User talk:Joe Kress

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

/Archive 2004/03/23–2006/10/08

Contents

[edit] Need an opinion on these changes

Hi Joe, small difference of opinion about the precise definition of Anno Domini. Can you take a look at these edits in Anno Domini and Common Era and the followup on User_talk:Gerry_Ashton#Your_edits_to_Anno_Domini_and_Common_Era? The Catholic Encyclopedia agrees with my understanding; Gerry Ashton believes the definition is in dispute. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 00:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, the discussion has been moved to Talk:Anno_Domini#Epoch_is_nativity_or_conception.3F. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 00:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parilia and Easter

Good detective work, but is that a quote from Bede or from Jones? I assume it's from Bede, the cite for it should also indicate the point in the original Opera de Temporibus. --Chris Bennett 15:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my cryptic citation has mislead you. That is not a quote but my version of a conclusion by Jones from a remark by Prosper in 444 who complained about "circuses and bedlam" during Founder's Day. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Bede. It occurs within Jones' long preface to Bede's work entitled "Development of the Latin ecclesiastical calendar" on pages 1-122 of the book. I took some liberty with Jones, because he did not mention Lent. Instead he concluded that Founder's Day could not be allowed within "Holy Week", presumably the last week of Lent, from Palm Sunday to Holy Saturday. Jones also notes that the Roman church may have reluctantly agreed that Easter could be as late as April 22 or 23 if they could not avoid pressure from Alexandria to accept its Easter because that would be a minimal intrusion into "Holy Week", which makes no sense because a two day intrusion would place Founder's Day on Good Friday! – Joe Kress 02:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. That makes it sound like an inference and a not particularly certain one at that. I have Jones' book on order through ILL, thanks for the cite.

In any case I wonder if this remark shouldn't really be n the article on Easter rather than the Julian calendar?

--Chris Bennett 20:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

If this reason is not accepted, then we have no explanation for Rome's vociferous rejection of Easter after April 21, at the same time that they willingly changed the vernal equinox from March 25 to March 21 (c. AD 340). Nevertheless, you are correct that it properly belongs in Easter. — Joe Kress 23:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] bottomfeeder?

Joe, Why do you want (Talk:Easter) any new discussion topics added to the bottom of a page? That means that the old cruft stays on top and we always have to page through it to get to the current issues. A Bad Idea IMNSHO. Tom Peters 10:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I presume your complaint was triggered by my placement of the archival notice at the top of the page. Nevertheless, you are fighting a losing battle. The vast majority of Wikipedia editors add new discussion to the bottom of the page as Myzou did on Talk:Easter, and you also answered at the bottom, just like I did. Editors can and do put their comments anywhere on the talk page, including the middle, which neither a top nor bottom posting request will stop.
I never page through the talk page to get to current issues. Whenever I see a page that I watch on My watchlist, I always click on "hist" to the right of the name of the talk page—I never click on the talk page itself. On the history I select the last post that I viewed in the left column of radio buttons. I then select "Compare selected versions". This allows me to view new discussions at the top, bottom, or middle of the talk page without having to scroll through any old discussion. This is especially appropriate for very active talk pages, when even fifty new edits scattered throughout the page in one day is not that unusual.
When applied to articles, this allows me to catch vandalism like that recently on computus. To revert such vandalsim, do not correct each change individually. Instead, select the last good version on Page history, then select Edit this page, then Save page without making any changes to it. This reverts the vandalism without missing even minor changes that the vandal made. — Joe Kress 23:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good catch, thanks!

Took me a minute to see what you changed. I'm not sure what happened there; I guess something got mangled because he was vandalizing the page so frequently. You're right...time to archive. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 23:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inter caetera

Thanks, Joe, for the corrections to Inter caetera. I'm going to NPOV it a bit, but hopefully, not change the substance. Thanks again! NorCalHistory 01:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It appears that the incipit of the Sept. 1493 Bull is Dudum siquidem (see, e. g., [1] and [2]). If you agree, I'll be glad to make the change in the text.NorCalHistory 19:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hebrew Calendar

Just thought you should know -- the limits table looks great under FireFox, but have a look at it under IE 6.0. Microsoft seems to really screw it up. I don't know what the solution is for this. Karlhahn 22:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert. I have read that Internet Explorer does not implement all of the rules of Cascading Style Sheets in the manner prescribed by the World Wide Web Consortium. In this case, they either do not recognize a "border-style" of "hidden" or do not let "hidden" supersede "solid". If the first, then an undesirable fix would be to repeat my single type in all neighboring cells. If the second, then more style rules would fix it. I did indeed conduct my testing in FireFox. After your alert, I checked it in IE7 and found the same problem that you found in IE6. — Joe Kress 03:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that IE5,6,7 do not recognize "hidden", so I had to substitute "none". Although "hidden" supersedes "solid", "solid" supersedes "none", which requires the borders of virtually all cells to be specified. — Joe Kress 12:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Darthvader1

Hi, Joe! The silly thing is, as far as I can tell I only reverted him once, with a clear explanation in the edit summary and another explanation on his talk page. That one wasn't even a close call; he was trying to insert a diatribe about 9/11 and subsequent events into the 2001 article. No matter how you look at it, the September 11 entry on the 2001 page is for things that happened on that date -- and the TSA was not formed on that date. I can't say for sure that I haven't reverted him since then, although if I have, I didn't feel it necessary to send him a warning about it. I did, however, revert this tonight, but this was after his note to me caused me to review his recent edits. BTW, has the TSA actually deployed those backscatter X-ray units? I've only flown a few times this year; I haven't seen them. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 04:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

An EPIC Spotlight on Surveillance dated June 2005 indicated that the machines were being used at 16 or more airports. The TSA was requesting funds to install them nationwide. Today's news says that the previous usage was only by drug enforcement agents—by Christmas the Phoenix airport will begin using the machine for those passengers who fail the initial screening, who even then can opt out and choose a pat down. Several more airports will begin using the machines in early 2007. The TSA description is here. The complete TSA list of allowed and prohibited items, including liquids, is here. — Joe Kress 07:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I just realized that those liquid restrictions will affect me. I'm flying on Tuesday, and it looks like I'm going to have to check my bag; my smallest contact lens solution bottles are 120 ml. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 17:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] By the way...

