source.)" seems to be incorrect as far as I can tell.

The source states on page 52: "Dates are represented by their date number, which is the number of days since the zeroth day of a theoretical calendar year zero."

This is correctly displayed as "January 0, 0" in the revision from "21:42, 11 June 2013‎"

It can be verified within MATLAB by executing the code "datestr(0)" which produces the result "00-Jan-0000"

I believe that your revision should be undone.

69.20.230.162 (talk) 14:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Footnote 8 states, on page 52, "The function datenum returns the date number for any given date and time. For example, datenum('Oct. 19, 2003') is 731873."
Using the date converter at http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/calendar/ the date October 19, 2003 0 hours 0 minutes UT is assigned the Julian date 2452931.5. January 0, 0, 0 hours 0 minutes UT Gregorian calendar is assigned the Julian date 1721058.5. When I checked this yesterday, I believed the difference was incorrect. But I just checked it again, and the difference is correct, 731873. So I will restore the previous version. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 June 2013

Cite RfC

Hi, just to let you know that I added "date of" to your RfC question, [10] as I assume the omission was a typo. Hope that's okay. Best, SlimVirgin (talk) 00:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 June 2013

The Signpost: 26 June 2013

Citing sources?

Hi. In case you missed it, I have a question for you at WT:Citing_sources#Proposal: citation as a means of connecting material to a source regarding whether you still hold a previously stated comment. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Dead links

I have not yet read the info you directed me to but these links were not only dead but had no relevant traceable info attached to them. So is the way-back machine to be used to trace them down and to what purpose???--The One Master Of Puppets (Talk?) 17:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 July 2013

The Signpost: 10 July 2013

My RSN queries

Sorry, I can't reply on RSN here as thread has exceeded my edit box 5000 chars limit. You have replied to my later question, not original query. One govt source may be biased, how can UN, US, European Parliament, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International all be biased at once for event happened in India? (and I have not cited all sources to avoid cluttering the page). Thanks. neo (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Killington Peak:

Swap the template next time. I updated per DATERET and the existing template. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 July 2013

Disambiguation link notification for July 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Case sensitivity, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ada (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 July 2013

The Signpost: 31 July 2013

The Signpost: 07 August 2013

Revised Julian calendar - epoch wklink

Hi Jc3s5, I see you reverted my addition of a wklink to the above article. While the Epoch (reference date) article does not make specific reference to the Julian calendar, it does explain what an epoch is. Having not studied chronology myself I found the Julian calendar article quite enlightening, but I had no idea what the word "epoch" meant, having heard it before but never had it explained to me. The Epoch (reference date) article does that fine.

With this in mind, would you be inclined to revert this back? It is not a Wikipedia requirement that wklinks to external articles also link back to the starting article. Regards, Fattonyni (talk) 11:16, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

My concern is that the Julian and Gregorian calendars are perhaps the two most prominent calendars around, at least in English speaking countries. If their epochs aren't mentioned at the "Epoch (reference date)" articles, maybe they aren't epochs in the sense of that article. I'd like to see it discussed at "Epoch (reference date)" talk page, and maybe put pointers to the discussion at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language and Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities to figure out if we should be calling 1 Jan AD 1 an epoch. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

wp:v

hi,

i have read wp:v. the reason i brought the RfC is because i ran into opposition from other editors who claim that in some cases it may be an acceptable source. this is why i asked you please not to asume my position without reading the other links. i can see quite well all the cautions in WP:V and WP:RS myself.

i don't think this topic should require a RfC, but because I have encountered opposition i am trying to get broader community consensus, whatever that is. i think i know what that will be, but i don't know until i ask. i don't feel like your assertions that I have not read WP:V are helpful, and they feel personally disrespectful. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 22:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 August 2013

The Signpost: 21 August 2013

The Signpost: 28 August 2013

Reverted edit in article Figure of the Earth

Hi! I saw that you reverted my edit in Figure of the Earth in this edit, but you didn't leave any motivation. So why did you revert my edit? See the motivation I left for the edit I made, and please explain why it shouldn't be that way if you do want my edit to be reverted. —Kri (talk) 09:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe the assertion in your edit summary that the first letter after a colon is capitalized. For example, The Associated Press Stylebook (Norm Goldstein Ed., 2007, p. 325) states "capitalize the first word after a colon only if it is a proper noun or the start of a complete sentence...." Jc3s5h (talk) 12:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for explaining that to me. I actually thought the first letter after a colon should always be capitalized, but there you see, apparently it should not. —Kri (talk) 18:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 September 2013

The Signpost: 11 September 2013

The Signpost: 18 September 2013

The Signpost: 25 September 2013

Talkback

Hello, Jc3s5h. You have new messages at Dodger67's talk page.
Message added 17:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Odd revert

I don't understand why you reverted my edit at WP:IRS today. In my edit summary I justified the change by saying "however, context matters", and linking to the context matters section of the page.

