User talk:Jc3s5h/Archive 4

Update to Tube Sound

You removed my section on Bob Carver, the citation of which was the link to Bob Carver's Wikipedia entry, much in the same way Tom Scholz entry in the same section used the link to Tom Scholz's page.

Please consider adding it back in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.222.75.23 (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

The section about Tom Scholz also violated the verifiability policy so I removed that too. Since Wikipedia is created by mostly anonymous editors who's qualifications are unknown, Wikipedia article are not considered reliable sources. Also, neither of the Wikipedia articles contains any readily-identifiable reliable sources to support the claims. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 41

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 41, September – October 2020

• New partnership: Taxmann
• WikiCite
• 1Lib1Ref 2021

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Date formats in references

MOS:DATEFORMAT says to use short forms of dates in references. In https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_voting_in_the_United_States&curid=64499620&diff=991828907&oldid=991826132 you changed all references to long format, citing MOS:DATEFORMAT. What am I missing? The short format is created by default in ProveIt, but your change would require changing all future cites to long forms for consistency. Kim9988 (talk) 02:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

No, MOS:DATEFORMAT does not say to use short forms of dates in references. The dates in the article were in inconsistent formats, so I made them consistent.

As for ProveIt, see WT:ProveIt#Any way to change the date format?. The developers seem to recognize the flaw but haven't gotten around to fixing it. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Gregorian calendar again

In case you miss it, may I ask that you do a sanity check on the lead of Gregorian calendar, which I have just edited. I revised some convoluted verbiage and cleared out extraneous details. Have I thrown any babies out with the bath-water or introduced any errors? Specifically, is this First, the Julian calendar assumed incorrectly that the average solar year is exactly 365.25 days long, an overestimate of a little under one day per century. correct? (have I got my overs and unders the right way round?) Is the (Northern) spring equinox was occurring well before its nominal 21 March date. ok, or should it say "ten days before" (it is 'before', isn't it?). If we do give number, then we will need yet another footnote to say "eleven days from 1700 to 1799, twelve days from 1800 to 1899, thirteen days from 1900 to 2099", which just adds to the visual clutter. (I would much prefer to replace all the intrusive <ref group=Note> with {{efn}} but it would need a full discussion and consensus per WP:RETAIN.) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Best wishes for the holidays

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Stonehenge at mid-winter sunrise is my Wiki-Solstice card to all for this year. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

2020-12-31 re: Talk:Zodiac#Coalescing_both_November_tropical_dates_of_Zodiac#Twelve_signs_into_1

Please read the 3 new short sentences and answer the 2 new short questions. Thecurran (talk) 04:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 42

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 42, November – December 2020

• New EBSCO collections now available
• 1Lib1Ref 2021 underway
• Library Card input requested
• Libraries love Wikimedia, too!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Calendar Act promotion

I trust that you noticed that I credited you as a major contributor when doing the DYK nomination. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. And thanks for doing the lion's share of the work on this. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Follow up actions

I expect you are watching New Year's Day and Dual dates but if not, would you give my changes a quick scan to verify that I haven't introduced any inadvertent errors. The NYD article was rather a confused mess before I attacked it, so there may be some collateral damage in the rework. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I have not been following those articles, but the recent changes seem helpful. Thanks. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Solstice dates

I assumed linking back to Wikipedia would be enough of a citation. The axial precession of the earth will move the dates, it won't "always" be in the time frame currently stated.

The current estimated precession rate is about 26000 years in a cycle. That 26000/365 or roughly 1 in 71 years that the date will move, on average, by 1 day. The movement of the equinox and solstice is shown in the existing reference 25 - astronomical algorithms — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slaneyrw (talk • contribs) 11:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia has verifiability policy which requires citations to reliable sources, and Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source because anyone can edit it. There are related guidelines on reliable sources and writing citations.

In this case, the Gregorian calendar was specifically designed to keep the vernal equinox close to March 21. The other three season transitions (June solstice, September equinox, and December solstice) will move slightly with respect to each other due to slow changes in the shape of the Earth's orbit, but they will stay close to their present dates.

The effect of precession will be to gradually change which stars are behind the Sun on the dates of the equinoxes and solstices. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

SI-system

Hi, my change was correct. It is comming from the german version of the same article ("Analog dazu kann eine SI-Basiseinheit nicht als Produkt von Potenzen anderer Basiseinheiten ausgedrückt werden. "). Try for yourself. You can not make one SI-base unit from other base units. The NIST states "4.1 SI base units Table 1 gives the seven base quantities, assumed to be mutually independent, on which the SI is founded, and the names and symbols of their respective units, called "SI base units."" (https://www.nist.gov/pml/special-publication-811/nist-guide-si-chapter-4-two-classes-si-units-and-si-prefixes).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8071:B6C4:2400:59D2:4A54:159F:20FA (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Promotional Material to Wikipedia - Operational Camouflage Pattern

Hello,

I received a message from you stating I was using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion. That was not my intention. As I said in my reason for the edit, I am trying to correct the misconception that this pattern is only for military use. My evidence for this being false is that Rockywoods is paying royalties through the mill to the government, and in exchange, Rockywoods is selling it to civilians.

