Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:15, 15 February 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)