User talk:XJamRastafire

User:Tom_Peters 20030612T23:15 UTC You can reach me at e-mail address tpeters@xs4all.nl . What is your e-mail address? I'd like to forward you some interesting mailing list postings.

---

User:Tom_Peters 20030611T21:05 UTC Re: your responses on User_talk:Tom_Peters:

• Greek names: I think I would be much displeased if my name was "'Omèros" and they called me "Homer".
• The correction of the synodic month length: your original text on the Kidinnu page read:

"This error was lessened under 0,5^s to respectable 23/50^s, not before Hipparchus around 139 B.C., according to Strabo of Amaseia[?]," The way I read it is that Strabo said that sometime around the time of Hipparchos the value for the synodic month was changed in such a way that the error (i.e. the difference with the true value) was reduced to 23/50 seconds (that is less than 0.5 s). I rephrased that statement on the page according to this meaning, but it remained unclear to me how Strabo would know the true value of the synodic month (unless he used Ptolemy's value, but P. attributes that value to Hipparchos and his (Chaldean) predecessors); also I am suspicious that anyone used seconds as a unit of time in that period.

But now your statements appears to mean that Hipparchos corrected the value of his predecessors with 23/50 s. Note that 23/50 s = 0;0:0:1:9 days (hexadecimal). Apparently then the earlier value was 29;31:50:9:29 = 29.5305995 days. Note that this is not a round number of halakiem (793.138 instead of 793); also note that this is different from the value you quoted for the Chaldeans: 29.530614 days. I guess we have to find the actual text by Strabo to figure this out.

• Representing the numbers: we have had this discussion before. I believe the proper way is to primarily quote the numbers in the way and with the units as they originally presented them, or as they have been transmitted to us. Then also list these numbers on uniform scales, i.e. decimal days and d:h:m:s : but those numbers are secondary, and should be rounded to the precision that was obtained by the original authors. And yes, we can establish that precision based on the precision with which they gave their original numbers. Hipparchos found a difference from 365 + 1/4 day, of about 1 day in about 300 years, and his timings had a stated accuracy of about 1/4 day. Over these 300 years the accuracy per year is then 1/4/300 = 1/1200 days, so 0.001 days or about 1 minute. Otherwise, if only a value is given, use the original accuracy. 0;0:0:0:1 is about 0.0000001 days and about 0.01 s. But if the error in the determination was about 0.5 s, we might as well round to 0.1 s.

---

Re: your questions on User_talk:Tom_Peters: Glad you liked my consolidation of Kidinnu's page.

• BC | B.C. : On this I do not have an opinion. Apparently there is a Wikipedia convention to make entries for 319BC[?] etc., and it is tedious to pipe it to some other format every time. I can live with both.
• Sexagesimal: each following number is in units of 1/60 of the previous. Think h:m:s but then extended. And the first number is indeed in 1/60 of a day, not an hour (1/24 day). Babylonians and Ptolemy consistently used this instead of decimal units (each number in units of 1/10 of the previous).

I convert to decimal using a calculator by going backwards: 29;31:50:8:20 = (((20/60 + 8)/60 + 50)/60 + 31)/60 .

29;30 is 29.5 days; the remainder 0;1:50:8:20 can be simplified to a convenient fraction: 793/(24*1080). The 1/1080 part I believe is called a "halakiem" (breath) in jewish time reckoning. It may be that the Chaldeans fixed the classical value at the nearest halakiem, and later converted to a sexagesimal value.

• Hipparchus|Hipparchos: As I said I personally prefer original names, but there does not seem to be a Wiki standard. However, the English mostly use a latinized form or drop the suffix altogether ("Homer", "Ptolemy") which is even worse. I started an alternative page because we could not agree on the edits on the Hipparchus page, and I had to give it an acceptable name. However, as you pointed out, Wikipedia mostly used latinized names, so I would agree that we stick to that. I propose I finish my revision of Hipparchus story on the Hipparchos page, you comment on that, and at some later time we transfer the consensus text to Hipparchus. Also all links should remain or be redirected to Hipparchus.
• Cyprus|Cilicia: Cilicia is a region on the southern coast of Anatolia (present-day Turkey). In the Roman times, the island of Cyprus (which always has been called this way - either after the copper found there, or copper was named after the island on which it was found) was administratively a part of the province of Cilicia. That was not the case at the time of Aratus, so that factoid should not be on that page.

