Misplaced Pages

User talk:Jc3s5h: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:17, 17 February 2010 editJc3s5h (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers32,912 edits →Dispute tag on Julian calendar: disagree← Previous edit Revision as of 03:47, 17 February 2010 edit undoChris Bennett (talk | contribs)1,492 edits →Dispute tag on Julian calendarNext edit →
Line 354: Line 354:


:The lead is a mess. If the "logic" (if I may use that word) of the lead is followed, one must conclude that the anti-religious USSR government (''Religion is the opiate of the masses'' according to Marx'') adopted the religious ] rather than the Gregorian calendar, despite the fact that the USSR changed calendars in 1919 and the New Calendar was not created until 1923. ] (]) 02:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC) :The lead is a mess. If the "logic" (if I may use that word) of the lead is followed, one must conclude that the anti-religious USSR government (''Religion is the opiate of the masses'' according to Marx'') adopted the religious ] rather than the Gregorian calendar, despite the fact that the USSR changed calendars in 1919 and the New Calendar was not created until 1923. ] (]) 02:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the second paragraph of the lede has fallen victim to the antagonist. And that somehow he needs to be got under control. But this is not the way to do it: overall its a minor point. Yes there are details which are being disputed, even if it's for no sane or comprehensible reason, but I still contend that tagging the whole article is going too far.

As to what to do about this guy, the only solution I know is to get an admin to work through it and agree we're dealing with a nutter. Unfortunately its a slow and painful process. Last time round I did eventually get several admins involved. Unfortunately they were not willing to agree to a permanent solution, so all the semi-protections got lifted after 6 months or so. This is one reason I have basically given up on WP. I'm not sure why I'm reinvolving myself now, and I'm not willing to go through that part of it again.

Anyway, if you want to restore the tag, go ahead. I only suggest that you follow through. --] (]) 03:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:47, 17 February 2010

Read first! Welcome to my talk page! Questions, information, warnings? Say it here! Please post new topic at the bottom of this page, please sign your topic with ~~~~. I will reply here unless you ask otherwise; add this page to your watchlist for a while. Click here to start a new topic.
Archiving icon
Archives

1, 2, 3, 4


This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 11 January 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Siva Shankar Baba

Hi

Thank you for the proactive review. I am not too much of a computer specialist. Can you guide me on how to create a sub page as you have indicated.

Looking forward to your reply. I will see your talk page as well as mine.

Thank you!

God'sFlute (talk) 04:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC) User:God'sFlute (talk)

thank you Re: Siva Shankar Baba

Thank you very much for taking me step by step through the process.

Your time and help is much appreciated.

God'sFlute (talk) 05:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


Will be great if you can, if it will not hinder your work in anyway.

Thanks a lot!

God'sFlute (talk) 06:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Siva Shankar Baba

Thank you very much So this was what you meant. Thank you for the time and effort and interest

God'sFlute (talk) 07:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Have placed a thank you note on my talk page. Thanks a lot for all the guidance and help

God'sFlute (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


seeking clarification

Hi

I went to the 'Siva Shankar Baba' page to make a few additions

There is a box on top; is there something I need to do, or is that for the editors who finalise in wikipedia?

Thanks in advance for your guidance

God'sFlute (talk) 04:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking through the article's history (by clicking the "history" tab) I see that the box was added in this edit. What was added was a template, {{NPOV}}. Templates are short bits of text that the Wikimedia system expands into a larger amount of material, in this case, the box you saw.
The editor who added it feels the article does not have a neutral point of view. The article does seem like it might have been written by a publicity agent for Siva Shankar Baba. If you read an article about important people in a newspaper or magazine, like the Washington Post or Time, they usually have good and bad things to say about most people, or at least describe some disappointments or difficulties the people have encountered.
Also, I am not familiar with the media in India, so I can't tell if the web sites that are cited are run by Siva Shankar Baba, or if they are independent (like the Times of India). --Jc3s5h (talk) 05:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


Hmmm I think I understand what you are saying. Thank you for clarifying. I will review and develop it more objectively. Just recently I have been drawn to the subject of spirituality , and been meeting gurus in and around South India, and started looking for information in wikipedia about them . Then I thought let me record info about those not yet here to help future seekers:)

God'sFlute (talk) 07:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Difference between gregorian and julian calender dates

