Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:05, 25 July 2010

 As of July 2008, comments made on this page will be replied to on this page 

Hello, I used to be known as Igor Sklar and was a regular contributor to soc.genealogy.medieval, so it's nice to see a familiar name in Misplaced Pages. I would like to thank you for helpful additions on Descent from antiquity. When I started that page, I left red links at the end hoping that someone more knowledgable will start the appropriate articles. I hope you know what I mean :) Happy edits, Ghirla 17:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Colonial hang-overs, et al

Thanks for that Chris. I was actually writing something as you were! The whole argument actually stems from the view taken by Gavin (Gbambino) that the monarchy in the Commonwealth is shared, thus any references to the "British monarchy" is wrong. This is of course silly, given the fact that the monarchy is almost always regarded as British. In fact I would argue that's what keeps it alive in the largely British-settled colonies of Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Anyway, the African leaders thing is really part of their overall worldview on gaining independence: they were anti-colonial; Pan-Africanist socialists. It is hard to see how anyone taking such views could see the monarchy as anything other than a colonial hang over! --Lholden 23:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I accept that the monarch is legally speaking shared, but of course what we all know is that it's a British institution. That is what Gbambino is trying to hide. --Lholden 01:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Better than it being a sheep shagging Kiwi one!! 202.136.36.18 06:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Roman calendar

I had hoped that the link to your website would have allowed any interested party to follow up your line of reasoning for any specific year or issue, though I agree that this could perhaps be made more clear in the introductory paragraph. As far as I can tell yours is by far the most comprehensive and chronologically extensive reconstruction available anywhere, and is certainly the best one I've seen.

The significant events column is really still a work in progress, but my original intention, amongst other things, was to show that the accepted dates given for events in Roman history, such as the births of Caesar and his successors, are not Julian dates, even though this is almost never made clear (check out the Misplaced Pages articles on Julius Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, and Claudius for example). This problem extends to all dates from this period, and more of these could easily be added to the table.

However, since the tables are based on your work, I shall not object if you wish to delete them. TharkunColl 07:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion - please feel free to delete the tables if you want. TharkunColl 15:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Commonwealth realms

Good modification to my edit on the former status of Eritrea. That paragraph needs some additional clean-up, whichever of us can get to it first. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Errm, Australia was independent in foreign policy in 1939-45 and Eire was a Dominion during WW2. Grant65 | Talk 13:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Compare the position of Australia and New Zealand in 1939 with that of India, which had no discretion. Au and NZ did not have independent foreign policies because the government of the day had chosen not to have one (i.e. by not ratifying the Statute), not because they were unable to do so. That is my point. There is nothing wrong with repeating material within and article if it is an important point, which it is. As for Eire, see Dominion: it is a broad term and I defy anyone to show that Eire was not a Dominion before 1949. Grant65 | Talk 01:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you are still missing my point. I don't agree that it is "irrelevant" that the Statute of Westminter empowered Dominion governments, whether or not they chose to exercise that power. Menzies' speech declaring war, while it was technically correct, did not reflect the full range of options that were open to him — options which were not in any way available to the governments of India, Rhodesia or Jamaica.

In regard to Eire, you have mistaken my purpose, which is not to show that Eire definitely was a Dominion before 1949, merely that there is an argument that it was.

By the way, I don't respond well to the kind of approach that you employed in your last reply on my talk page. Please tone it down in future. Grant65 | Talk 03:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The word "Ireland" is ambiguous and controversial because it also includes Northern Ireland. It was even more controversial in 1937-49. That is why the standard practice, at least in other articles, is to use Irish Free State for the period before 1937, "Éire" for 1937-49 and Republic of Ireland thereafter.

I still don't understand why you think Australia and New Zealand's (latent) ability to remain neutral in 1939 is not relevant. Or is it just that you feel it should be mentioned elsewhere in the article? It certainly is not spelled out at present. Thanks. Grant65 | Talk 02:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Independence as a process

In your edit summary at Statute of Westminster 1931 you wrote that '"independence between .. dominions .. and the UK" is meaningless'. But independence is a symmetric relationship; that's exactly why it's sought over the asymmetric dependence that precedes it. Regarded as a process, independence is the gradual reduction of dependence, and thus the approach towards relational symmetry. I think this makes more sense in the Commonwealth context than to regard independence as a specific goal achieved at one specific moment. Canada has never "declared independence" from Britain; many different moments mark the process, and dependencies still remain (some even in the reverse direction, e.g. Canadian citizens have the right to vote and stand for office in UK elections, but not British citizens in Canada). (In case you haven't guessed, 131.104.49.53 was me. I'm happy with your most recent edit.) G Colyer 20:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand my objection to your edit, which was much simpler: the phrase "indpendence between" implied a pre-existing symmtery. Independence wasn't established between Canada, Australia and the UK, because the UK was already a sovreign nation and the others were not. It was established for Canada and Australia and from the UK. What was established between them was equality. As to the method by which independence was established, I agree of course that it was a gradual process and that the choice of date is somewhat arbitrary.--Chris Bennett 22:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I did misunderstand. I disagree that the phrase "indpendence between" implies a pre-existing symmtery. (I could also quibble about the use of the term "sovereign nation" in the Commonwealth context, and the use of the past tense in the last sentence, but it's not necessary. With what that part of the article itself says now, I'm reasonably happy.) G Colyer 14:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Ptolemies

