User talk:Gerry Ashton
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Please place new communication at the bottom. I will respond on this page unless you request otherwise.
 Archives |
| 1, 2, 3, 4 |
Contents |
[edit] thank you for the references
Thank you for the CSEF references. I moved them. --68.0.124.33 (talk) 21:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] It's a witch hunt
- I assure you I know neither User:Classicaio nor User:Wittiams. I have nothing to do with them. I, User:NotSarenne, was blocked under the false assumption of being a sockpuppet of User:Sarenne. I only picked the account name after repeatedly being accused of sockpuppetry by User:Fnagaton when I was making anonymous edits. I never used Tor. I never used multiple accounts. I don't know User:Sarenne at all. Since then I've noticed quite a few accounts getting blocked as "sockpuppet of User:NotSarenne". The truth is, a few of these were accounts that I created one after another - after getting blocked again to be precise. I wouldn't have created any other accounts but blocking the complete sub-network of my ISP leaves me with only a few options. Many of the blocked so-called sockpuppets, like the two above mentioned accounts, have nothing to do with me. I don't know who they are. Many of them were blocked for very little, things which clearly didn't justify indefinite blocks. Several other involved accounts behave exactly the same, if not worse, but they are not even admonished. The point isn't that it's unfair. The point is, this behaviour of the involved admins doesn't make any sense whatsoever. See also [[1]]. --202.120.139.211 (talk) 23:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Greenbox
There's been a Complete rewrite of section 4 (greenbox) of the MOSNUM in the last few days. Could you give feedback and vote?
While your at it, check out the bluebox and purplebox proposals.
Thanks. Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 02:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've decided not to vote on the colored boxes. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Fine with me, but is there a particular reason? Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 20:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- This disagreement is impossible to settle, short of an edict from the foundation. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 21:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Headbomb has put a huge amount of effort into reaching a compromise solution that is agreed by nearly all editors involved in the discussion. It would be a shame if that compromise did not represent true consensus because knowledgeable editors like yourself were staying away. Please reconsider. Thunderbird2 (talk) 12:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Watt
Those billions are tricky devils. Sometimes I think links to dab pages ought to render in a different colour. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] the "Common Era" article
Gerry, About the "Common Era" article: The Gregorian Calendar was initiated in 1582 and it specified that the new calendar would not take effect until after Thursday, October 4, 1582. The Gregorian Calendar recognizes dates before Friday, October 15, 1582 (the 5th through 14th were omitted) in accordance with the rules of the Julian Calendar. Thus if a date is given before 1582, one can be sure that it is Julian. 1582 and after there is some confusion as many countries adopted the Gregorian Calendar in different years. During these years (roughly ending in 1900) dates are often specified OS or NS (meaning Old Style or New Style). To speak of the year 1AD of the Gregorian Calendar is very non standard as the first year of that calendar is 1582. One might refer to the Proleptic Gregorian calendar if this meaning is truly intended, but I have never seen that need arise and this meaning is certainly not to be assumed. Sean.barton (talk) 21:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- The Julian calender originally was about the number of days in each month and timing of leap years. A number of year numbering and naming schemes were used, such as the names of the consuls who served during the year, the year of the emporor's reign, or the Indiction. Also, some other eras were used that used a different event in the life of Jesus as the epoch, such as some group's estimate of the first Easter. Thus it is not true to say that "if a date is given before 1582, one can be sure that it is Julian." Perhaps the article should refer to the proleptic Gregorian calendar as you suggest. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 23:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