Once more about lunation lengths: the value of 29.530614 days is attributed both to Kidinnu and Nabu-rimanni. Which one was it? Please note that neither of them is likely to have expressed their value in decimals, as I explained above. The value in d;h:m:s on the Nabu-rimanni page corresponds exactly to the value in decimal days, so apparently it has been derived from that (non-original!) value as given with 6 decimals. However, it is given to an accuracy of 0.01 seconds which is too much becuase the value from which it is derived is expressed in days rounded to 6 decimals or about 0.09s . Also it was over a second in error anyway; we agreed that the values known to the ancients achieved an accuracy of better than a second only at the time of Hipparchos. So I think the value on the Nabu-rimanni page should be rounded like on the Kidinnu page. Any sources on which values they really used? Also I do not understand the statement attributed to Strabo that the accuracy was 23/50 seconds.

---

Hi, based on your recent modification of 'Slovenian' to 'Slovene' in the Neue Slowenische Kunst article I was wondering if you could take a look at my points on the talk page and tell me what you think. It's only one word, but since it's a translation of the title of the article I'd rather it were as correct as possible. --Lezek

---

Thought you might want to know that inter-language links to the Slovene wiki now work: just put [[sl:Title on slovene wiki]] at the top of the English article, and a link will appear in the list of "other languages" in the topbar. (Though the same thing won't yet work going from the Slovene wiki linking here; that wiki still needs to be upgraded before that will work.) --Brion VIBBER

Hey, you thanked me for copyediting your work on Stane, and apologized for mixing up some of the "little confusing words" in English. I just wanted to say, KEEP WRITING! Who CARES if English is your second language? That's the beauty of wikipedia. I teach English and majored in English: I love grammar and enjoy just surfing around to add commas here and there! It's EASY to fix the spelling ... the hard part is all the research, so KEEP IT UP! Sara Parks Ricker

I corrected russian spelling of Tchaikovsky. --User:Vassili Nikolaev
XJamRastafire, if you need some more russian spellings - let me know on my user page: User:Vassili Nikolaev - Vassili

As you requested, I've started looking over your astronomy articles, and I'm quite impressed! (Of course, I usually start to get tired after the third or fourth paragraph... ;) Really, the only corrections I would make, so far, are minor English points. (For instance, if you're interested in Archaeoastronomy, you'll find it under this spelling.) However, I should note that your command of English is quite good enough to get the points across clearly, which is what's really important. I hope I may ask you in turn to check my work and catch any areas where I might have been careless or unclear. It's always delightful to see others with an interest in the subject! I hope that I may at some point be able to lure you to contribute to the Simple Science Wiki (http://www.renaissoft.com/april/cgi-bin/wiki.pl). (Shameless plug. :) -- April

QUOTE FROM YOUR INDEXED LIST: To understand means to simplify. [From Strugatsky's science fiction] /QUOTE Do you know it's actually word game in Russian? Pretty well known saying "To understand means to forgive" ("ponjat' - znachit prostit'") in Russian becomes "To understand means to simplify" ("ponjat' - znachit uprostit'") by adding only one letter. I think it should sound similar in Slovene -- user:Vassili Nikolaev

Please check what you type for invalid characters in the 128-159 range. These appear as boxes, slugs, wickets, autc. depending on the font. One of these is used in Windows for s-hacek, but looks like another box to everyone else. Its Unicode number is 353. -phma

In which article do you mean PierreAbbat? Yes I know this kind of problems. My native keyboard is obviously not compatible with all of this Unicode stuff. I still need some help from Brion. But I'll do the best I can. Do you mean any of these characters:

è È as Unicode -- č Č, č Č

š Š as Unicode --š Š, š Š

ž Ž as Unicode ž Ž -- ž Ž --XJam 19:50 Sep 3, 2002 (PDT)