May I repost this message, but not mention Rockywoods in the body of the edit? If so, may I use Rockywoods in the reference of the post as evidence that it is legally being sold to civilians?

Rockywoods is currently the only place in the world where you can purchase cut yardage of authorized Scorpion print as sanctioned by the U.S. government. I personally feel that information is relevant to anyone looking for information regarding this print. If you disagree, I will respect your decision, but would appreciate direction on how I may end the misconception using this platform.

Thank you in advance for your help and consideration of this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockywoods (talk • contribs) 17:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

It is a conflict of interest for you to make citations to the Rockywoods website. Also, your username violates the username policy. If your company wants to let people know about your products, buy advertising from media that accept advertisements. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not trying to let people know about my products. I don't have products. It's not my business. I work there and have a lot of knowledge regarding military patterns and fabric in general now and I would like to share it. As I've said a few times now, I'm trying to correct the misconception that this pattern is only for military use. May I repost my original message, but not mention Rockywoods? If I make no mention of Rockywoods, I do not see how this can be viewed as any conflict of interest. I don't care what my username is. I'll change it. I saw that it wasn't recommended that I use my real name. Once I figure out how to do it, I will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockywoods (talk • contribs) 19:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm trying to find your user name policy so that I don't mess up again. Can you please direct me to it? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockywoods (talk • contribs) 19:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Since you work there, it's a conflict of interest. Also, adding it without mentioning Rockywoods would still be a conflict of interest if Rockywoods is the only company that sells it to civilians. If, in the future, a bunch of companies started selling it, it would be necessary to add a reliable source for the information, in accordance with the verifiability policy and the identifying reliable sources guideline. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

We are not the only one selling it. We are the only one selling cut yardage of it. Anyone can go straight to the mill that prints it and buy rolls from them once royalties are paid. But I will not post anything. I cannot keep others from doing so though. I have had a lot of people ask me to make this post. I will post our conversation to the forums I belong to so they are aware that I tried and that you still view this as a conflict of interest due to my employment. I'm sure someone else will want to take this up since it is a big deal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockywoods (talk • contribs) 20:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

As explained in the conflict of interest policy, you could discuss it on the article's talk page, and if someone unaffiliated with Rockywoods felt it belonged in the article they could add it. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

asa.hmnao.com

Thank you, I never spotted that it was a joint effort. What a strange URL! (And I thought hurrah, the USNO has finally fixed its website). And if I do try to connect to asa.hmnao.com, Chrome says "I'd turn back if I were you, Dorothy" (aka "NET::ERR_CERT_COMMON_NAME_INVALID").

In my defence, I plead that logo for HM Hydrographic Office is just a smudge compared to the USNO one. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 42

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 42, January – February 2021

• New partnerships: PNAS, De Gruyter, Nomos
• 1Lib1Ref
• Library Card

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Calendar (New Style) Act 1750

On 25 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Calendar (New Style) Act 1750, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that until the Calendar (New Style) Act 1750 was passed, the new year began on 25 March in England, Wales, Ireland, and Britain's American colonies? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Calendar (New Style) Act 1750. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Calendar (New Style) Act 1750), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

External links advertising and conflicts of interest

Thank You for not blocking me, my edits were in good faith and I did not mean do to disruptive editing at all. I'm sorry you undid my editings because you classified them as conflict of interest or advertising. I have no interest, no revenue, nothing at all from linking my javascript app, I just thought it could be useful for some Wikipedia users, that's why I linked it. I know experienced people probably already know the output, but my external link was not meant for experienced people. I did not find any other app displaying sun and moon together and with the labels of the hours, so I thought it could be useful. Maybe it is simplicistic but it is very accurate (tested by myself) and comfortable for time zone and daylight saving time offset. As you can see there is no advertising at all [1] That said, I don't think I violated the policy about advertisement or conflict of interest linking my app on wikipedia, but if I did, I would at least let some editor decide, as the policy [External_links#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest] say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alberto Orlandini (talk • contribs) 14:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

A conflict of interest does not have to involve money, it can also involve getting more traffic for your website. Also, the Wikipedia:External links guideline indicates, in the section "Links normally to be avoided", the following point:

11. Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)

This point would seem to apply to your web site. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

RtM in progress at Computus

In case you miss it, see talk:Computus#Requested move 5 April 2021. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Change to Agnes Sampson

About the edit to Anges Sampson, which I believe you reverted: the edit I made (thrawen > twisted) was not to the quotation itself, but to the uncredited modernized version underneath it which isn't in the original source. Perhaps it would be useful to make the modernized text typographically distinctive (italicize it?) or move it to a footnote to avoid confusion. Mrrhum (talk) 00:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know the best way to present this. For all the works I've seen that presented both old and modern language, the modern language was written by a known author, not an anonymous Wikipedia editor. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:42, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 43