The edit summary of your revert says you object to "changing the rules so his/her edits will be OK". Well, I object to that too! This was not a rule change, however. It was a clarification. My edit added this wording:

However, context matters. A lightweight source which would be questionable for a controversial claim, may be reliable for establishing lightweight facts which are not extraordinary, controversial nor contentious.

It's almost identical in wording and meaning to what the caption on an image on the page has long said:

A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim, but never for an extraordinary claim.

What rule is changed by my edit?

Even if the edit did effect a rule change, an objection to the motivation for the edit is not a good reason to revert. Objection should be based on a disagreement with the change to the content.

Anyway, I've included the exact wording from the image caption in the page content for now[11]. --B2C 22:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't spot the text in the figure caption, which I must admit, is quite similar to your edit. I don't agree that blogs and the like count even as lightweight sources, unless the author of the blog post can be reliably identified and qualifies as an expert as described in the IRS guideline. My idea of an acceptable lightweight source would be a manufacturer's website for a product that is the subject of an article, or a medical story in a general interest magazine. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Whether any source is appropriate highly depends on the material in the article being supported by the source in question. In other words, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. If the only source for a death of a famous person is a small town blog, that's obviously insufficient. But such a blog is fine for supporting, say, a claim of the first installation of a traffic light in that small town, especially if it is accompanied with photos. --B2C 04:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 October 2013

The Signpost: 09 October 2013

Disambiguation link notification for October 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rutland-1-2 Vermont Representative District, 2002–2012, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dave Potter (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Odysseus1479's talk page.—Odysseus1479 06:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 September 2013

Talkback

Hello, Jc3s5h. You have new messages at Dodger67's talk page.
Message added 17:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Odd revert

I don't understand why you reverted my edit at WP:IRS today. In my edit summary I justified the change by saying "however, context matters", and linking to the context matters section of the page.

The edit summary of your revert says you object to "changing the rules so his/her edits will be OK". Well, I object to that too! This was not a rule change, however. It was a clarification. My edit added this wording:

However, context matters. A lightweight source which would be questionable for a controversial claim, may be reliable for establishing lightweight facts which are not extraordinary, controversial nor contentious.

It's almost identical in wording and meaning to what the caption on an image on the page has long said:

A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim, but never for an extraordinary claim.

What rule is changed by my edit?

Even if the edit did effect a rule change, an objection to the motivation for the edit is not a good reason to revert. Objection should be based on a disagreement with the change to the content.

Anyway, I've included the exact wording from the image caption in the page content for now[12]. --B2C 22:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't spot the text in the figure caption, which I must admit, is quite similar to your edit. I don't agree that blogs and the like count even as lightweight sources, unless the author of the blog post can be reliably identified and qualifies as an expert as described in the IRS guideline. My idea of an acceptable lightweight source would be a manufacturer's website for a product that is the subject of an article, or a medical story in a general interest magazine. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Whether any source is appropriate highly depends on the material in the article being supported by the source in question. In other words, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. If the only source for a death of a famous person is a small town blog, that's obviously insufficient. But such a blog is fine for supporting, say, a claim of the first installation of a traffic light in that small town, especially if it is accompanied with photos. --B2C 04:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 October 2013

The Signpost: 09 October 2013

Disambiguation link notification for October 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rutland-1-2 Vermont Representative District, 2002–2012, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dave Potter (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Odysseus1479's talk page.—Odysseus1479 06:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 October 2013

The Signpost: 23 October 2013

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter


Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 October 2013

The Signpost: 06 November 2013

The Signpost: 13 November 2013

The Signpost: 20 November 2013

Vermont

There was a sentence in the article about Vermont that read as follows: 

 Burlington's metropolitan area is 211,261.

This sounded odd, since the use of the word "area" suggested physical area, but no units were given (and 211,261 square miles or square kilometers would have been far too large). I figured out from context that the intention was to say that Burlington's *population* is 211,261, so I added *population* to the sentence. However, you reverted this with the note that the change is redundant. If the idea is that the previous sentence contains the word "population" and you want to minimize repetition of the word, then I can see changing it to "Burlington's metropolitan area has 211,261 people", or "The figure for the greater Burlington metropolitan area is 211,261". But as it stands, the sentence says that Burlington's metropolitan area is 211,261, which is both meaningless (due to the lack of units) and confusing. - AlanUS (talk) 23:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

When I read it it seemed like the 211,261 figure was part of the previous sentence, but on re-reading it, I see your correction was warranted, so I restored it. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. -AlanUS (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 December 2013

The Wikipedia Library's Books and Bytes newsletter (#2)

Books & Bytes

Sign up for monthly delivery

Welcome to the second issue of The Wikipedia Library's Books & Bytes newsletter! Read on for updates about what is going on at the intersection of Wikipedia and the library world.

Wikipedia Library highlights: New accounts, new surveys, new positions, new presentations...