If you missed Talk:1 BC#Requested move, check it out. I had to restrain myself from posting some really nasty comments that would have probably caused someone to send me an {{agf1}} warning. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 04:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I was aware of that discussion but felt no need to participate because you and others handled the situtation nicely. — Joe Kress 07:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock

  • I've contacted the blocking administrator for comment; in the meantime, please bear with us, and thanks for your patience. Luna Santin 23:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
According to Special:ipblocklist, an entire range of IP addresses was blocked by Essjay at 22:34 on 24 December 2006 for one week (I hope Essjay is not on vacation). See User talk:Essjay#67.150.0.0/16. My IP address is within the range 67.150.*.* but is dynamic (it is now 67.150.59.105). That range was previously blocked by other administrators earlier in the year for only a few hours at a time, so it never affected me before. It is possible that my ISP, ArcZip, has been assigned that range (its headquarters are in Utah). Consult WhatIsMyIPAddress to determine your IP address. — Joe Kress 03:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I've now determined that my IP address will change to some other value within the range 67.150.*.* simply by disconnecting and reconnecting the dialup connection to my ISP, ArcZip. My computer does not need to be restarted or powered off. Your IP address can also be determined by Start | Run | cmd | ipconfig, but only if you are currently connected to your ISP. If you are not connected, no IP address will be displayed. — Joe Kress 04:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

There has been some very intense abuse originating from this IP range, recently -- you had nothing to do with that, but unfortunately the IP addresses in here are very dynamic, so the only options are "block nothing" and "block everything." I've worked out a trial soft-blocking, provided that I'll be taking care of the damage that this unblock will probably cause. There's no perfect solution, here, but I didn't feel that sitting by and watching so many users blocked for things they had no part in would be appropriate. You should be able to edit, at this moment, but please do be wary of such blocks in the future -- I can't make any absolute promises, except that I'll do my best.

Thank you for your time and patience.

Best regards.

Request handled by: Luna Santin 10:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Babylonian calendar

Your assumption that Babylonians had always used the 19-year cycle is false. The cycle was introduced probably in the V century BC. So do you imply that before that time there was no Babylonian calendar? Of course, there was, and Babylonians had to rely solely on the vernal equinox as a point of reference to fix the beginning of the new year in their calendar. This can be seen from the VI BC tablets. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bravehearted (talk • contribs) 12:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Copied to and answered on Talk:Babylonian calendar. — Joe Kress 00:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Of course the motion of the Earth affects travel time

Jupiter is not where we see it now. If the Earth didn't move, Jupiter would be at yet a DIFFERENT spot than where we see it now.SBHarris 09:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Egyptian calendar

Hi there Joe. When you get a chance would you kindly look over these recent additions to the a/n article, made by an anon who has some form for introducing rather idiosyncratic original research into calendrics-related articles. I suspect these additions include more of the same, spliced together perhaps with some less-comprehensible restatements of what was already documented. Unfortunately I don't have the background on egyptian calendrics to confirm one way or the other. Cheers, --cjllw | TALK 01:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The additions have some nuggets of truth intertwined with personal optinion. As one editor said, his additions are bizarre. Some of his latest additions appear to be direct copies of other articles. I'm not sure whether to revert it or include some of his changes. Obviously he has de-wikified the article. — Joe Kress 07:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks Joe. It seems another editor has since decided to wholesale revert those additions, which on balance I think is appropriate. If there was anything worth saving, it would at the very least need a concerted rewrite to be comprehensible.--cjllw | TALK 04:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TAI and TT in Delta T

You reverted some corrections that I made to Delta T regarding the relationship between TAI and TT. Why? What was wrong with my text? The former (and current) article text is wrong. TT is by definition perfectly uniform, and TAI is a realisation of it. 195.224.75.71 14:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] early medieval zeros

Joe Kress, I would ask you (after your contribution of 17-1-2007) to take cognizance of the new contributions of JPD and of me to the discussion at Talk:Number concerning the early medieval zeros at Wiki items [Dionysius Exiguus] and [Number] and to react to these contributions. But I would ask you and JPD and other ones to react to the discussion concerning Wiki item [Dionysius Exiguus], specially to my proposals to improve this Wiki item, at Talk:Dionysius_Exiguus (the only right place for this discussion after all), at which I would like to continue this discussion. Jan Z 12:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] International Atomic Time

Hi Joe. Have you seen my comment at the top of the TAI discussion page? I'm not prone to make the change myself, and I'm wondering if you are game. Steven L Allen 17:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Gore & Globe

Hi, I replied to an old comment of yours, on Talk:Longitude#Mile conversion. Andy Mabbett 00:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/o/e/User_talk%7EJoe_Kress_c513.html"