There's something funny about that first line; your raw characters come out as e-grave, but the character references are c-hacek. The next two look right. Ah, I see. Your browser is forced into Latin2 mode; none of those characters as typed "raw" are really correct: the c-hacek is an e-grave for everybody whose browser obeys the character encoding header, and the s-hacek and z-hacek are illegal control characters which may or may not show up on non-Windows browsers (depending on how much they work around Windows bugs). Use the unicode char references if you want them to show up correctly. --Brion 20:20 Sep 3, 2002 (PDT)

Yes they look same to me. But when I type them (č, Č) - it is not the case. I'll have to watch them. Brion I'll need some help on above chars, because I can't edit articles which have them in titles yet. I can't use English swaps c, s and z always. Specially in geographical terms and such. Any futher help from wikipedia consortium :) PS: I'll keep your notices in mind, Brion. --XJam 20:25 Sep 3, 2002 (PDT)

---

I see you're putting datasheet tables in various star entries. They're nice, but the dark green background makes it hard on my eyes; I'd suggest limiting the use of color only to key headers where useful, and avoiding coloring the data itself. For an example of what I'm talking about, see Solar system/Factsheet template. Bryan 00:19 Sep 28, 2002 (UTC)

It's a deal. I've put just two such tables: rearranged for the Sun and a new one for Betelgeuse. I agree on all your corrections except two:

1. We have already agreed for using middots (·) instead of times (×) for an ordinary multiplication. I can't remember at first now, but if it is prefered × I wouldn't argue anymore.

2. Hours, minutes and seconds are in astronomy usually superscriped just like arc degrees, arc minutes and arc seconds so that's why I raised them up, but I won't argue this either.

I'll take a closer look at your link and see what can I do in the future. Best regard. --XJam 00:27 Sep 28, 2002 (UTC)

Thanks! I wasn't trying to push any big changes, but I like what you've done with it. As for the other things I did, my reasoning was simply based on what seemed "common usage" to me; I suspect that more people know what × means than ·, and that most people think "exponents" when they see superscripts. I wasn't aware that those were the standards in astronomy, but I suspect that most readers also won't be aware that they're standards either. :) Bryan 03:01 Sep 28, 2002 (UTC)

I fully agree and I'll use from now on normal notations for d, h, m, s and ×. It is usefull for me too to distinguish from such tiny things. --XJam 03:23 Sep 28, 2002 (UTC)

Heh. I was just glancing over the edit history of Sun, and it looks like I changed middots to times once before about a year ago. I had no idea I was inadvertantly stumbling into a slow-motion "edit war" like that, I should have asked before changing them again. :) Bryan 03:15 Sep 28, 2002 (UTC)

I see.

---

Beware of mathematical names: it's "Dirichlet ring", not "Dirichlet's ring"; even though it would be "Dirichlet's theorem" rather than "Dirichlet theorem". The difference is that there is not just one ring Dirichlet made; there is a family of rings named after Dirichlet. "Dirichlet" acts as a qualificative term here. FvdP 23:06 Oct 8, 2002 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. --XJam 23:25 Oct 8, 2002 (UTC)

---

Greetings,

Since your page links to Languages on inverse LISP basis[?], I'm wondering if you could clarify what that article is meant to be about. I know scheme (as you probably know, a kind of LISP), but the article on its own doesn't seem to usefully describe anything about scheme or LISP. Any thoughts?

--Ryguasu 02:02 Dec 8, 2002 (UTC)

Right now I can't give you a full clarification of what this article should be about. And in fact this is not my invention. I've put a link to my page independently of this article. In this link I meant for example languages as HP's RPN is and such. I don't know who wrote the first lines of this article. In RPN article Forth and PostScript are mentioned as similar languages, which use Reverse Polish Notation. So this was what I had in my mind when I had written this link to my page. Years ago I've made a lot of programmes in HP41C and HP28S, which use this kind of languages. I guess this is this. Best regards. --XJam 21:50 Dec 8, 2002 (UTC)