Spotlight on people: Another Believer and Wiki Loves Libraries...

Books & Bytes in brief: From Dewey to Diversity conference...

Further reading: Digital library portals around the web...
Read Books & Bytes

The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs) 16:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Apology

Sorry for this unintended edit. From the timestamp, I can only assume I inadvertently hit "rollback", as I closed my laptop. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I do pretty well not clicking things on my laptop unless I want to. But don't ask about my "smart" phone; that darn thing has mind of it's own. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 December 2013

The Signpost: 18 December 2013

The Signpost: 25 December 2013

3rd millennium

I reverted the edit you made to it, and left a note on the talk page. I'm leaving you this message, because the revert probably won't show up on your notifications. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 January 2014

Esquire suffix

You should explain yourself. Before my recent edit, the language was misleading. Esquire is not a title or suffix legally recognized by any state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.228.83.42 (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe your objection is over the word "often." Fair enough, we ought to leave that word out. The remainder of the edit should remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.228.83.42 (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

You must cite a reliable source, such as a law review article, stating that the author has examined the laws in every single state and none of them have any law or binding regulation that makes any connection between Esquire and being licensed to practice law. I recall reading that there is at least one state that prohibits non-lawyers from using the title "Esquire". But I am not the one adding information to an article, you are. So you have the burden of proving with a reliable source that your information is accurate. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I have found some fairly good evidence that "Esquire" is forbidden to non-lawyers by at least one state. See http://www.americanbar.org/groups/gpsolo/resources/solosez/popular_threads_2007/esqfornonlawyers.html

The Signpost: 08 January 2014

Your recent edits on month abbreviations

Hi there,

I'm just writing to make the following points:

  • You did not acknowledge the earlier discussion within the RfC. Indeed, you said: "As the originator of this discussion...", without acknowledgement that GoingBatty initiated the antecedent discussion or the various other contributors.

Please be more careful to avoid the perception of hampering open discussion. —sroc 💬 03:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I shouldn't have said there was no response; I should have said there was no resolution. I didn't put a note in the prior discussion because it was archived. I felt that since the prior discussion was in the MOSNUM talk page, and I did put a pointer to the new discussion in that page, those who took part in the prior discussion would be aware of the new discussion. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 January 2014

The Signpost: 22 January 2014

Format for dates

I first raised usage of the YYYY-MM-DD format well before the reference that you cite. The arguments over the format pretty well died down when "dynamic dates" were introduced. I don't remember any mention at the time of pre-1583 dates, or, for that matter, the different starting date for years before 1752. I did recognize the problem for BC dates because of the absence of a year zero. Eclecticology (talk) 08:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

deletion of external blog link on Calendar Reform

Howdy,

I noticed that you deleted the external link to theAbysmal Calendar blog. I reviewed the criteria for external links, and I'm not entirely sure why you feel it doesn't qualify. It is a reform calendar. The blog does not charge for anything, isn't selling anything, certainly isn't spamming, and so on. thx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.35.39 (talk) 15:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:External links (click on the blue text to go there) is Wikipedia's guideline on links to external sites. In the Links normally to be avoided section we find number 11 we find this:
The "theAbysmal Calendar blog" appears to meet that description and thus is a link normally to be avoided. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I understand the rationale for the exclusion of most blogs - the blog in question was written by the calendar's creator, and as a result, I would consider the author to be the sole authority regarding the reform calendar in question. I understand why the point is made, however, I feel that the material is well researched (as opposed to unsupported or poorly supported opinion). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.35.39 (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

It isn't just a question of being well-researched. There are more calendar reform proposals to be found than you can shake a stick at. If a bloger who isn't a published expert in the field creates a website about his own creation, there is no reason to take notice of it. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

fair enough - then I suggest that there are a number of external links that meet the same criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.35.39 (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised; I only looked at the one being added, not the ones that were already there. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Why I got such Warning?

Hi Osama Naseem here;

I just got this message from your side. "This is your last warning. The next time you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising, as you did at XML Signature, you may be blocked from editing without further notice."

Am an active participator on Wikipedia from the past many years and am not involved in spamming. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XML_Signature This page is talking about XML Signature and I place the link of XML Signature use cases there so that people should know and gain knowledge in better way. Now just tell me what's spamming in that??? If there is page of basket ball and you share some news/event of basketball there, would it be come under spam? Am sorry, but I didn't get it, that a totally relevant and unique content which is adding some "VALUE" if we place the link there for the guidance of user's how it would be consider as spam? Kindly explain and guide me. May be am unable to understand. (Note: I've read all the guidelines of Wikipedia and I never insert any irrelevant link to any page.)