Nice edits. We need more expertise on these subjects here in Misplaced Pages. --Ghirla 21:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Dablinks

I had to restore all the dablinks as per WP:DAB, which says: "Above all, do not pipe the link. Show the entire linked article title as is, to avoid confusion, which is the reason for the top link in the first place." I know it's silly to have Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom as the article on the Monarch of Jamaica, but, we can't flout Misplaced Pages policy. --G2bambino 16:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd love to see Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom retitled, but that opens up a seething bag of such vicious cats that it's essentially an impossible goal. That said, you can try and contravene the guidelines, but I'm sure some stickler for policy will eventually change one or all of them, which may lead to a battle royale; unless some explanation is offered... --G2bambino 17:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

How about what I've just inserted at British monarchy? --G2bambino 17:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay then, that works for me. However, I'll wait to change the others until we decide where to direct users for info on the monarchies themselves, as per the concerns I raised at Talk:Commonwealth realm#dablink. --G2bambino 17:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems like the "stickler for policy" has spoken up already at British monarchy. What to do now? --G2bambino 18:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I've begun a discussion at Talk:Commonwealth realm#Dablinks in general. --G2bambino 18:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Commonwealth Realms (again)

CB, I'm assuming you're not labeling me, a troll. I also suggest 'less colorful' edit summaries. GoodDay 21:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Wake up? Again, please control your emotions. Please, take notice that I support 'Commonwealth Realms'. As for me supporting UK, first among equals? I'm content with relating Commonwealth articles showing all equal status. I leave you & JDM, to duke it out. GoodDay 22:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I'm signing out for the night. I'll check up on the progress tommorrow. 'Til then. GoodDay 22:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

You have been named in a request for arbitration at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Commonwealth_realms. Jonathan David Makepeace 00:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Please vote!

Hi,

Since you've been involved in the recent discussions at Talk:Commonwealth Realm, your vote would be appreciated on this proposal. Thanks. -- Hux 09:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Warning!

Today I came across several edit summaries by you that fail to assume good faith and are potentially personal attacks as well. Edit summaries such as this, this and this are not tolerated. Please consider this your first and only warning. ^demon 12:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I came across as a bit threatening myself. I do understand what it's like to encounter someone who you view as trolling, and I know the frustration it can cause. While they may or may not be indeed trolling was not why I made the comment I made. It was just a request for you to keep the tone down a bit in edit summaries. Sorry for phrasing it as a warning, can you please forgive me and take it as a polite reminder instead? All the best, ^demon 19:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Commonwealth Realm

Chris-

I feel like the situation at Commonwealth Realm is becoming somewhat like the Titanic's last hour - things are falling apart; even the admin who locked the page is throwing personal insults my way now. JDM, not surprisingly, refuses to answer any of your pertinent questions nor address his contradictory comments that you made public; it seems the tactic is for the "r" proponents to bury such things in a morass of useless bickering.

I'm at a loss as to what to do next. Is WP:ArbCom the next step? What do you think? --G2bambino 14:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to run to an appointment now, but I'll address your points later. User:Mackensen and I seem to have come to an understanding, and I may have inadvertently brought some admin attention to Passport as well. Cheers. --G2bambino 16:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

As per your earlier comments at my talk:

Yes, mob rule is the perfect way to describe it, and it seems that most people involved are now following JDM's "precedent" argument rather than your "best for Misplaced Pages" and "JDM is a hypocrite" arguments. Misplaced Pages is not supposed to be a democracy, but time and time again I've seen things go the wrong way because one "politician" lured the general populace towards his side and convinced them to vote for him.

I suppose the situation will have to go to ArbCom, where admins will have to make a "ruling" on the matter, so yes, your focused and relevant contributions will indeed be useful.

I guess we'll just have to wait until the 14th to move on to the next step, which may be the best thing, as patience is certainly wearing thin at the talk page. --G2bambino 03:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

As you and JDM are the 'acknowledge' leaders of the dispute (in my eyes). I've felt it fair to inform you, I've recommended to JDM that 'should the Footenote Vote fail on August 14', a 'consensus vote' should be taken on 'moving the page' to Commonwealth realms. Surely a 2/3 majority 'to move' OR 'not to move' would be acceptable? GoodDay 20:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope, 50 + 1% isn't good enough (either way). It has to be 2/3 majority. A 2/3 majority (either way), should end this dispute (mind you we're still waiting on 'final result' of Footnote. If a 2/3 majority in favour of 'page movement' occured, would you accept? (Ps- will ask JDM -reverse question- on his page), and bring closure to dispute? GoodDay 21:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Im hoping G2, will follow your lead. GoodDay 21:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

G2 has 'vetoed' the idea of another 'page move vote' (pointing out failure of previous 'move' vote). He prefers going to Arbitration. GoodDay 21:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

vote on decapitalizing Commonwealth R/realm

A vote has been called on the decapitalization of "r" in "Commonwealth R/realm." Jonathan David Makepeace 00:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Italiotis