I'm a little confused. Are you saying that "inverse LISP basis" is basically the same as "reverse polish notation"? Or are you saying that "inverse LISP basis" is the opposite of "reverse polish notation"? Or could "inverse LISP basis" mean that you put the operator before the operands, as it LISP (e.g. + 2 2)? I'm pretty sure this article needs to be renamed, but I don't know what the new name should be, because I can't tell what it is supposed to be about. Actually, I think it should perhaps be deleted. --Ryguasu 20:43 Dec 9, 2002 (UTC)

---

My pleasure. I don't know a lot more about Carinthia though, but I'm sure other people will. All the best, and a Happy New Year to you! KF 23:33 Dec 30, 2002 (UTC)

---

I'm learning Dutch because I'm now living in Rotterdam. I'm learning Slovenian because my girlfriend is Slovenian. :) I'd rather email you personally, but I can't find it anywhere. Please email me at msochuck@yahoo.com and then erase this comment. Thanks, Chuck SMITH

---

Hello, I haven't seen you around in a while. How are you? Koyaanis Qatsi

Hey KQ I spend quite some time here almost every day. I am the best -- thank you very much, man. Look for instance at my today's addition to Jožef Stefan. I enjoy the work here, but time is one 'strange' devil, as they say. Duty calls -- also, ha, ha. I wonder how a NATO thing will come to the end -- for Slovenia. And of course the whole thing about the critical situations on this dear Earth. And I am pretty much tired of waiting for entering EU, too :-) As one joke says: God has forgotten on Slovenia and Slovenes, and when 'he' had realized this, he said to them, here you are, you will have all what the world has -- here on this small (but worthy) place. Or something like that. Cheers. --XJam 02:26 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

Hm, odd that I've missed you all this time. I can't go through all of Recent Changes anymore, though; those days are long gone. :-) Best of luck with NATO and the E.U.; I have my reservations too and I'd like to say that I'm sure things will turn out for the best but I'm not. Ah well, "Always look on the bright side of life," as they say. ;-) Best, Koyaanis Qatsi

Yeeeees. This Monty Python saying goes in neighbouring Croatian province of Zagorje like this: nikak nebu da nekak nebu i nikak i ni bilo da nekak ni bilo. To translate this pretty much hard colloquial Croatian quickly: it will never happen that it won't be somehow and also it never happened that it wasn't somehow...

---

Hi, XJamRastafire
I don't know; is there a standard practice in english for those names?

No there isn't. But some are more standard in some cases than others. For instance there in Nikolai Ivanovich Lobachevsky, would certainly be with y at the end, since Russian ending ий 'goes' and changes in English to y. In scientific transcriptions we can find also ii or iĭ as in Ostrogradsky's article. That's it. Many times we can also find unproper German or French transliterations and such. How standards work, we are able to see again at Lobachevsky since the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica spells his name as Nicolas Ivanovich Lobaghevskiy :-) At least his father's name is correct... --XJam

---

Hi XJamRastafire --

I've added a table of factors for 1-1000 and I'd be glad if you'd check it and improve it where possible. Thanks. Jacquerie27 08:47 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

I'm on my way. :-) As soon as possible. And BTW thank you very much for all your corrections of my grammar mistakes, which all go to the lack of my full knowledge of English language. --XJam 09:13 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

---

Hi, From the page history I see that you're a main contibutor to the Euler pseudoprime page, I'd be in favour of moving the page and have given my reasons on Talk:Euler pseudoprime. I thought you may like to comment. Cheers -- Ams80 11:47 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

---

Just wondering after a recent edit summary, what is an "ochestvo"? I'm working on learning Russian, but don't know that one yet, and it's not in my dictionary under the most obvious transliterations. Or is that a Slovensko name for a Russian feature? -- John Owens 20:22 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