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.42.2.109 (talk) 05:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Since you, at least recently, always promote the same sites, and don't do anything but promote those sites, I don't believe you. Other editors have warned you too. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

If that site has good authority, and relevant to most topics which I read here, still I cant share that? I believe sharing links of a high authority site is better than sharing poor but different sites. Isn't it? My point is I should be able to post link if that is completely matched and relevant with the content of that page. If the link is irrelevant, have poor content, then it MUST not be shared. But in the case I mentioned above it should be. Need more explanation on it. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osamanaseem (talk • contribs) 08:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Acre 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.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • sized at forty [[Rod (unit)|perches]] (660 ft or 1 [[furlong]]) long and four perches (66 ft wide;<ref>Klein, Herbert Arthur. The Science of Measurement: A Historical Survey. Dover

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Transmission line

My bad, I thought it was voltages. Thank you for your revert. Charon77 (talk) 13:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 4

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 4, February 2014

News for February from your Wikipedia Library.

Donations drive: news on TWL's partnership efforts with publishers

Open Access: Feature from Ocaasi on the intersection of the library and the open access movement

American Library Association Midwinter Conference: TWL attended this year in Philadelphia

Royal Society Opens Access To Journals: The UK's venerable Royal Society will give the public (and Wikipedians) full access to two of their journal titles for two days on March 4th and 5th

Going Global: TWL starts work on pilot projects in other language Wikipedias

Read the full newsletter


MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

revert warning

I wouldnt have had to revert it if you hadnt reverted me instead of reaching a decision on a talk page. This would seem to be an an attempt to win an argument by force instead of by discussion. Namely, by threatening to block me you intend to "win" the argument. A decision has not be reached yet and threats to silence opposition are not welcome. 72.69.132.170 (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I apologize if that seems harsh, but if you had sent me a message first instead of coming out with threats I would have been much calmer. I frankly, do not see why this issue can not be settled civilly with neither one of us being treated like a criminal 72.69.132.170 (talk) 18:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I reiterate the warning I gave you concerning edit warring. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello

There is a discussion HERE that may be of interest to you. Cheers, Mercy11 (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Editing comments

I see you edited your comment at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Century nomenclature from:

So we can adopt the position that the first year to be observed is 1 BC and hence the first century ended in 100; the general population is happy and the ancient sources don't offer enough information to falsify the choice.

to:

So we can adopt the position that the first year to be observed is 1 BC and hence the first century ended in 99; the general population is happy and the ancient sources don't offer enough information to falsify the choice.

The change text is highlighted above, but there was no mark-up on your edited comment. The edit fundamentally changed the meaning of your comment. When making such changes, especially after others have subsequently comments, you should mark up the changes so that others can clearly see what was changed, as this may impact how others' comments are interpreted: see WP:REDACT. I suggest you mark up the comment as follows:

So we can adopt the position that the first year to be observed is 1 BC and hence the first century ended in 100 99; the general population is happy and the ancient sources don't offer enough information to falsify the choice.

So we can adopt the position that the first year to be observed is 1 BC and hence the first century ended in <del>100</del> <ins>99</ins>;; the general population is happy and the ancient sources don't offer enough information to falsify the choice.

—sroc 💬 08:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I thought about doing that, but no one had reacted to the comment, so I didn't. But since you noticed, I will mark it up now. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Links to youtube

I recently added links to youtube explanations to the values of Kepler's equation and the ellipse that you removed. First, let me stress that I only now saw your messages (after making 3 changes) so I was not trying to ignore your comments. I should note that these are pedagogical explanations of the derivations that are meant to help the reader understand the topic. There is no new results presented in these explanations and they do not represent new research. They simply address important issues that are not addressed in the article. Lets consider Kepler's equation. The derivation is not explained in the article. I urge you to look at the derivation presented in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqFrLvBnBGU, and judge for yourself wether or not it would be helpful for the readers and wether or not it represents new research. I would appreciate your response. Thanks in advance. Boaz Katz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boazkaka (talk • contribs) 16:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Since the source is not needed to verify the material in the article, but instead provides extra information, it should be an external link rather than a citation. WP:ELNO indicates in number 11 that links to personal websites should not be made unless the person who created the website is a recognized expert. User-submitted YouTube videos are in effect personal websites.
Also, the Conflict of interest guideline gives information about including information about yourself and your work. It DOES allow citing your own work if you are a recognized expert (and I think that would extend to external links). A recognized expert is described in the Identifying reliable sources guideline as an "established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications.: So if you have published articles in recognized astronomical or mathematical journals, I think it would be OK for you to add the link to the "External links" section. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

As an astrophysicist at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, which has published several papers in relevant journals such as the Astrophysical Journal and the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomy Society, I consider myself a recognized expert. I will therefore add the links as external links as you suggest. (the following signature has wrong time since I only learned now how to add signatures...) Boazkaka (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi again, Having thought about it a bit more, the derivation of Kepler's equation is not new information but rather supports the claim in the page- the validity of Kepler's equation. Given that this is a pure mathematical statement, a direct illustration which the reader can see and understand, allows him to judge for himself whether it is true or not. I therefore think that a reference rather than an external link is in place. More importantly, I am thinking of usefulness to readers who read this page and want to understand why this is true. Dear Jc3s5h, do you know why Kepler's equation is true? Do you care about knowing? I think a reference to an explanation would be helpful for the readers. Do you agree?