Hallo Jc3s5h,

unfortunal my english is bad and I hope, that you understand me. You deleted some pictures of user LenderCarl and there was no reason for that. I hope you agree, that the days in both calenders have an one-to-one conversion. For example the 18. februar 1700 in the julian calender correspond to the 28. februar in the gregorian calender. The dates differ in this case by 10 days. An other example is the 1. march 1700 in the julian calender with coresponds to 12. march in the gregorian calender. Now the dates differ by 11 days. Now the question is: on which day the difference between both calenders swith from 10 days to 11 days. Please have a look to this proplem from far away. We introduce a very simple calender, which only counts days from the beginnig of the world an look to the two calenders. Both count the days in the same way until the 28. februar 1700 in julian calender. On the next day, the 29. februar 1700 in julian calender and the 11. march in gregorian calender happens something. The julian calender counts 1 day more in comparsison with the gregorian calender. One this day the difference between the two calenders becomes 11 days. There is no need to exclude a range of 10 days, where the difference should be "not defined".

Greetings from Germany --D(e)r Lero (talk) 13:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean this picture:
File:Permanent calendar.png

The file is not deleted, it exists on http://commons.wikimedia.com. Please provide a link to the place I said it seemed wrong, so I can refresh my memory.

Whether it is right or wrong really does not matter. There is a big problem with having this file around at all. It says (c) Karl Nimtsch. So how can we be sure we really have permission to post this. It appears on the surface to be a copyright violation.

Second, it is complex. To use it in a Misplaced Pages article we should have a reliable source to verify it with. No source has been provided. Please see the WP:No Original Research policy. --Jc3s5h (talk) 13:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hallo Jc3s5h,

thank you for the fast answer. Yes, you found the picture which disappeared in the english wikipedia. For references please look the following page:

web.whosting.ch/Dauerkalender/html/referenzen.html

This is the private page of the "inventor" of the perpetual calender as well in gregorian and julian version. He presented the two calendars last year in the german wikipedia and there was no problem with the copyright. I suggest to contact the author via his private page to verify, that user LenderCarl is the author of the english version.

Greetings from Germany --D(e)r Lero (talk) 13:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If Karl Nimtsch is the author and placed it on the German Misplaced Pages, then certainly anyone can translate it and place it on Commons, although the file description really should have a link to the original German version to give proper credit.
Still, the web.whostin.ch site seems to be a personal web page. To use the information we need to see it published in a reliable publication, or we need to establish that Karl Nimtsch is an expert in the field and has published in a reliable source that is related to astronomy or calendars. I have already left a message on LenderCarl's talk page but have not received any response. --Jc3s5h (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I have found an accuracy complaint, it was in the edit summary for this edit. The edit summary reads (Karl Nimtsch's conversion rule is wrong. 10 days before 10th March, 1700 is 29 February. 11 days before 11th March, 1700 is also 29th February!)
This complaint is correct. --Jc3s5h (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
About your complaint that in the Gregorian calendar article, certain 10 day ranges are not defined for conversion purposes. The article actually says "Note that the difference is not well defined when it spans the end of a February that has a different number of days in the two calendars." You're right, it is well defined, it is just hard to explain how to make the change in a few words. I have just created an article, Conversion between Julian and Gregorian calendars which gives much more detailed tables and is based on a reliable source. --Jc3s5h (talk) 15:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


Sorry, but your new article Conversion between Julian and Gregorian calendars is not correct in all detailes. First: The gregorian calender is not defined before 15. Okt. 1582. Your calculations in the time before are maybe correct in mathematical view, but not in a historical view. Second: I do not agree with 10 days before 10th March, 1700 is 29 February. 11 days before 11th March, 1700 is also 29th February! Please remember, that 29th february 1700 does not exist in the gregorian calender. Don´t mix the calenders in your mind. At the 29. februar 1700 in julian calender and the 11. march in gregorian calender the julian calender counts 1 day more in comparsison with the gregorian calender. Exact at this day the difference becomes 11 days. Third: Please tell me the reliable source, that calculations in the article "Gregorian calender" are correct. (not a computer program... )

--D(e)r Lero (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

(un-indent) I agree with you about when the Gregorian calendar started, and the article already explains that in the Conversion between Julian and Gregorian calendars#Conventions section, which says:

  • The Gregorian calendar did not exist before October 15, 1582. Gregorian dates before that are proleptic, that is, using the Gregorian rules to recon backward from October 15, 1582.

About the edit summary 10 days before 10th March, 1700 is 29 February. 11 days before 11th March, 1700 is also 29th February!, of course this is not a true statement. But it is what happens if someone follows the directions in the image. Therefore the directions are wrong.