Hi Chris. please do not get upset it wasn t my intention to insult english people by proposing the title of basileus. It is widely used academically when referring to the actual title to be the precise one. So should we ommit the title pharaoh from the ancient egypt as well? Because it is the same thing. The position was King of Egypt. But he ptolemy never resumed the title of "King" as this title derives from the German word koenig which derives from the name of Charlemagne. It is a title introduced 1000 years after the elevation of Ptolemy in Kingship So it is mistake to state that he resumed the "title of King", as he never did, as it is correct to say that "He became a king". Nonetheless Chris I shall not argue further about this. If you want to have the title in a more common form so be it. Italiotis 13:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not a question of being upset or insulted, it's only a question of what is appropriate English usage in the English Misplaced Pages. Where "basileus" is used by academic historians they are drawing attention to the fact that Hellenistic kingships were being created in this period, and they are trying to distinguish between a Hellenistic kingship and the longstanding pharaonic kingship (it has been argued that he took the two titles at different times). This is a fine detail not appropriate for the lede of the article, and in fact it is not even mentioned in the body of the article, which merely says that the successors took the title "king". That would be the appropriate place to mention the "basileus" point. --Chris Bennett 15:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

And besides, no Hellenistic king used basileus in any geographic context (king "of egypt" etc.) since that would have been viewed as limiting. All these Diadoch dynasts and their heirs considered themselves basileis of all they surveyed, and could grab. Appietas (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

In Remembrance...

--nat 16:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Monarchy articles

Chris Bennett- I see you've been involved in the editing of British monarchy and on its talk page. There's presently a poll going on regarding the format of the titles for all Commonwealth realm monarchy articles. If you'd like to register an opinion, please do so here. Cheers. --G2bambino (talk) 16:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Beber Calendar

Hi, Chris! Thanks for your interest in the Berber Calendar. I hope i was rightful in doubting some statments, like i hope my answer in the talkpage were understandable. I would like to tell you here i have no much knowledge concerning the Berber history. But i edited the statment were considered as undoubted facts. However, i didn't claim they were not correct! Best regards, Read3r (talk) 09:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Roman calendar

Semi-protected. :-) - Philippe | Talk 17:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Roman consuls

Hi! It seems that the Byzantine equivalent to consul, hypatos was used long through Byzantine history and was always popular. It never fall out of use and never was unified with the emperor's office. Just the opposite, it was given to such a number of people that its prestige deraded. There were numerous hypatos'es at any ginen time in Byzantium. Several Italian duces also received the title from the Byzantine emperor. It seems that the title never was abolished.--Dojarca (talk) 19:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Was it really the equivalent of "consul" or was it just an honorific court title originating as consul? I.e. did the consuls -- hypatoi -- hold an annual magistracy and were they eponyms? I don't believe so.

In any case, I don't think I'm going to be getting around to looking at the disappearance of consular dating in the Byzantine Empire any time soon. If you are in a position to follow through on this, please do!! --Chris Bennett (talk) 20:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

They certainly were not eponymous after Leo the Wise but their position probably was annual. There was also a large number of "ex-consuls" (apo hypaton) in the Byzantine empire. I presume that if the title of hypatos was not annual, there should not be such a number of apo hypaton's.--Dojarca (talk) 20:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Warnings

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page content or tags from Misplaced Pages, as you did to Descent from antiquity, you will be blocked from editing.

Removal of tags was fully justified in fact and in discussion. This is not disruptive editing. Disruptive editing is repeated insertion of inaccurate material without making any attempt to justify the action.

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Descent from antiquity. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing.

Removal of unjustified and defacing material is reasonable at all times.

Please stop your disruptive editing, such as the edit you made to Descent from antiquity. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages.

Vandalism is piling on unjustified tags. Vandalism is tagging every sentence. I am not the vandal here.

Please stop. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Descent from antiquity, you will be blocked for vandalism.

I did not edit or change any of your comments, I merely replied inline, which is a very normal procedure. Further, I stopped doing it in deference to your sensitivities as soon as I understood that you didn't like it. Since this is my mail box, you get to play by my rules here, and I see no reason to extend you that courtesy, especially since you are making threats, rather than trying to resolve this with reasoned discussion.

You, however, reordered my comments in a way that made them unintelligible. Again, I am not the offender here.

Please stop assuming ownership of articles such as Descent from antiquity. Doing so may lead to disruptive behavior such as edit wars and is a violation of policy, which may lead to a block from editing.

I do not assume ownership of this article. Many people have made edits there without any objection from me or anyone else. I have told you that I am happy for you to change the referencing style of the article, provide you do it constructively, even though I do not personally think it is necessary. I have also told you that if you want to beef the article up to "featured article" standards you are more than welcome to do so as far as I am concerned. That is the exact opposite of assuming ownership.

Ownership includes believing you have the right to make any changes you like without any need to justify them. That's you mate, not me.

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: Descent from antiquity. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages.

Editors who demonstrably do not act in good faith deserve what they get.

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on Descent from antiquity. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Misplaced Pages.

I did, until you proved that you were not acting in good faith. I judged you quickly, I agree, but correctly.

--Chris Bennett (talk) 17:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI

The IP editor 71.18.216.36 reported you at WP:AIV, apparently without realising we do check these things before we go for the block button. There seem to be a number of IPs (probably the same editor by the look of it) engaging in disruption on Descent from antiquity, so I have rv'd back to the last stable version and semi-protected it for a week.EyeSerene 18:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks --Chris Bennett (talk) 20:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

ASSHOLE

		WikiMedal for Janitorial Services
		We Award Chris Bennett This Medal for Polishing the Turd at Descent from Antiquity 88.84.137.165 (talk) 05:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this speaks for itself.