Here is a more generic point - I believe video (or a talk) is the best way to explain mathematics and science. It is not inferior to text, it is superior. Like text, the viewer can judge for himself, in a clear fashion, whether the argument is convincing. While the video is thus not less trustworthy, it provides many more communication features such as using the pointer and allowing the viewer to listen while looking. In my opinion, the main reason that most references are in text format is that we simply did not have an efficient way to produce and distribute videos until recently. It will take a lot of time until the power of video as a way to communicate science will be fully appreciated.

Unless I am mistaken, there is no way to incorporate video in wikipedia. Do you agree that when appropriate, links to explanation videos are a good solution?

Best, Boaz Boazkaka (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it is usually easier to tell if a written source verifies the information in Wikipedia; videos are apt to be more subject to interpretation than written sources. Also, passages in written sources can be more easily reviewed several times to be sure of the interpretation than video sources. Often, articles are vandalized, and the next editor who comes along is interested in quickly verifying which information was correct and which was the vandalized version. Searchable electronic text is best for this; printed text is next best (if the editor has access to it), and video is the most difficult for this use. I would not like to see a video used instead of a written source whenever that can be avoided.
Whether to treat a video as an additional citation or as an external link is not so obvious. External links don't get quite as much scrutiny as citations, so a video by an expert who's name is not immediately recognizable is more apt to be deleted as a citation than as an external link. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I see your point about verifiable sources. I think that very short videos are o.k. in this respect since its easy to quickly check if they make sense. I try to make videos that contain 1 slide so you can immediately see the argument. I prefer citations given their usefulness. Citations are given in context. I'll take the risk with additional editors changing this. Boaz Boazkaka (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC) 

I now realize that links to youtube from Wikipedia are hopeless as 3 editors already removed my links to different values without even trying to see if the explanation was helpful or not. This is very unfortunate since it makes a huge resource of information and pedagogical material (by numerous people) inaccessible . If you have ideas how to implement video to Wikipedia or make links that will stay there I will be very happy to hear. Otherwise I give up.

I think you guys have the wrong approach: you ask yourself- is this verifiable? This is the wrong question - information on Wikipedia is never reliable. It could be very helpful though. You should ask yourself - is this helpful.

Best, Boaz Katz Boazkaka (talk) 22:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I think this is an issue that extends beyond Wikipedia. Wikipedia essentially serves to summarize and collect reliable sources. Many other Internet sites run by people who are unknown to the general public do the same. It would be helpful if sites like YouTube which could be the sites that get collected, had a better mechanism to indicate the qualifications of the people or organizations that upload videos. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Leap year tag

Regarding your tagging of Leap year: I appreciate your concern about this. The number of people, e.g., who loudly proclaimed during Y2K that 2000 was not a leap year was truly frightening. But your tag is probably not the right tag in this case. (Do you seriously contest the accuracy of the algorithm?) -- Elphion (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I have changed the tag to {{Refimprove section}}. Although, the accuracy of the algorithm can be nit-picked in that it does not state a valid range, and does not work for years stated in BC notation. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the setting of the algorithm needs some verbiage as you suggest (including that "year" is an integer). I think it would help diffuse things if you contributed suggested wording to the talk page. I think nailing down a "definitive source" (my interpretation of your request) is not really viable, for a variety of reasons (e.g., WP is not in the business of parroting external sources, and the value of WP depends on the expertise and conscientiousness of its editors). It would suffice, I think, to add a <!-- note --> to the section saying that the algorithm is the result of consensus on the talk page, and proposed changes should be discussed there first. -- Elphion (talk) 17:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
If the algorithm is a straightforward implementation of the verbiage from the Naval Observatory and Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac, does it have any value? A reader capable of verifying the correctness of the algorithm from those sources is equally capable of implementing it him/herself from those sources. The section has a long history of changes and challenges.
An analogous problem may be found at "Gregorian calendar". People kept messing with the leap year rule in the lead so often that an exact quote from a reliable source had to be used so that editors with no expertise in calendars could know when to revert the ill-advised edits. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but in both cases, the article has been almost immediately corrected. The problem of the clueless editor (even clueless admins) will always be with us no matter how iron-clad the sources. For better or worse, we allow edits from just about anywhere; it is the vigilance of editors that keeps the information accurate. -- Elphion (talk) 17:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Those correcting bad edits may be coming from a few different directions. It might be someone who has the page on his/her watchlist because he/she is interested in the topic. Such an editor has a better chance of figuring out if the source actually supports the article or not when this isn't crystal-clear. But the editor might be someone who noticed an unskilled editor, or an editor crusading for his/her POV, on some other article. So the editor tries to clean up the undesirable edits, even in articles where the cleaner isn't especially skilled. So it is helpful if frequently-messed-with passages are backed up by sources that obviously support the material. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Another thought is that if editors acting in good faith are constantly changing a passage, that is evidence that whatever sources are there are unpersuasive and better sources should be found. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Disagree that the edits are due to poor sources; they are from people, as you indicate, who don't bother to read the articles or check (or believe) the sources. Determined clueless editors don't care (and can't evaluate) whether the source is reliable anyway -- we will still be reverting such edits regardless of the quality of the source. As for good-faith edits, if there is in fact a problem, that's what the talk page is for; that's the WP model for handling disagreements like this. I don't object to your providing a sterling source (it can't hurt), but the dynamics of WP depend critically not on the sources but on the editors. In the meantime, the current pseudocode is obviously correct, reasonably transparent, and sufficiently efficient (though as we agree it needs a bit more documentation). -- Elphion (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Your reversion of me