As for the calculations in the "Gregorian calendar" article not having a reliable source, I suggest you discuss any that you doubt on the article's talk page. If you mean the table in Gregorian calendar#Difference between Gregorian and Julian calendar dates, please understand that I did not create that table. I just verified the first four rows in The Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Ephemeris and the American Ephemeris and Nautical Almanac, prepared by the nautical almanac offices of the US and the UK in 1961 (page 417). The table in that book stops at March 13, 2100 Gregorian. --Jc3s5h (talk) 17:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I found the book online: asa.hmnao.com/ Maybe, you are faster to find the corresponding table. Please provide a link here and I will check it. Sorry, I have no time for long discussions on article talk page of "Gregorian calendar". If you have a concrete question, then I will try to answer. Or better: ask LenderCarl... he ist the real expert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by D(e)r Lero (talk • contribs) 17:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

That is not the book. So far as I know, the book is not on line. I bought a paper copy of the book. --Jc3s5h (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
mmh... so I can not easily check the table. Is it possible, that you make a scan of the page? Is there a newer version of the book at amazon?

--D(e)r Lero (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

nthis one? books.google.de/books?id=uJ4JhGJANb4C&dq=The+Explanatory+Supplement+to+the+Astronomical+Ephemeris+and+the+American+Ephemeris+and+Nautical+Almanac&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=de&ei=gZdYS4CWLpewnQPOurH_Ag&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CBkQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=The%20Explanatory%20Supplement%20to%20the%20Astronomical%20Ephemeris%20and%20the%20American%20Ephemeris%20and%20Nautical%20Almanac&f=false--D(e)r Lero (talk) 18:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
The one you gave a link to on Google is newer. Instead of having a table, it gives pseudocode for computer algorithms to convert between the Julian calendar and Julian Day Number, and also between the Gregorian calendar and Julian Day Number. Obviously these algorithms could be combined to convert between Gregorian and Julian. I have taken a digital photo of the table. My understanding of Crown Copyright is that it may be copied for private study but not republished. Therefore, I am willing to email it to you, but not to put it on Misplaced Pages. You may use the option in the toolbox in the left margin of my talk page to send me a suitable email address to which I may send the photo. It is 738 KB.
By the way, if you thinking of buying this kind of book, a new edition is due this year, also edited by Seidelmann. You might want to wait for the new one. --Jc3s5h (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 18 January 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 14:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Design goals of Cite book template

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

"help"

Well. I hope you dont land up feeling 'there again; turned up like a bad penny'

the page on Siva Shankar Baba. Don't know whats going wrong. Lost! (lots of stars clouding my vision!) Can you help, please. From late 2009 I have been visiting a lot of gurus in and around South India and you know how it is, one gets so used to looking up wikipedia for a information to know more about anything. So everytime I met someone I would gorge down lot of info from wikipedia as a start point. I got info about Jaggi Vasudev, Sathya Sai, Ma Amritanandamayi. Couldnt find anything on Siva Shankar so thought why not I research and develop a page, I have taken a lot from wikipedia this is some way I can give something, I guess you figure what I mean.

Thanks!

God's Flute 03:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by God'sFlute (talk • contribs)

Just to point out

A couple days ago, I said "You would think so, but I have seen people claim the opposite: that even if a primary source includes interpretation or analysis we can't use that interpretation or analysis, and instead he have to find a different source for it.". The current discussion on WT:NOR is an example of what I was referring to. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Sources

I noticed you were contributing the a debate on primary secondary and tertiary sources at WT:NOR. Are you aware of the draft separate guideline on PSTS? The idea is that it would allow WP:NOR to concentrate on the NOR aspect of PSTS. The definitions etc. etc. would be in the guideline. Take a look at User:Yaris678/PSTS. Yaris678 (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 25 January 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Requesting your opinion

Hi. I've started a discussion here. (Actually, it's a restart of a prior discussion that went cold; you can just scroll directly down to the first post I made today in that section if you want.) Can you offer your thoughts? I think it's very important. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Difference between Gregorian and Julian calendar dates

Copy (fragment)

Gregorian calendar Julian cal.(Leapyear) Diff.
12 February 1900
28 February 1900
1 March 1900
12 March 1900 		31 January 1900
16 February 1900
17 February 1900
28 February 1900 		12 days
13 March 1900
14 March 1900 		29 February 1900
1 March 1900 		13 days

Verzeihung, ich spreche leider nur deutschLenderCarl (talk) 12:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


Ich spreche nur Englisch. Bitte sehen File talk:Permanent calendar.png --Jc3s5h (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Good morning Dear calendarfriend, Thanks for Your replay (answer ?); my tables/files: of english please.