You've got me thinking about tags in general though. I have never used them, and I've always found them annoying even when I agree with them. This little exercise made me understand why: they aren't helpful, they are just arrogant and lazy. The tagger is saying "I don't like the look of this article but I couldn't be bothered to do anything constructive to fix it." In your case, you couldn't even be bothered to explain why your tags were appropriate -- the mere fact that it was You, Wonderful You, who had placed it there was all I was supposed to need to know. Not that you knew or cared anything about the contents of the article in the first place.

If I see something I really don't like, or believe is wrong, and I care (which is not often in WP), I fix it. Or, if I don't know how to fix it, I raise the issue on the Talk page. That is being constructive and engaged.

Thanks for pointing me at WikiTruth. There's a lot there that I agree with. I think WP's philosophy of letting anyone edit whatever they like is fundamentally flawed. It can produce some good stuff, but the mean trends towards mediocrity. And it encourages a glut of narcissistic idiots like you who really have no clue what they are doing but who make life miserable for those who do. It's rather scary how much of the serious content in WP on historical topics still comes from the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica.

WikiTruth advocates having controlled access to editing and strong editors -- in other words, an ownership model. In the abstract, I agree with this. The problem is how to get to it. WP's idea that a free field will create natural selection is an interesting experiment, but I don't think it is working, because there is too much freedom for jerks like you who have no clue -- too much nature, not enough selection.

A big part of the problem is that WP encourages the equation of "ownership" with "dog in the manger". That is what you meant (whether you understood it or not, probably not) when you accused me of the awful sin of ownership. But they are not the same thing: A good owner of an article knows the topic, writes well, gets other informed people to contribute, and exercises quality control. The problem, which WP is not solving as far as I can see, is that there is no real incentive for such people to contribute. Most of the people who could do that job have better things to do with their time than fending off mental or literal adolescents such as yourself.

As do I.--Chris Bennett (talk) 14:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Inline citations at Descent from antiquity

I don't find the lack of inline citations a major problem....unless one of those citations happens to be to an editor of the page with a conflict of interest. It's important that you show which parts of the article are sourced to your book with inline sources. Also, I'd recommend being a bit less bitey to editors who have issues with how the sources are handled, considering your COI. Aunt Entropy (talk) 05:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

What conflict of interest? I assume you are referring to the fact that the article cites some of my own articles (I have not written any "book" -- if you are going to act as judge and jury you might at least try to get your facts straight!). The cited policy (god how WP loves "policies") reads:

Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies.

My articles are cited in an area where I have a certain measure of academic expertise which the cited articles themseves establish. In fact there really is not a lot of published material on this topic. To my knowledge I am one of only two or three people to have written anything serious on the particular question of pharaonic descents and the only person to have looked seriously at a Babylonian descent. That makes the cited articles "notable" within the context of the topic.

The link to my Ptolemaic webste was not added by me, and truthfully I am not entirely comfortable with it being there since it is not "published" in the same sense as the others. However, the linked page merely summarises (with references) the work of others, and the site itself is a well-recognised academic resource, as a little googling will show you.

As for being "bitey": Sorry, but one of the major reasons I am not an active WP editor is that WP is infested with pedants and not a few downright idiots. I contributed to a few articles I knew something about to see what would happen, and I continue to monitor most of them in case there are worthwhile additions. But, frankly, most of the contributions have been editorial, mostly unnecessary, or just plain silly; very few have been made by someone who knows what he/she is talking about. I only bother to oppose the ones that I think are positively harmful. But when I do, I do give the person involved the benefit of the doubt, until they prove they don't deserve it, as in this case. --Chris Bennett (talk) 17:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Apropos of nothing...

It strikes me, given some of the comments you've left around and about, you might appreciate WP:WIKISPEAK... EyeSerene 09:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Love it, thanks! I especially liked the etymology of Misplaced Pages....--Chris Bennett (talk) 15:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yup, it's unfortunately very plausible. EyeSerene 18:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

DfA AfD

Generally page protection is a last resort as it prevents legitimate editors from contributing, so tends to be used where vandalism is coming from an apparently dynamic IP (ie where blocking would be less effective). However, this IP appears to be stable, and I had already put them on notice, so I've issued a temporary block. Hopefully that will give some respite (although if the tagging starts up again under a new IP, the page can indeed be protected). Hope this helps, EyeSerene 07:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Solstice graph

Hi! You reverted my replacement of by in the Leap year article. The comment said that you found the old diagram mor einformative. Could you please tell me what exactly it is you're missing in the new diagram, so that I can improve it? It is the lack of the text comments in the figure? I found those a bit superfluous, but I'd be happy to put them in if you think it improves the figure. Thanks, baszoetekouw (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think they do make the figure more informative, by clearly illustrating how to read it.

There are two other (related) differences:

1) Your figure shows just the summer solstice dates, but labels on the current figure show both summer and winter solstices; you can't use the same labels. These labels are possible because the current graph is more general than yours: it applies to all the nodal points. I think the generality is valuable in an article on leap years.

2) Your y-axis gives absolute Gregorian dates, the current figure shows the difference between calendar time and tropical time. Again, I think this is more informative in showing why the Gregorian leap year rule exists, because it better illustrates the principle.