Re: this reversion. The "next sentence" which I referred to in my edit summary says "If either or both endpoints are in a 'mixed' format (containing two or more of month, day, year) a spaced en dash ({{snd}}) is used". The example I removed was June–August 1940. Well, "August 1940" is one of the endpoints and it contains two of the specified components (month and year), so a spaced en dash should be used. Why do you disagree?

Also, you said "I don't know what 'contraindicated' means in previous edit summary, no medicine is being practiced here." My American Heritage Dictionary defines "contraindicate" as "To indicate the inadvisability of." That's the entire definition, with absolutely no mention of medicine. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 5

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 5, March 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

  • New Visiting Scholar positions
  • TWL Branch on Arabic Wikipedia, microgrants program
  • Australian articles get a link to librarians
  • Spotlight: "7 Reasons Librarians Should Edit Wikipedia"

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Citations at AU article

Hi, just a note. No objections to your edits switching to the citation template, but I've been investigating these templates myself recently. Perhaps you're unaware that there can be subtle differences (I doubt you'll get bit in this article). But the point is that the "cite this" and "cite that" are designed to be oriented to more specific citation targets, while "citation" is more a "one size fits all". There's really no "better", and no fundamental reason to insist on one over another within an article. Even as engineering goes, the basic functions are all powered by the same underlying module. Really, we're talking slightly different interfaces here. The key that is worth insisting on is that it is better to use some sort of a citation template in each citation than it is simply to construct a "< ref >" pair. Cheers, Evensteven (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah well, I now see you're probably aware of all that already. So I guess my comment boils down to: "I can't really see the point of insisting on use of 'citation' over various flavors of 'cite this' or 'cite that'". There's no practical need, and no practical difference in result. Evensteven (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Extra parameters can be specified to make cite xxx look like citation, or vice versa, but it's easier to change the name of the template. The principal difference is that, by default, citation separates elements with commas while cite xxx separates elements with periods. Outside Wikipedia, it is common to use commas as separators in footnote/endnote citations, and periods as separators in lists of works (that is, the list is in alphabetical order). Since the article, back in 2010, consistently used citation, I made it consistently use that for the endnotes, but used cite xxx in the further reading list. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I hadn't picked up on the punctuation detail - looking for other things, I guess. I find myself leaning your way. Evensteven (talk) 02:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk back

Hello, Jc3s5h. You have new messages at Boghog's talk page.
Message added 15:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Books & Bytes, Issue 6

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 6, April-May 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

  • New donations from Oxford University Press and Royal Society (UK)
  • TWL does Vegas: American Library Association Annual plans
  • TWL welcomes a new coordinator, resources for library students and interns
  • New portal on Meta, resources for starting TWL branches, donor call blitzes, Wikipedia Visiting Scholar news, and more

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Rotation

Jc3s5h, ta for that. I wasn't thinking - and tho there is a diurnal aberration, it's smaller than parallax. Chris55 (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

am/pm use worldwide.

am/pm worldwide. This page is too US centric and does not give the complete picture of what people say in every day life, primarily because there is no published standard in countries where the government and industry use the 24 hour system of time. I moved to the USA when I was 36 and was amazed by the use of am/pm for everything. I never could get used to the noon hour being 12 pm because in Kenya where I grew up, midnight on New Years Eve (the only time we ever cared about the time at midnight) was 12 pm. After reading the article in Wikipedia I contacted various people I know in the English speaking world, Kenya, the UK, South Africa and Australia. Every single one of them knew 12 pm as midnight, so I had not been imagining things. When I told them that in the USA time went from 11 am to 12 pm to 1 pm they were all equally amazed. Now how do you prove this? Factual information needs to be included in this article, right now the only standard on this is published in the USA and Canada, but it does not reflect the situation globally. Avi8tor (talk) 22:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I keep an eye out for this kind of confusion, but have never come across any non-US sources on the topic. Perhaps you have some ideas about where to look. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:07, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I can give you phone numbers, but what is required is a scientific study. All I have is a survey of people I know who live around the planet and never consider this sort of thing. I'll see if I can come up with something. Presently the information displayed is incorrect in my estimation. Avi8tor (talk) 23:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Here is a reference that agrees with what I've stated with comments from various places on the planet. http://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,,-1752,00.htmlAvi8tor (talk) 23:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Although The Guardian would generally be considered a reliable source, like similar publications, some sections would not be considered reliable. Among the unreliable sections would be commentary that any reader can add, and advertisements. So I don't consider these comments reliable. But the sentence you have challenged as incorrect does not have a supporting citation, so I have removed it. I suggest further comments be on the article talk page. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library: New Account Coordinators Needed