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 43, March – April 2021

• New Library Card designs
• 1Lib1Ref May

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Decade

This is a strange edit, as you are reverting 152.57.197.53's attempt to fix vandalism. You then gave them a level 2 vandalism warning at User_talk:152.57.197.53 for their only contribution to wikipedia. Would it be worth trying to apologize to that anonymous user? Ttwaring (talk) 12:59, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 45

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 45, May – June 2021

• Library design improvements continue
• New partnerships
• 1Lib1Ref update

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Before Present

If Before Present is not on your watch list, you may have have missed the move request at talk:Before Present#Requested move 4 August 2021 that may be of interest to you. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Revised Julian calendar - calendrical calculations

Dominique.punsola (talk) 11:45, 19 August 2021 (UTC) I have tested your pseudo-code to convert between Gregorian and Revised Julian. I think it is not good. Perhaps it is my fault. I don't know. Anyway I give you my Javascript code. I have tested it and it seems to be OK (but you are never sure).

// LEAP_REVISED_JULIAN -- Is a given year in the Revised Julian calendar a leap year ?

function leap_revised_julian(year) { return ((year % 4) == 0) &&

           (!(((year % 100) == 0) && ((year % 900) != 200 && (year % 900) != 600)));

}

// REVISED_JULIAN_TO_JD -- Determine Julian day number from Revised Julian calendar date

var REVISED_JULIAN_EPOCH = 1721425.5;

function revised_julian_to_jd(year, month, day) {

   return (REVISED_JULIAN_EPOCH - 1) +
          (365 * (year - 1)) +
          Math.floor((year - 1) / 4) +
          (-Math.floor((year - 1) / 100)) +
          Math.floor(    ( (2 * Math.floor((year - 1) / 100))+6 ) / 9    ) +
          Math.floor((((367 * month) - 362) / 12) +
          ((month <= 2) ? 0 :
                              (leap_revised_julian(year) ? -1 : -2)
          ) +
          day);

}

// JD_TO_REVISED_JULIAN -- Calculate Revised Julian calendar date from Julian day

function jd_to_revised_julian(jd) {

   var Days, PriorCenturies, RemainingDays, PriorSubcycles, PriorSubcycleYears, year, month, day ;

Days = Math.floor(jd - 0.5) + 0.5 - REVISED_JULIAN_EPOCH + 1 ; PriorCenturies = Math.floor(Days / 36524) ; RemainingDays = Days - (36524 * PriorCenturies) - Math.floor((2 * PriorCenturies + 6) / 9) ; PriorSub = Math.floor(RemainingDays / 1461) ; PriorSubcycles =((PriorSub < 0) ? 0 : PriorSub); RemainingDays = RemainingDays % 1461 ; PriorSubcycleYears = Math.floor(RemainingDays / 365) ; year = 1 + 100 * PriorCenturies + (4 * PriorSubcycles) + PriorSubcycleYears ; RemainingDays = RemainingDays % 365 ; if (RemainingDays == 0) {

       year = year - 1 ;

if (leap_revised_julian(year) && PriorSubcycles == 0) {RemainingDays=366} else {RemainingDays=365}

   }
   yearday = jd - revised_julian_to_jd(year, 1, 1);
   leapadj = ((jd < revised_julian_to_jd(year, 3, 1)) ? 0 : (leap_revised_julian(year) ? 1 : 2) );
   month = Math.floor((((yearday + leapadj) * 12) + 373) / 367);
   day = Math.floor((jd - revised_julian_to_jd(year, month, 1)) + 1);

   return new Array(year, month, day);

}

What article did the pseudocode come from? Jc3s5h (talk) 12:02, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Social Security Number

It is my obviously unproven assertion (can't prove a negative) that there is NO statutory definition of the term "Social Security Number" anywhere in the US Code, the US Statutes at Large or in the US Public laws. User Jc3s5h disagrees and deleted my footnote so stating under "Identity Documents in the United States" however user Jc3s5h FAILED to cite any statute that does define what a social security number is. Weird eh? Probably just an ignorant oversight that Jc3s5h will SOON correct. If there is a legal/statutory definition of "social security number" I'm sure we will ALL love to see it. Okay user Jc3s5h, please cite the statute that defines exactly what a US SSN is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodsnout (talk • contribs) 05:11, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

See WP:V. Anonymous Wikipedia editors cannot be trusted to properly do legal research and determine the law lacks a definition of anything; such a determination should be published in an appropriate reliable source by a qualified legal scholar. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:52, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Comment about reverted edit

Hey there!

Got your message:

"Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Joule. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted."

The edit reverted (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joule&type=revision&diff=1043299516&oldid=1043294992) had grammatical errors, Jc3s5h, and was not an unconstructive edit. Can you fill me in on where and why you thought the edit was an unconstructive edit?