The first print was by C.H.Beck-Munic 1992 "Juristenkalender/Steuerberaterkalender". The next print by "Max-Planck-Institut" Heidelberg, see by "Sterne und Weltraum" 5/93. The next print was a poster in special nr.5 from march in year 2000 by "Sterne und Weltraum".

I am the dokument for "the first perpedual and permanent calendar" from "Guinnessbuch-Verlag" oct/1998, pleas see http://www.ewige-kalender.de

Sorry, my english it a liddle bid craysi...

Thank You for yours time Greetings from germany/saxoniaLenderCarl (talk) 07:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)LenderCarl (talk) 09:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)LenderCarl (talk) 06:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 1 February 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS

I'd appreciate you coming back to WP:RS to continue our discussion on this funny "impact factor" requirement. I agree with your position but it's not how impact factor is being controversially used and I'd like eventually to get to a proposal to modify the article. Could you help me? TMLutas (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I have added an inline under-discussion template to Talk:Global warming/FAQ Q 22 which points to Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources#Scholarship section (2.1) - does sources = journals?. --Jc3s5h (talk) 18:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Citations

Thanks I appreciate you posting on my talk, but I venture to say that you may have made an is/ought fallacy. I do not say that citation templates are necessary, simply that they are used (furthermore, I think they should be used, but I'm not proposing that kind of policy or guideline.) If someone elects to add sources without using a citation template, that would simply be irrelevant to my proposal, as it is predicated on the use of these templates. Again, it's nice to get a reminder about policy, I suppose, but I'm not sure what to do with your information. Please post on my talk if you would like to respond. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Forget it I re-read what I wrote. You were right and I was wrong. Sorry for the interruption. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

perpedual calendar

Good morning,

1."copyright":

The first print was by C.H.Beck-Munic 1992 "Juristenkalender/Steuerberaterkalender". The next print by "Max-Planck-Institut" Heidelberg, see by "Sterne und Weltraum" 5/93. The next print was a poster in special nr.5 from march in year 2000 by "Sterne und Weltraum".

I am the dokument for "the first perpedual and permanent calendar" from "Guinnessbuch-Verlag" oct/1998, please see http://www.ewige-kalender.de

2."differenc between..."

this table it not exist in last exemplar from , 7 February 2010 00:26, see please hear. LenderCarl (talk) 07:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 8 February 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources

Thanks for reverting my edit. I was editing from my phone and I'm not sure why it didn't give me an edit conflict warning. Gigs (talk) 18:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring on Julian Calendar

That's a content dispute, not vandalism -- be sure you don't get blocked for violating the rules against edit warring.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Repeatedly putting nonsense into articles is edit warring. The fact that the nonsense might require a little thought to recognize, as opposed to remarks like "xknloied was here", does not turn edit warring into a legitimate content dispute. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
The 3RR exemption for vandalism only applies in clear cases of vandalism, which this isn't. It may not be correct, but it's not vandalism either. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't claim it is vandalism, I claim it is nonsense. That is one reason why administrator intervention is required, because users who recognize the nonsense for what it is must obey the 3RR, while the IP editor does not. Since I am not a mind reader, I cannot determine if the IP editor is a troll, or just reads and writes everything with his/her ideas so firmly in mind that he/she cannot see that the statements are nonsensical from the point of view of the Misplaced Pages reader. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
This guy (I doubt it's a she) is not a vandal, he's a crank with a bee in his bonnet. Two years ago he insisted on inserting the same misinformation, and persistently refused to debate, discuss or justify the edits in any meaningful fashion -- at that time he wouldn't even use the Talk pages. The end result was that he tried to find one place after another to get his ideas into WP that wouldn't be noticed, causing a large number of articles to be semi-protected for quite a while: Julian calendar Roman calendar Mercedonius Leap year Bissextile day February 24 February 29 and probably others I've forgotten. Check the admin history for these articles around February and March 2008. Evidently, he has decided to wait long enough for the articles to be unprotected in the hope that people will have forgotten about him; and so anyone who does object will have to go through the whole admin justification process again from scratch. Since he does change his IP address from time to time the only real solution (at least, until he decides to get a Wiki account) is to semi-protect these articles permanently. --Chris Bennett (talk) 01:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
The IP addresses (only two have been used this year) are more stable than one usually sees with an ISP. If they were blocked, the stability might imply a greater than usual effort needed to get them changed. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
It was a small number last time too. At that time I looked a couple of them up. One was a terminal in the Hackney public library in London. I wasn't able to confirm it, but it looked like another was a terminal in a different public library. Although the addresses weren't dynamic, he did keeping coming up with new ones. Again, the record for that period should have a listing. I haven't checked whether the current addresses are the same, but, quite apart from the content, one comment he has made confirmed we are dealing with the same person. --Chris Bennett (talk) 01:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Ottawa meridian

I see you have removed my addition of a claimed Ottawa meridian from the Prime Meridian article, with the explanation "Undo claim for which no citation was provided. Nothing contained in an edit summary counts as a citation because it is impractical for readers to search through edit summaries."