Hi Books & Bytes recipients: The Wikipedia Library has been expanding rapidly and we need some help! We currently have 10 signups for free account access open and several more in the works... In order to help with those signups, distribute access codes, and manage accounts we'll need 2-3 more Account Coordinators.

It takes about an hour to get up and running and then only takes a couple hours per week, flexible depending upon your schedule and routine. If you're interested in helping out, please drop a note in the next week at my talk page or shoot me an email at: jorlowitz@gmail.com. Thanks and cheers, Jake Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Jc3s5h. Thanks for your message. I appreciate your diligence and apologize for providing inaccurate information regarding degrees and their relationship to the unit second; it was an unfortunate error and I am glad you spotted it. As an initial matter, I see that the "Before mechanical clocks" section already lists 4 minutes as one degree of a Earth's rotation, which I agree is the accurate figure.

However, I wish to explain how I made that error so you can see my rationale (however misguided it was).

My mistake was apprehending the second as 1/86,400 of a mean solar day, and then multiplying this figure by 360, which yielded 0.00416666.... which I noted as one tenth of 1/24 (or simply 1/240). Of course, I understand now the correct process entails *dividing* 86,400 by 360, which gives gives 240 seconds or 4 minutes, rather than multiplying 360 by 1/86,400. As a result, it turns out I mistook the reciprocal (1/240) for the proper answer, i.e., 240. Thanks again for catching this silly error. Have a good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.168.207.54 (talk) 22:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


Sometimes it just takes another pair of eyes to spot a problem. Good day. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Credo

Hello! You have received preliminary approval for access to Credo. Please fill out this short form so that your access can be processed. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Greenwich meridian

Hi Jc3s5h. A agree with your comments on the talk page as in 'pour article'. I've added material from my home wiki, but giving a proper source doesn't quite work the same way over here. I've added one, but I don't think that's the right format. AND I've seen your a specialist on the subject, so perhaps you can tell me how to do it? I'm used to our 'Appendix', a template that has room for literature and a translated from template and references. Like on nl:Great_Trigonometrical_Survey#Bronnen. Even our 'translated from' template doesn't work here. Thanks in advance. Sander1453 (talk) 13:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I have to attend to other business, but let me make a few points to begin. First, Wikipedia articles in any language are not reliable sources. See WP:Identifying reliable sources. Next, inline citations should be placed next to the material that the source supports, not just put in a list at the end of the article. Some of the figures you added, such as the distance from the Bradley meridian to the Airy meridian, or the IERS meridian to the Airy meridian, should be supported with inline citations.
Finally, the English Wikipedia always uses the full stop (.) as a decimal point. A comma is never used for this purpose. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Right, thanks. That's helpful. Sander1453 (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
PS. Undid my revisions, too much work for now. I'll be back, someday. Sander1453 (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Inch

Thanks for reverting my wrong correction. I calculated the fraction the other way round obtaining a slightly different result, the same way as 102 is 2% more of 100 but 100 is NOT 2% less of 102. Redgolpe (talk) 14:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Leap seconds web page

Hello Jc3s5h,

I am confused as to why you disallowed a reference to the USA's public survey (Comment of 00:29 on 28 July 2014). The reference to FAA was the closest one could come to the posting of the contributions - the next step would be to use their search engine to find the specific pubic comments. The purpose of the footnote was to show that public comments were solicited, and to help the interested reader find them. Would a revised reference to the FAA findings be permitted if the footnote explained that one must use the search engine? Alternately, would it be better to have several footnotes, each one indicating a specific contribution?