Regards,

Monica — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monicamsuya301 (talk • contribs) 11:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, when I looked at the edit it appeared that the only change was to add 'Italic text' to the top of the article, and I would have thought anyone who bothered to look at their edit after making it would have known to revert themselves if their intentions were good. But on closer examination I see there were some small changes deeper in the article, and no doubt your attention was on those changes, causing you to overlook the change at the beginning of the article. Of course, providing an edit summary helps other editors to direct their attention to your intended changes.

Books & Bytes – Issue 46

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 46, July – August 2021

• Library design improvements deployed
• New collections available in English and German
• Wikimania presentation

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 47

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 47, September – October 2021

• On-wiki Wikipedia Library notification rolling out
• Search tool deployed
• New My Library design improvements

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Indiction

Colleague, please send me for review by email [email protected] the text under the link "Calendars" in Astronomical Almanac for the Year 2017 (Washington: US Government Publishing Office, 2016) p. B4. - I have no access to it. Kalendar (talk) 18:56, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Sent. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:01, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Colleague, thank you for the sent source of information. I see it uses The Roman indiction since January 1st.

In the article Indiction in the section "Calculation" the calculation method is given ( Y + 3) mod 15, with 0 being understood as an indiction of 15. I propose to replace this calculation method with ( Y + 2) mod 15 + 1 (</ref> A chart of years and their indictions </ref>). The result will always be from 1 to 15, there will be no need to recalculate 0 to 15.

To automatically calculate The Roman indiction of the current year, you can include in the article:

This year: 2024 is 2 indiction.

-- Kalendar (talk) 17:23, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I think this change is unwise because articles are frequently vandalized. Often the editor repairing the vandalism will not be a subject matter expert, and will simply compare what it says in the source with what it says in the article. Many editors will be unable to determine if

{{CURRENTYEAR}} is {{#expr: ({{CURRENTYEAR}} + 2) mod 15 + 1}}

is equivalent to

The Roman indiction for the year, and the Greek, Bedan, and Sienese indiction current on 1 January, may be found by adding 3 to the year and dividing by 15; if there is no remainder the indiction is 15, otherwise it is the remainder.

Indeed, when methods for writing proofs are taught in high schools and many university subjects, the mod function is not dealt with. Many of us would be hard put to write a proof showing that the two approaches are equivalent.

I am ignoring the proposed new citation because, as far as I can tell, it is a self-published personal website that does not meet the criteria described in WP:SPS for use as a citation in Wikipedia. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:57, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Colleague, thank you for your answer. Sources with «( Y + 2) mod 15 + 1» I did not find, and the link " A chart of years and their indictions" is taken from the "External links" section of the article Indiction.

The formula for calculating "I = (J + 2) mod 15 + 1" is used in the German, Romanian and Dutch Wikipedia, but the sources of information are not indicated. -- Kalendar (talk) 08:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

The policy and guideline for deciding whether to cite a source for information in the article are WP:V and WP:IRS. The criteria for deciding whether to list a site under "External links" is found in the WP:EL guideline. I haven't read it in a while; I'll leave it to you to decide if the skypoint.com site should be removed from the "External links" section. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Colleague, I believe that in the section "External links" the site "skypoint.com" can be left, since the section "Indictions" contains information calculated according to the formula given in the section, and the table is confirmed in "Klimishin I.A. // Calendar and chronology. - Ed. 3. - M .: Science. Ch. ed. phys.-mat. lit., 1990. - S. 126-128. - 478 p. - 105,000 copies - ISBN 5-02-014354-5. " - the authoritative source for calendars. -- Kalendar (talk) 18:28, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 48

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 48, November – December 2021

• 1Lib1Ref 2022
• Wikipedia Library notifications deployed

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --15:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Template talk:Time measurement and standards

Hi, I wonder if you ever saw the ping I put at Template talk:Time measurement and standards#On obsolete prime meridians? I first mistyped it as {{ping:Jc3s5h}} which, because I was on mobile, I didn't see as an error until after it was committed. I corrected the : to a | but I think I remember reading somewhere that the automatic process doesn't respond to such retrospective changes. Of course if you simple declined to respond, that's fine. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Voter ID

Hi, I am quite new to Wikipedia so I really appreciate your constructive feedback. I added some language and put a citation to The Atlantic article. Please let me know if I did not do the citation correctly, or if the Atlantic is not a reliable source, or whatever the concern is. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gumballhead1of2 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Voter ID

I think I see the problem. I intended to post to a different Wikipedia page. Does this one make more sense? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_identification_laws_in_the_United_States — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gumballhead1of2 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Voter identification laws in the United States could be an appropriate place to mention something from The Atlantic article. But it's a long article, and just sticking in another sentence probably isn't the right approach. It would be better to look at The Atlantic article and see if it contradicts something that is already in the article, or if it supports something that's already in our article but which lacks a reliable source.