Also, if the graph is treated as being general over all the nodal points, this is the only possible way to label the y-axis. In a graph that only shows the summer solstice, both options are open. In such a case, I would agree that your y-axis is probably more appropriate, because it is more concrete. but as already stated I think the generality is valuable. --Chris Bennett (talk) 16:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Our friend on DfA

Noticed they were back and up to their old tricks; blocked again (longer-term this time as the IP appears to be static). Thanks for your patience in putting up with this idiot. EyeSerene 08:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully he (or she -- but I doubt it) will get the point this time. --Chris Bennett (talk) 17:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Calendar

Greetings. I will soon make some requests and suggestions regarding the Roman and Julian calendar pages. Just to let you know. Thanks in advance for bringing your insights and diligence to those pages - not to mention diplomacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muso-en (talk • contribs) 02:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Gregorian calendar

You may find the new procedure for converting between Gregorian and Julian dates, added to the Gregorian calendar article by an IP editor, of interest. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You mean the table entries for the time from 1 March to Nth March Gregorian = 29-N to 28 February Julian? These are a little counter-intuitive but they are right, though I would express it as N-1 days difference from Gregorian date to Julian date rather than the other way around. --Chris Bennett (talk) 02:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I would say the table entries could be right or wrong, depending how you define "difference". The reader is left to experiment with known correct values in order to figure out how to use the table.

Agreed. As I say, I would express it the other way round. It should be clarified.

I was more concerned with the description of how to calculate for values outside the range of the tables. The procedure is not published in any reliable source that I know of, and the IP editor has not offered any derivation. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It is also wrong. The proleptic Gregorian calendar matches the Julian calendar in the third century AD, but according to this formula the difference in that century is floor((2+3)x7/9)-4 = -1 day. But this is the same nutter who thinks research on the Roman calendar stopped in the early 19th century, so I can't say I'm surprised that it is unsourced, unjustified, and incorrect. --Chris Bennett (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

See Talk:Conversion between Julian and Gregorian calendars where the IP editor proposed bits and pieces of the procedure. I don't know if the procedure could be salvaged by specifying a more recent start to the period of validity. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with N-2-floor(N/4)? --Chris Bennett (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I created a C# program to implement your expression. In C# the result of dividing integers is the integer part of the quotient, which gives a different result from the floor function for negative numbers. I tested for years 1 through 2801 and it seems right. Extension to negative years and checking precise code for converting dates will follow. Here is a code snippet:

int y;      // Gregorian year in loop
           int m;      // Gregorian month in loop
           int yM400;  // y modulo 400, needed in several tests
           int centMinus1; // The digits in the Gregorian century after dropping
                           // the two rightmost digits
           int diff;   // difference between Gregorian name and
           // Julian name of a date.
           for (y = 1; y <= 2801; y++)
           {
               int loopY;   // the kind of year used in a particular
               //iteration of the main loop
               yM400 = y % 400;
               // Revised difference calculation based on following text
               // from http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Chris_Bennett
               //
               // What's wrong with N-2-floor(N/4)?
               // [no of centuries before/after the third
               // - no of centuries AD/BC / 4]
               // --Chris Bennett (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
               //

               centMinus1 = y / 100;
               diff = centMinus1 -2 - centMinus1/4 ;

Jc3s5h (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I was being loose when I used floor(), I meant the integer part of the result.

It occurs to me that the formula you are debating, with it's 7s and 9s, may be correct for the Revised Julian calendar. I haven't looked at that closely, but it does make use of 900 year cycles, and our mutual friend is clearly a supporter of that calendar. --Chris Bennett (talk) 02:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I have observed that the procedure in question gives results for 1200 and 2800 which would work for the Revised Julian Calendar or New Calendar but not for the Gregorian calendar.

The IP poster might be right about New Calendar being a more appropriate name than Revised Julian Calendar; I don't know where to find reliable sources from the pro-Julian and pro-New sides to form an opinion.

I don't think integer division is going to work for negative years, because when doing integer division for the years -50 and 50 (as an example), -50/100 = 50/100 = 0. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

That's as it should be, year 0 (astronomical) is a multiple of 400 and therefore a proleptic Gregorian leap year as well as a (proleptic) Julian leap year, so the difference doesn't change between the first centuries BC and AD. The formula does assume astronomical year numbering, and of course there is the boundary condition of the first few weeks of the centennial years, which is does not take into account and which requires special processing. --Chris Bennett (talk) 03:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I am working on a brute-force test, in which for every Gregorian date between the chosen upper and lower limits, I will find each corresponding Julian date, and then use the Microsoft .NET DateTime object and set the date of two objects, the first one using the Greg. date and telling DateTime the input is Greg., and the second DateTime object will be fed the Jul. date and be told the input is Jul. Then I will see if the two objects are equal, and if not, issue an error message. That will work from January 1, 1 through December 31, 9999. Then I will test Julian to Gregorian. Finally I'll repeat the whole business, extended to negative years, using the algorithms from Calendrical Calculations. I think it's worth the trouble because I can easily change a few lines to try any proposed conversion method. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

State of the art on Roman intercalary months (Was: New calendar (Eastern churches): Ballot proposal)

Thanks for that. Next time you're over here pay a visit to the new British Library in St Pancras. You'll find the experience well worthwhile. It's very easy to get to. It's actually next door to the St Pancras International rail terminal for Eurostar services to and from the continent. Vote (X) for Change (talk) 10:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

And I'm sure it also carries copies of (among others) Michels, Brind'Amour, ZPE..... --Chris Bennett (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I am only interested in living authors, as they can say what their views are in the light of the latest research. The British Library holds a copy of virtually everything, so why don't you give me the names of experts in this field who are alive, together with details of all their publications which have come to your notice, and I can check it out. Vote (X) for Change (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Chris, happy Easter. I've found another living author who doesn't buy Agnes Michels' mensis intercalaris story. It's E G Richards and the book is Mapping Time, published by Oxford University Press in 1998. In fact, this is getting ridiculous. I'm sitting in this library pulling books off the shelves and nobody supports her.