A second question would be how to handle the NTIA U.S. government-only survey, which you also deleted. The NTIA did not post the comments it received from other government bodies, but it did post its decision here: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/ai_1.14_ntia_pv_2012-09-14.doc. Would that reference be acceptable?

thanks, Rightismight (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

You can't expect the reader to read you mind. In the case of standard scholarly practice of citing a paper book or journal, you provide enough information to the reader to find the exact page of the book or article that supports the claim. In the case of an electronic source, explicit details on how to access the relevant part of the electronic source should be provided without requiring any creativity or imagination on the part of the person searching for the source.
If the point that a government agency solicited public comments, there should be a link to the call for comments. Individual comments could be interpreted as unsolicited comments, so links to individual comments don't prove much. It could be useful to link to the agency's summary of the comments, either in the form of a simple count, or in the form of a summary of the content of the public comments.
The file ai_1.14_ntia_pv_2012-09-14.doc might be a useful citation, but it contains a leap of its own, as well as weasel words. The leap is the document being posted on the NTIA website, but claiming to that it is the "U.S. VIEW". It would be helpful to have some kind of background information explaining where NTIA gets the authority to express the U.S. view. The weasel words are "DRAFT" and "if the studies, in accordance with Resolution 653 (WRC-12), support this as a viable solution."
Unfortunately, as I mentioned at Talk:Leap second#Citation clean-up the citations in the article are a mess and need to be cleaned up. I suggest that in the mean time, you use {{citation}} or {{cite web}} to create citations. URLs often change to a different location, or the contents are updated. By giving proper bibliographic information, future editors have a much better chance of relocating the web page after it has moved, or finding a web page by the same author about the same topic.
When citing a PDF, Excel file, or Word file, some thought must be given about whether to link to the file itself, or to a web page that lists and/or describes the file. Some files contain lots of information about who wrote them, on what authority, on what date, for what purpose; a direct link to such a file would be appropriate. Other files are lacking in that information, so a link the web page that lists or describes them is more helpful. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 7

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 7, June-July 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

  • Seven new donations, two expanded partnerships
  • TWL's Final Report up, read the summary
  • Adventures in Las Vegas, WikiConference USA, and updates from TWL coordinators
  • Spotlight: Blog post on BNA's impact on one editor's research

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

One-time pad

I'm not sure how to edit user comments. I know that random OTPs can be secure against Charles by using a random substitution instead of mod 26. You know this too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony717 (talk • contribs) 03:47, 3 August 2014‎ UTC

I am not convinced you know what a one-time pad is. Please explain what you think a one-time pad is, and how your version would be different. And who is Charles? Jc3s5h (talk) 09:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

ISO 8601

Could you explain further why you undid my edit on ISO_8601 - the information is not relevant to the article as it has nothing to do with the standard. I also quoted WP:V because the original source, full text, cites as its source for the civic claims this article: The Civil Reception of the Gregorian Calendar a self published puff piece by the Vatican. That text selects Japan, China, Russia, and European countries (implies a few others) and promptly comes to the conclusion that "the world has been united in the secular use of the Gregorian calendar dates." Unfortunately, Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia, Nepal, Iran, Afghanistan, India, Sri Lanka, Cambodia, Thailand, Japan, North Korea, Taiwan, Bangladesh, Israel and Myanmar either do not use Gregorian, use multiple, or their own "version" of Gregorian (example: India 7 months have 30 days, 5 months have 31 days and all but 3 individual states employ additional calendars). JMJimmy (talk) 07:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

ISO chose to use the Gregorian calendar. For readers who might not recognize the name, it is relevant to point out this is the most widely used calendar in the world. The Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac is a widely respected work and its authors are fully competent to make statements based on their own knowledge. Doggett does not cite "The Civil Reception of the Gregorian Calendar" as a source for the statement in question, although a few pages later he does suggest Coyne et al. as a source for those interested in the history of the Gregorian Calendar.
The phrase used by Doggett and in the article is "serves as an international standard for civil use" which I believe is reasonably well-qualified. "Civil" eliminates calendars that are only used for religious purposes. "International" implies use when a particular instance of writing or speech should be understood by people from several different countries. With those qualifications, I think the statement is true. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
About Doggett: according to The LeRoy E. Doggett Prize for Historical Astronomy the American Astronomical Society has instituted a prize for the history of astronomy in memory of Doggett. The page also indicates he served as director of the U.S. Nautical Almanac Office from 1991–96. This suggests he was fully competent to make statements about the prevalence of the Gregorian calendar based on his own knowledge. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I would disagree with the well qualified part - in researching this I found that paragraph of text lifted near verbatim in dozens of sources many of which did not recognize the qualifiers and their slight modifications to the text often made it absolute. (he also made several critical errors in the equations) While we can agree to disagree on that point, the point remains that it's irrelevant to the article. The line immediately after makes the connection with the Gregorian calendar without bringing in the "civil use". Civil use is documented within the Gregorian calendar and bringing it into a standard that is only about formatting of dates doesn't really serve any purpose. JMJimmy (talk) 19:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I maintain that it is relevant to briefly describe to readers what the Gregorian calendar is for the benefit of those readers who don't realize that the calendar they are sure to be familiar with is called the Gregorian calendar. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
That's what the link to the grec cal article is for JMJimmy (talk) 06:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

(moving text to RfC) JMJimmy (talk) 23:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jc3s5h/Archive_2&oldid=1168302062"