Another problem is saying something in Wikipedia's voice about a controversial issue, rather than attributing it to an author. There's a big difference between saying "there is no consensus today to support national ID legislation" and "According to Russel Berman there is no consensus today to support national ID legislation."

The aspect of your edit that I felt did not accurately summarize Berman's article was "the benefits of secure voting". Berman actually wrote "The commission had called for voter ID even as it acknowledged within its report that the issue the requirement purports to solve—voter fraud—was extremely rare." Nowhere in the article does Berman disagree with the commission; nowhere does Berman state that voter fraud is a real problem.

As for The Atlantic being a reliable source, it is. But this appears to be an opinion piece, so it is mainly a reliable source for what Berman's opinion is, not what the Atlantic's position is. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:35, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 49

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 49, January – February 2022

• New library collections
• Blog post published detailing technical improvements

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Text file

You undid my comment stating that it was confusing when it comes to certain types of files. Irregardless your confusion, this core, basic fact needs to be explained: ALL FILES, REGARDLESS THEIR CONTENT, ARE, AT THE LOWEST LEVEL, BINARY. Without it, confusion is rampant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.119.15.14 (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I had two objections to your edit.

The first objection is that when you make an extremely obvious statement, people become confused and wonder why you even brought it up. If you to the stage microphone in a busy theatre and say "the theatre is not on fire" the crowd is going to panic. Of course all computer files are fundamentally binary, but why say so while describing a text file?

My second objection is the wording. The edit stated "but to be clear, all computer files are fundamentally binary. It's just that some of the binary data is binary encoded textual information, and the rest is not." Is this supposed to mean that every computer file contains a mix of binary encoded textural information, and some other binary information that is not textural information? Does it mean that some files consist entirely of binary encoded textural information, and some files consist entirely of non-textural binary information? Or something else? Jc3s5h (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

April 2022

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.

The Show preview button is right next to the Publish changes button and below the edit summary field.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. you deleted a conversation here. I have tried to restore it, but please be more careful going forward. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Removal of multiple talk page comments

Not sure you meant to do this? Number 57 20:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

The edit I see now for User:Number 57 is not what I saw when I made the edit. I suspect some technical glitch. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

June 2022 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive

On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? Sign up here!

You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. (t · c) buidhe 04:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 50

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 50, March – April 2022

• New library partner - SPIE
• 1Lib1Ref May 2022 underway

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC) (UTC)

third opinion request on joule

I think you added the 3O request below rather than above the onlyinclude line which is relevant for how it's included in other pages. This may reduce its visibility. IpseCustos (talk) 13:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

ICAO source

Hi. That's why I changed the quote -- it was missing a few words when I verified it. — kwami (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

It turns out both version of that statement can be found in successive pages. It also turns out ICAO does not maintain much correlation between the way headings are written and the structure of the paragraph numbers. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Double negative

I can't believe that my brain was so out of gear that I 'corrected' the double negative without actually doing a basic sanity check on the result. <blush>. I'd send myself to bed early except that is already long past my bedtime. John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 51

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 51, May – June 2022

• New library partners
  • SAGE Journals
  • Elsevier ScienceDirect
  • University of Chicago Press
  • Information Processing Society of Japan
• Feedback requested on this newsletter
• 1Lib1Ref May 2022

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Trying to get WikiProject Amateur Radio back on the air!

Hi, I'm Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} and I'm currently doing my best to resurrect the amateur radio WikiProject. A lot of the articles need some serious work and so I'm trying to organize an article improvement drive in October. If you're interested check out the link to the drive and the project page. Right now everything is in the planning stages, trying to find people interested, articles to focus on, etc. So if you know anyone who would like to help out feel free to invite them! If you no longer interested in this project that's a-ok just remove yourself from the list on the project page and I'll never badger you again. 73! Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 00:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 52

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 52, July – August 2022

• New instant-access collections:
  • SpringerLink and Springer Nature
  • Project MUSE
  • Taylor & Francis
  • ASHA
  • Loeb
• Feedback requested on this newsletter

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Astronomical symbols

Hi. I rv'd your edit and then re-deleted the math tags, because it appeared that other improvements (e.g. in ref formatting) got caught up in your revert. If I rv'd other improvements you made, my apologies. — kwami (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Common Era citation reversion

I'm perturbed by why you feel it is more appropriate to leave in place a citation that does not, in fact, provide any evidence for the claim made, than to suggest someone might provide one that does. I'd just as soon remove the placement claim entirely if one cannot be found, but I'm loath to remove content unless I can definitively prove it's erroneous. 104.246.216.170 (talk) 08:02, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I will reply to your comment phrase by phrase.

leave in place a citation

I did not leave a citation in place, I cited a different source, the Chicago Manual of Style.

does not, in fact, provide any evidence for the claim made

The reason I did not restore the source you removed, The Columbia Guide to Standard American English by Kenneth G Wilson, is not available to me. There is a preview available in Google Books, but I will not rely on that because which pages are available change at Google's whim. I do hope you consulted that work, rather than relying on the Google preview, before deciding it did not support the claim in the article.