Here's a book by Anthony Aveni, Empires of Time, published in London by I B Taurus in 1990. The ISBN is 1-85043-215-5. On page 114 he says:

The Romans had, however, a solution of their own. In 150 B.C., they created a 22 - or 23 - day month called Mercedonius, which was inserted after 23 February in every other year or as needed, thus advancing the average year count from 355 to about 366. In the Old Roman calendar, 23 February marked the Festival of Terminalia, a day of sacrifice to Terminus, the god of boundaries. His festal date had been the last day of the year in an older form of the calendar. 217.169.37.146 (talk) 10:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Living or dead, someone is only refuting Michels if they are actually aware of her work and give reasons not to accept it. You are looking in the wrong places. Neither Richards nor Aveni either cite her or refute her; I bet neither of them were aware of her work. More importantly, neither author shows any sign that "their views are in the light of the latest research" in Roman calendars. Both are very unreliable on this topic, which is not surprising since neither is a classicist and this topic is not either's main area of interest. For example Richards uncritically swallows Sacrobosco's furphy about Augustus changing month-lengths wholesale. For another example, in the passage you cite Aveni talks about intercalation being introduced in 150 BC -- what nonsense! If both authors can make such egregious errors why should their repetition of outdated views on the position and length of the intercalary month carry any weight?

I repeat: the experts on the Roman calendar, those that have actually studied the evidence, accept Michels' reconstruction of the intercalary month. According to your peculiar criterion that only living experts count (Brind'Amour should be living but he died of cancer in 1995), see for example Rupke's book "Kalender und Offentlichkeit", e.g. p253, p311, p. 313, p. 315. As proof that Rupke is still alive, or at least was living in 2008, which ought to be recent enough for you, even if 1995 is not, see e.g.

--Chris Bennett (talk) 02:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

How old is Rupke's book? Reverting to the present, there is currently a discussion on ANI under section "As soon as my back is turned..." 86.152.101.215 (talk)

1995. God almighty, don't you even know how to look up a library catalogue? --Chris Bennett (talk) 01:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI

You're at ANI, raised by an IP. SGGH 21:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Since I see the IP has been appropriately blocked I will ignore this unless specifically requested to respond. --Chris Bennett (talk) 01:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

A fresh thread was opened earlier this week, to which I have just made a contribution. 195.194.10.178 (talk) 09:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Why do you keep digging this hole deeper and deeper? I say you are banned because in fact you are banned. Pretending that isn't true, when it is easy for anyone to verify that it is, is hardly likely to help you overturn that ban. If I were you, and I cared about this as much as you obviously do, I would be trying to find out what it takes to get the ban revoked -- and then working hard to meet those conditions.

I don't know what it takes, and frankly given your track record I doubt it is even possible at this stage, but maybe it is. As it is, all you are succeeding in doing is convincing everybody that you are a bloody nuisance, and getting half the public library terminals in London, from Enfield to Richmond to Sutton, locked out of editing Misplaced Pages.

One gets the impression that you spend your days driving around the M25 looking for a library that you haven't been to yet -- all so that you can promote your personal theories of calendar history. Ask yourself: Is this really rational and sensible behaviour??? --Chris Bennett (talk) 15:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Yet another thread has been opened on ANI (not by me). I apologise for the delay in notification, which is due to circumstances entirely outside my control. 212.85.7.14 (talk) 09:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Two and a half years ago, after weeks and weeks and weeks of my trying and failing to get you to debate on the talk page, you had the bare-faced gall to revert my edit for "Persistent refusal to debate on talk page". You expected flowers???? And now you expect anyone to listen to your complaint about this incident two and a half years later? After all the prevarications and lies you've pulled in the last four months? You clearly live in a world of total fantasy. --Chris Bennett (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Entirely justified, considering your failure to respond to . If you don't understand how Justinian's Digest was constructed then research it. You are unlikely to be working over the Independence Day weekend. My recollection is that Justinian brought together a group of scholars who arranged extracts from the jurists according to author, book and paragraph so that it is wrong to read the successive dictionary definitions as the development of a legal argument. When you're done, read User talk:Meletian before replying. 86.162.26.246 (talk) 11:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

In fact I did respond, as I had persistently responded on the Talk Page to all your previous one-line "edit summaries", and the response was immediately above the characterization that seems to have stuck under your skin: , so there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that you read it.

Coming from someone who persistently hides behind IP addresses, it's a bit rich for you to demand any personal information out of me, and it's just plain rude for you to demand it on WP:ANI () when you know perfectly well how to ask me personally.

However, since you did ask so nicely, my PhD is in Computer Science from the University of London. Its the basis of how I make a living, but I don't make a big deal of it here because it is only marginally relevant to calendrical studies. It gave me an appreciation of issues like accuracy and precision, and a general academic training, which means, among other things, that I know how to research source material, and how to develop and to test and assess hypotheses.