I don't understand this. A citation was provided (not by me). Ok, it was in the wrong place, "External links" instead of "References"; so wouldn't it make more sense to move it to the right place? Or maybe you don't like that citation because it is just a photograph, in that case I can understand your removal of the claimed meridian.

Moreover most of the meridians listed in the article, including Rio de Janeiro which I added on 4 August 2009, cite no reference, and you haven't removed those. I can provide a reference for the Rio meridian — should I do so?

Maproom (talk) 11:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The only thing you added to the article to hint at where the reference might be was the link to the Ottawa article. The citation to the source of your information should be right in the Prime Meridian article. As for some other things not being cited in the article, if you can provide citations, please do so.
I also am not convinced the plaque means "prime meridian" in the same way as the article. In the article, prime meridian is used as the basis of longitude lines in all kinds of publications, including nautical charts. But in the field of geodesy, especially for most of the 20th century, it was common to choose a meridian as the "working prime meridian" because it was readily accessible, but give it an assumed value in terms of the Greenwich meridian. This is because, before modern space-based methods, the relative longitude within a continent could be measured more accurately than the longitude across an ocean. A text explaining how the Ottawa prime meridian was actually used would be needed. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I understand and accept your second paragraph above. I do not understand the first one. "The only thing you added to the article to hint at where the reference might be ..."? I added nothing to the article about any reference, it was already in the article, albeit in the wrong place. Also, I do not understand why you removed a meridian from the list because its reference was done wrong, but you accept others with no reference at all. Maproom (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Each article is treated independently. Misplaced Pages is an unreliable source, so just because a claim appears in one article does not mean it can be copied into another article. To copy from one article to another, the supporting citation must be copied too. Ideally, the editor who copies would look at the source that was cited to make sure it really supports the claim. For example, if a link was dead by the time I came upon it, I wouldn't copy any claim that relies on that dead link. Unfortunately, there is too much unreferenced material for any one person to deal with, so I tend to concentrate on newly-introduced material, because the person who added it might notice their contribution has been removed, and will have at hand whatever source of information they used.
Also, it is not necessary to provide citations for well known facts unless someone challenges them. I recall reading a number of times that Washington and Paris were prime meridians, so I wouldn't challenge those. Thanks for finding a citation for Rio. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand this. I didn't copy anything from one article to another. I added the Ottawa meridian to the list on the basis of evidence cited in the "External Links" section of the same article. But I accept that the evidence was inadequate, and I don't plan any further changes to the article. Maproom (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 15 February 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Dispute tag on Julian calendar

I have removed this. IMO it's overstated, and not very helpful. The ongoing disputes are about a small number of small points, not about the accuracy of the article as a whole. The Celsus issue isn't even a Julian calendar issue -- it's a pre-Julian calendar issue! The antagonist is a crank with several axes to grind, but he clearly doesn't have a serious leg to stand on. --Chris Bennett (talk) 02:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The lead is a mess. If the "logic" (if I may use that word) of the lead is followed, one must conclude that the anti-religious USSR government (Religion is the opiate of the masses according to Marx) adopted the religious New Calendar rather than the Gregorian calendar, despite the fact that the USSR changed calendars in 1919 and the New Calendar was not created until 1923. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the second paragraph of the lede has fallen victim to the antagonist. And that somehow he needs to be got under control. But this is not the way to do it: overall its a minor point. Yes there are details which are being disputed, even if it's for no sane or comprehensible reason, but I still contend that tagging the whole article is going too far.

As to what to do about this guy, the only solution I know is to get an admin to work through it and agree we're dealing with a nutter. Unfortunately its a slow and painful process. Last time round I did eventually get several admins involved. Unfortunately they were not willing to agree to a permanent solution, so all the semi-protections got lifted after 6 months or so. This is one reason I have basically given up on WP. I'm not sure why I'm reinvolving myself now, and I'm not willing to go through that part of it again.

Anyway, if you want to restore the tag, go ahead. I only suggest that you follow through. --Chris Bennett (talk) 03:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)