So what is the claim made? The Wikipedia article "Common Era" states

The abbreviation BCE, just as with BC, always follows the year number. Unlike AD, which still often precedes the year number, CE always follows the year number (if context requires that it be written at all).

It is crucial to observe that the passage concerns abbreviations, and is not about how years would be written when words like "Common Era", "Anno Domini", or "before Christ" are written out. The passage from the source I cited states

9.34 Eras. Era designations, at least in the Western world, are usually expressed in one of two ways: either CE "of the Common Era") and BCE ("before the Common Era"), or AD (anno Domini, "in the year of the Lord") and BC ("before Christ"). Other forms include AH (anno Hegirae, "In the year of [Muhammad's]Heigira," or anno Hebraico, "In the Hebrew year"; AUC (ab urbe condita, "from the founding of the city [Rome]"); and—for archaelogical purposes—BP ("before the present"). Note that the latin abbreviations AD and AH precede the year number, whereas the others follow it....

Note that although square brackets are sometimes used to show changes to a quotation, in the preceding quote the square brackets are present in the source.

The [ edit summary] by user:104.246.218.170 states

Not in citation given. I'd normally use template:failed verification, but I can't find any definitive proof of this usage, which seems ungrammatical (you'd still say 'in the Common Era year 2022,' so why follow?), so I'm going straight for citation needed)

So I ask 104.246.218.170 how would you write n the Common Era year 2022 if you were going to use the abbreviation "CE" instead of writing out "Common Era"? I'd write it "2022 CE". Jc3s5h (talk) 12:16, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

The article says "Unlike AD, which still often precedes the year number, CE always follows the year number" while the source says that "AD and AH precede the year number, whereas the others follow it" while explicitly listing CE as one of the other abbreviations referred to. How does this citation not support the statement? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:24, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 53

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 53, September – October 2022

• New collections:
  • Edward Elgar
  • E-Yearbook
  • Corriere della Serra
  • Wikilala
• Collections moved to Library Bundle:
  • Ancestry
• New feature: Outage notification
• Spotlight: Collections indexed in EDS

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Free access to JSTOR, OUP (incl the DoNB) and many many more

I see you already get the Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library so the critical link on that page is "Get free access to research". 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:35, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll follow that path if it seems useful. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:30, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 54

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 54, November – December 2022

• New collections:
  • British Newspaper Archive
  • Findmypast
  • University of Michigan Press
  • ACLS
  • Duke University Press
• 1Lib1Ref 2023
• Spotlight: EDS Refine Results

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

UTC

Seriously? Anyone?

#1 What is UTC or GMT Time? - National Hurricane Center https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboututc.shtml

... but is now referred to as Coordinated Universal Time or Universal Time Coordinated (UTC).

#2 Current UTC — Coordinated Universal Time - Time and Date

https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/timezone/utc

Other names: Universal Time Coordinated

#3 German National Library

https://www.dnb.de/EN/Professionell/Metadatendienste/Datenbezug/OAI/_content/faqOai13_akk.html

#4 Greenwich Meantime

https://greenwichmeantime.com/articles/history/utc/

#5 Oxford Learner's Dictionary

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/coordinated-universal-time

... also Universal Coordinated Time, Universal Time Coordinated. Pro translator (talk) 13:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Please discuss this on the article talk page. There are official defining documents for this time scale, some of which are cited in the article. I am not aware of any of them referring to it as Universal Time Coordinated. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 55

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 55, January – February 2023

• New bundle partners:
  • Newspapers.com
  • Fold3
• 1Lib1Ref January report
• Spotlight: EDS SmartText Searching

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Reverting - March Equinox

You reverted my edit why? I deleted the wording in the article because it sounds like an error when you read it. BangGut (talk) 21:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

What had been a complete sentence became "However, because of the angular size of the Sun, atmospheric refraction, and the rapidly changing duration of the length of day that occurs at most latitudes around the equinoxes." This phrase does not contain a vowel, so is not a complete sentence. Furthermore, the structure of the sentence before the duration of daytime and nighttime are not exactly equal on the date of the equinox, and then explain why. After the change, the phrase doesn't say much of anything. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:48, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

thepiracychannel.blogspot.com

Hi. Your userpage made me think you might be interested in my new blog. thepiracychannel.blogspot.com Huggums537 (talk) 23:38, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 56

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 56, March – April 2023

• New partner:
  • Perlego
• Library access tips and tricks
• Spotlight: EveryBookItsReader

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 57

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 57, May – June 2023

• Suggestion improvements
• Favorite collections tips
• Spotlight: Promoting Nigerian Books and Authors

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

defining a unit joule requires a value for each quantity

I deleted a post which belongs on Talk:Joule. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Troy (and SI) units of "weight"