That means, for example, that if I learn that the standard reference on the pre-Julian calendar is A K Michels, "The Calendar of the Roman Republic", one of the first things I do is to look at the book. Something you have yet to do.

What is relevant, since you want to fight about qualifications in this area, is that I have been a Visiting Scholar in the History Dept at UCSD for 15 years, which is not something they would continue unless they thought I merited it. As a result of the research I have done during my time there, I have published papers on calendrical and chronological topics in Gottinger Miszellen, the Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt, Agypten und Levante, the Zeitschrift fur Papyrology und Epigraphik, Classical Quarterly, Ancient Society, Bibliotheca Orientalis, and Acta Orientalia. Two of these came out of presentations I was invited to give at the University of Chicago and the University of Vienna, two are coauthored papers with well-known experts in their respective fields at the University of Leiden and the Free University of Berlin, and one is an invited review of a recent book about Egyptian chronology. In addition the website on Ptolemaic genealogy and Hellenistic chronology is a well recognized academic resource, see for example and .

So who are you and why should anyone pay any attention to your views on these topics? What are your qualifications in the field? What are your publications? All anyone can see is someone who hides behind a million IP addresses, who apparently has no academic affiliations at all since you only access the Internet through public library terminals, who often pretends to be more than one person, who relies on outdated 19th century studies or on 20th century studies by non-experts, who refuses to consider sources or counter-arguments that disagree with your views, who thinks that only living scholars are relevant to establishing the academic consensus (except, of course, for the long-dead scholars you base your own views on), who thinks that working lawyers of the 2nd century AD used a calendar that had been abandoned 150 years earlier, who thinks it is possible that the Bolsheviks adopted a calendar in 1918 that was first proposed in 1923, who is obsessed by the calendar reforms of the Orthodox church(es) and is strongly and reflexively anti-Catholic, and, above all, someone who point-blank refuses to change behaviours that everyone who deals with you tells you are counter-productive, as I did in my very first attempt to interact with you: ().

Why should anybody take you seriously???? --Chris Bennett (talk) 20:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

You appear to be congenitally incapable of telling the truth. My response to you was . True to form, all you did was run to ANI for a block without telling me what you were up to . This removes a reference. Do not remove references - if you have any alternative theories, simply add them, making sure they are supported by a reliable source (which does not mean a vague reference to someone's book). Funny how the nineteenth - century sources which you describe as outdated are the ones that don't support you - others (such as Mommsen) which you claim support you (in fact he doesn't) you have no problem with at all.

As someone who is incapable of seeing that it is possible for people who hold views different from his own to be right, why should anybody take any notice of you? Who are you to say that a particular study is outdated, or by a non - expert? Why don't you stop trashing long - dead authors who aren't in a position to respond and instead start criticising somebody who is alive now and might just bite back? Every popular author who has written a book about calendars to cash in on the interest aroused by the millennium and the 1999 eclipse prefers the Ideler model. So tell them they're incompetent and wait for the reaction.

Why is it necessary to be a writer to assess previously published papers in a particular field? What possible exception is there to accessing the internet through public libraries which have qualified staff, the latest computers, photocopiers, scanners and, of course, the eassential raw material for research - books. I qualified as an Associate of a Chartered professional body but I don't brag about it. As far as academic consensus is concerned, when was the last symposium on calendars in the classical period? You obtain consensus by bringing experts together and having a discussion. You claimed that I was obsessed by the Roman Republican calendar. Now it's the Eastern European calendar. Funny how you only say this when my views are different from yours. All those people like Simon Cassidy, Richard McCarty and Karl Palmen, who devise Easter algorithms, goddess calendars and yerm calendars, are they obsessives in your book as well?

To clear yourself of any suspicion of bias, you might like to reveal your religious affiliation as well. Why are Catholics so eager to claim that Orthodox are using the Catholic calendar? Why do you think that Uniate churches refuse to use the Catholic calendar? Why do you think that the pope has just introduced a department to revitalise the faith in countries which were formerly entirely Catholic? Are you aware that only 20% of the Catholic population in Portugal now attends church.? What effect do you think that the matters described in are having on the Catholic community?

Show me a diff where I say that Russia adopted the Meletian calendar in 1918. Had your doctorate been in law you would know that lawyers handle dates much older than 150 years all the time. A common lease period is 999 years and plenty of leases from the sixteenth century come under the hammer at property auctions. I'll allow a week for other contributors to express their views, after which I'll be restoring the reference which you removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.115.50 (talk) 13:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

That's about the level of response I should have expected. But there are a few points you make that do deserve a response

"Why is it necessary to be a writer to assess previously published papers in a particular field?"

If you don't know why it is necessary to understand the state of the art you have no business commenting on it.

"What possible exception is there to accessing the internet through public libraries which have qualified staff, the latest computers, photocopiers, scanners and, of course, the eassential raw material for research - books"

If you don't understand that the specialised research resources available to universities, including those accessible through the Internet, far exceed those found in the average public library, if you don't understand that most of "the eassential raw material for research" lies in books and articles for specialist journals not found in the average public library and written by technical specialists, if you don't understand that such books and articles are inherently more likely to be concerned with and accurate about points of fine technical detail than populist books about calendars written by "popular authors ... cash in on the interest aroused by the millennium and the 1999 eclipse", then you clearly don't understand how to do research.