The pound and the kg are units of mass in physics too. The IP was probably thinking of that strange USCU unit, the pound force. See also Newton (unit). 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Weights and measures used in commerce are controlled by law, and words mean what the law says they mean. Nobody's in charge of physics. My university physics book said a pound is a unit of force, and no one can compel the authors or publisher to issue a retraction. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:52, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

interesting: so that would suggest that the "pound force" is an attempt to disambiguate? My high-school text book said a kg is a unit of mass but I do recall the lecturer saying that the imperial system is ambiguous. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

The distinction between mass and the force of gravity was not understood until Newton's theories. "Pound" and related words were invented before then. The physical theories have never been fully imposed on the pre-existing vocabulary. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

A quick check, please, when you have a moment

I have added a short section, lunar phase#Timekeeping, to the lunar phase article. I'd welcome a sanity check when you have a moment, please? (I also renamed the section that preceded it, for obvious reasons.) 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Generally it seems OK to me. There's no citations, but all the information is easy enough to verify, and there are links to appropriate Wikipedia articles. In my mind, the word "timekeeping" refers to measuring the time of day, rather than the passage of whole days and larger units. But I can't think of the equivalent word for keeping track of the passage of days. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:36, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the scan, I have occasionally been known to drop a clanger through unconsciously poor choice of words, so felt a fresh eye might see something I missed. Such as "timekeeping" but like you I couldn't think of a better word or phrase. Thanks again. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 58

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 58, July – August 2023

• New partners - De Standaard and Duncker & Humblot
• Tech tip: Filters
• Wikimania presentation

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:27, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

International System of Units

Why are you trying to impede progress in your wonderful country? It is doomed to fail as failures such as jc3s5h jokers push their own uneducated viewpoints while science moves forward and "pounds" and "fahrenheits" are unheard of and irrelevant despite attempts to keep this nonsense alive. Use your time constructively, learn to use the English language and just accept progress as unstoppable. 195 countries in the world have abandoned what you are trying to support, so make the change buddy before we change you. kk (talk) 11:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [Reader's note: kk's actual account name is Do better—J. Nov. 7, 2023.]

I give you this preemptive warning, before I even look at your edit history. I will seek to have the Wikipedia policy about "Neutral point of view" vigorously enforced, and will not tolerate falsehoods, added to Wikipedia by anyone, that the changeover to metric units is further along in the United States (or some other English-speaking countries) than it is. It is not the role of Wikipedia to advocate for regulatory or cultural changes, merely report things as they are, as indicate in reliable sources. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Use DMY dates

i should have guessed that there had to be a reason why no-one had done it before. As in try looking in the right place. <blush> --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

There is ONLY one world standard and that is YMD so just accept logic and common sense and avoid ambiguity. kk (talk) 11:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [Reader's note: kk's actual account name is Do better—J. Nov. 7, 2023.]

I will seek to have Wikipedia's guidelines "Manual of Style" and "Manual of Style/Dates and numbers" vigorously enforced. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:31, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you.

Just wanted to say thanks for all your help with the metrification page. Friendliness12345 (talk) 20:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

IERS meridian

Hi, I see Jc355h blocked a suggested change from arcseconds to seconds of longitude. I am a novice as an editor but I did not see that the section was in possible quotes (though now I see footnote 1 refers to Malys et al. paper). I will inform you I have a copy of this paper and it does not use the word "arcseconds"; so for a so-called quote, it is not. On the first age of the paper (p. 1263) I quote:". . .the “Prime Meridian of the World”. Today, its longitude is 00◦ 00′ 05.3′′ W (Howse 1997)". You will note that prior to "5.3", the word used is "longitude" and after "5.3" is the letter "W"; both of these mean that "5.3" is referring to seconds of longitude. Because I am novice editor, (this was first ever go), I do not know the proper etiquette or method to make such changes (was I supposed to change the source code or was I supposed to contact Graham87 who seems to be a responsible editor (may have put a lock of some type on the article)? Please help me. I may not know about the etiquette or the method (of editing) but I know that "arcseconds" is not in Malys et al's paper and the proper dimensional unit which should be used is "seconds of longitude". Oldmaps2 (talk) 08:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

This is about me reverting an edit you made to Talk:IERS Reference Meridian. That is a talk page. Edits to talk pages should follow Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. In this case, the relevant section is Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing others' comments. If you felt it was necessary to point out an error in someone else's comment, the appropriate thing to do would be post a message to the end of the thread pointing out the error, not to change the other person's post to look the way you thing it should be. If you read the rest of that thread, you see the error was corrected back in 2015. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I reviewed the article IERS Reference Meridian which said "5.3 arcsecondseconds offset between the IERS Reference Meridian and the Airy transit circle". The use of the word "Meridian" suggests a longitude offset is meant, but as suggested by Oldmaps2, misinterpretation is possible. So I changed it to "5.3 seconds of longitude offset between the IERS Reference Meridian and the Airy transit circle" Jc3s5h (talk) 13:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Prime foot