For example: You still haven't read Michels' book yet, two and half years after you have been made aware of it. I'm not sure which possible reason more clearly shows up your failure to understand the nature of research: that you haven't looked for it, or that you haven't found it. I'll assume the latter, even though I told you exactly where it could be found, in London no less. Two and a half years of exploring every public library in the Greater London area (and Leicester apparently) and you still haven't found it??? Doesn't that tell you you are looking in the wrong places? It's not a particularly obscure book, it's even written in English, and it's written very well too.

"You obtain consensus by bringing experts together and having a discussion."

Actually, the way it is usually done in fields like this, and especially on detail issues like the exact structure of the pre-Julian intercalary month, the nature of the bissextile day, and the phase and alignment of the early Julian triennial cycle, is to publish work whose conclusions are then adopted over time by most or all other specialists in the field.

Either way, the relevant issue here is how a researcher should determine what the consensus is, not how it was arrived at. You detect what it is by tracing the reactions to those conclusion in reviews, books and articles which cite and discuss or build on or refute those conclusions. For example, you repeatedly say that no-one accepts Michels' results, yet in fact every specialist work cites her book and adopts her views, at most making the point that the evidence is very limited. You have not produced a single example of an attempt at refutation, and in fact you cannot, because there are none. All you have ever produced are quotes from populist books written by populist authors who show no awareness that her work exists, who have had no reason to research these points, and who have tried no harder to engage with the issues under discussion than you have (and, to be fair to you, probably not as hard).

"To clear yourself of any suspicion of bias, you might like to reveal your religious affiliation as well."

Catholics are inherently biased but someone who thinks of himself as Orthodox cannot be?? Do you not see what's wrong with that? But if it puts your mind at rest, I am neither, though it really isn't any of your business.

Parenthetically, I wasn't aware that there was a dispute between the Catholics and the Orthodox on the nature of the Roman calendar. It puts the "filioque" dispute to shame if there is.

"I'll allow a week for other contributors to express their views, after which I'll be restoring the reference which you removed."

So generous of you to offer up my talk page as a forum to the whole of WP, until such time as the current blocks on IP edits to article talk pages aimed at you expire. And I suppose I should be as flattered as you flatter yourself that you think there is an audience watching my talk page for the scintillating debate between us now taking place on it.

However, back in the real world, and as you know full well, if you make any attempt to do anything to any calendar article or talk page, no matter what it is, it will be reverted, whether by me or other editors. Not because it is wrong -- though it usually is -- but because you are a banned editor. As a result anything you do to WP now, anything at all, is ipso facto tainted.

You only have yourself to blame for that. And yet you keep digging the hole deeper.

I am now extending that ban to my personal talk page. I really shouldn't have let myself get goaded into this discussion in the first place. Anything you place here in future will be reverted without response.

This discussion is closed. --Chris Bennett (talk) 19:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS/N

Hey Chris, I responded to your comment regarding your website at WP:RS/N. I think the whole thing kind of dissolved when it became evident that the sources were being misrepresented. Just goes to show that you can't be too careful with this stuff.--Cúchullain /c 18:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the headsup. I guessed that was what had happened but thought I should probably give some background in case a bad precedent was getting set. --Chris Bennett (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

RfPP

--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

IP Sock

Judging by this edit, you appear to know something that is not readily evident about some IP socking. I thought since you have this information, you might be interested in this (note the false sig). I couldn't pick up the trail that leads to the sockmaster so I'm leaving it alone. -- Mufka 11:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Disregard. I found it. I was sidetracked by the user name "Vote (X) For Change" in the IP block log when the account is actually "Vote (X) for Change". -- Mufka 11:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll pay closer attention to the caps next time! --Chris Bennett (talk) 14:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I see from the link you gave me that he is back to hacking February 29. This is the same guy that caused Leap year February 29 February 24 Mercedonius and a whole bumch of other articles to be long-term semi-protected in 2008. --Chris Bennett (talk) 14:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Soviet calendar

Thanks for the link to the complete Russian text of their decree adopting the Gregorian calendar. It contains items (2)–(9) omitted from the Pravda article that not even Vmenkov, who kindly translated the Pravda text, could identify. — Joe Kress (talk) 20:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

De nada. Our IP friend got me curious about these reforms and I thought it might be interesting to see if I could find the actual text. Apart from anything else, having the missing sections nails it down that Lenin only had the Gregorian calendar in mind in 1918 (courtesy of Babelfish...). Not that the IP ever gave a justification for her idea that the "new" calendar was not Gregorian. --Chris Bennett (talk) 21:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations, you've been accused of Meatpuppetry on ANI!

...and since the IP who accused you can't read directions, I guess I'll have to inform you of the thread myself. Looks like a load of...stuff (hence the sarcasm) but you might want to look into it. The thread is Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Elockid abetting meatpuppets? N419BH 18:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

And by the time I get to read this I see it has already been appropriately dealt with.

Just for the record, since this is not the first time this fantasy has come up and it will no doubt recur, the only interaction I have ever had with Jc3s5h is the dialog above on the IP Sock's attempt to impose the Revised Julian Calendar leap year algorithm on the Gregorian Calendar article. I monitor this person because she (I'll take her word for the gender) is clearly a crank, and the subject area is one that not too many people are well-informed about. I don't know, because we've never discussed it, but I guess that Jc3s5h has the same view. That's the only linkage. --Chris Bennett (talk) 23:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)