I can't argue that you are wrong because what you say is true, it is not an abbreviation. The problem is that the sentence as it stands is confusing: The prime, ′, is customarily used as an alternative symbol. Alternative to what? Symbolising what? I've given it my best shot so can you do any better? I honestly believe that the text as it stands would be impenetrable to someone educated exclusively in the SI system. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd say it's an alternative to "ft". But in the US in everyday use, I think the prime is more common than "ft", so maybe it's "ft" that's the alternative symbol. Possibly in scientific writing when feet can't be avoided, "ft" would be used more than the prime since the prime has so many other uses, but I'm not sure about that. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

prime (symbol) puts it nicely: The prime symbol ′ is commonly used to represent feet (ft), and the double prime ″ is used to represent inches (in).. I'll see if I can recycle "used to represent". 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:53, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

References

Books & Bytes – Issue 59

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 59, September – October 2023

• Spotlight: Introducing a repository of anti-disinformation projects
• Tech tip: Library access methods

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Reversion on Kilowatt-hour

Hi. The template page {{SI multiples 2}} is (was) only used by kilowatt-hour. The {{SI multiples}} template is used consistently on many more pages. My intention was to remove the only usage of {{SI multiples 2}} and then vote to delete the template. Perhaps some of the "limit"/"removal" functionality of {{SI multiples 2}} can be added/ported to {{SI multiples}}. But in the meantime, I don't really see a need to keep that single-use template around just for this one article. Discuss? Thanks.  — sbb (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me there is a need for a template that allows listing multiples without submultiples, or vice versa. This unit is typical of those involving time. Rather than changing the metric prefix used, it is possible to change the unit of time, choosing among units such as second, hour, year, or century. Indeed, by choosing the time unit to be the second, the unit becomes the standard SI unit joule.

In that case, I suggest removing this template from the page altogether, and just list some common "multiple" equivalents/versions in a table. If you can think of other pages that would benefit from such a template, we can create one. As it is, there are 20 transclusions of {{SI multiples}}, but this is the only article that uses {{SI multiples 2}}.

I have no objection to eliminating the template and just putting in a short table in the article. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I've changed it out. Take care, happy editing. =)  — sbb (talk) 20:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

National varieties of English

Having reverted your edit to the MoS, I thought I’d drop by with a fuller explanation. The phrase “national variety of English” is very well-established within WP and used in a number of places within the MoS and other guidance. Changing it to “dialect” is a significant change, which would open a potential can of worms given how many English dialects there are - see List of dialects of English - I doubt anyone wants to see WP articles written in Geordie or Cockney dialect, even where there are strong ties!

With respect to Oxford English, as the WP article on its history demonstrates, this is a national variety, since it originates from the UK where it offers an alternative to the more common standard British spelling. In other respects - vocabulary, grammar, punctuation, date format, etc. - it’s identical to standard British English, and although Oxford spelling has been adopted by some international organisations such as the UN, it isn’t in use in any other country. Yes, with its combination of -ize and -our spelling, there are strong overlaps with both Canadian English and Australian English, but once you dig deeper into the spelling conventions (looking for example at words like analyse/yze and program/me) you’ll see that as a package, Oxford English is essentially a spelling variant of standard British English, and hence it isn’t inappropriate to describe it as a “national variety”. It certainly isn’t a dialect! Kind regards, MapReader (talk) 06:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

It was Remsense (talk · contribs) who reverted to "dialect". Jc3s5h (talk) 19:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

sure, my bad. it's not that big of a deal since people would understand what it means one way or the other—thank you very much for the involved explanation Remsense留 05:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Reversion

I was correcting my informational error of the commentary of the year zero talk page! Why reverted I my informational correction?

Happy Theotoca of the Betaliturgennium of 2024!

177.8.132.41 (talk) 22:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

If it isn't the same IP address, it isn't the same person. The advantage of establishing a Wikipedia account is that we can tell if the same person comes back to improve a post they made earlier. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 60

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 60, November – December 2023

• Three new partners
• Google Scholar integration
• How to track partner suggestions

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --13:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Position of the Sun

In January 2022 you noticed that I changed content of an article, Position of the Sun, namely one digit, not providing a reliable source. You have removed my correction. But the source of my correction is indeed the source cited in article. The problem is that everybody read the big fat beautiful formulæ in [2] and do not look to "Appendix A. Subroutine in Fortran 90" in the very same document, where correct number is provided. OK, I do not know which number is correct. --178.158.192.179 (talk) 00:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I modified the article Position of the Sun by stating that the equations in the source in question are "similar" rather than saying they "are" the equations in the article. There is no need to copy numbers from the source in question because it mainly describes how to calculate horizontal, that is, horizon coordinates of the Sun and details of that are in included in the "Position of the Sun" article. This article just refers to Horizontal coordinate system. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus

Hello, Jc3s5h. You have new messages at Template talk:Convert.
Message added 12:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 61

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 61, January – February 2024

• Bristol University Press and British Online Archives now available
• 1Lib1Ref results

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)