Yes John as from my modest knowledge of Russian a noun otchestvo (отчество) (sorry my spelling|typo mistake) means simple a name after a father, father's name (or also name of birth). A name (imya, имя) (also first name, given name, or Christian name) and surname (familiya, фамилия) are our usual form for a proper name of one person. We can roughly say that otchestvo correspond to the middle name as Americans are used to for instance. But they use many times just abbreviations for them as in John F. Kennedy. Russians (as far as I know) used to call themselves with name and father's name without surname. I don't know really if this tradition is still preserved nowadays in mother Russia. And it is convinient since there can be a lot of similar persons if we use just two names. But it is harder to remember all 3 names. So, otchestvo is not a Slovene term for this Russian feature. In my native is called očetovo ime and my nation use it just occasionally and also sometimes in these modern times a form of the 'western' middle name. But for full coverage you should ask one Russian or an expert for this beautiful language. Best regards. --XJam 20:48 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

Ah, I knew the practice, but not either the English (if there is one) or Russian name for it. Only one of those I know so far is "имя". Thanks for the explanation! -- John Owens 21:01 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

You're very welcome. If you have any other question just post it. And since I am also a Slav I'll probably can give you some futher help on Russian or similar terms. Including Russian Wikipedia where you also edit. I am tiring myself with my native Slovene Wikipedia but it is still in nappies (diapers). And I hope not for too long. If we were both Russians and your father's name would be the same as yours, someone would adress you with: "Hello John Johnovich" and me with: "Janez Ivanovich", he, he. Without our surnames. That's it. "Privet". --XJam 21:16 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

Actually, I came pretty close to being a "John Johnson", that was my mother's surname though. ;) Is there a good Russian form of "William"? -- John Owens 21:20 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

Ha, ha. Pure joke: if also your father would be John you would be called in Leningrad: John Johnovich Johnson. My wife says perhaps "Vadim" ("Вадим") will do for "William", but we are not sure. I also do not know if "Vil'em" ("Вильем" ) can be a Russian name. It is most probably just a Russian transliteration for an English "William" as Google search indicates on many Russian pages. This is for start. --XJam 21:37 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

I've found another Russian transliteration for "William" as "Vil'yam" ("Вильям"). --XJam 22:00 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

---

The Ptolemaic vandal started by adding Ptolemys (Ptolemies?) and Cleopatras at Ptolemaic dynasty that no one had ever heard of, then creating articles for them, some of which claimed lifespans of thousands of years for the individuals, and with some rather odd things about the stories, then one called "Ptolemaic dynasty in the future", about how they're going to rule again, then started moving "Ptolemaic dynasty" all over the place to things like "Ptolemaic Dynasty in the future", "Ptolemaic Dynasty", etc., which made it really hard to get all the articles back where they belonged. Now and then, he pops back in again and tries re-inserting some of them into the Ptolemaic dynasty article, or creating another Ptolemy or Cleopatra again. -- John Owens 23:27 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

You are of course 100% correct re the description of Yugoslavia as a Soviet satellite. Unfortunately there are a handful of users who have been adding in blatently POV rubbish to that article. At this stage, their POV additions have been reverted over 20 times. Finally to calm down one particularly extreme POV-pusher I moved the add in bits to somewhere else to stop the nonsense on Communist state and see could he possibly turn his right wing rant into a NPOV article there, but one or two others are still determined to add in POV stuf to Communist state, including the stuff already in another article. I had to do the latest in a long long long line of reverts. Unfortunately your change was lost in the cross-fire. I was trying to go back in and remove the Yugoslav references when my computer crashed and I have been distracted by something else going on and so got delayed making the necessary changes. So apologies if I inadvertently adding in that blatently factually incorrect line while doing the reversion. Trying to stop a handful of people POVing this article has been almost a full time job lately. It is nice to see someone who knows the facts come along to the article for a change. All the people who knew their facts have been so fed up by the behaviour of a handful of POV-pushers they have despaired and gone elsewhere, leaving a small number to try to defend the article from POV that in some cases would make even Ronald Reagan blush and cringe. ÉÍREman 00:44 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

I don't know if you fully undertood what I say, but you are of course 100% correct. Yugoslavia was not a satellite country of the Soviet Union. I didn't write that in. Someone else who has been adding in highly inaccurate stuff to the article did. Unfortunately your change followed a change by someone else who has been adding in biased stuff. I had to revert to the version before his, and that meant your change was reverted to. I tried then to go back and correct things to remove the claim about Yugoslavia, but computer problems prevented me. Unfortunately a handful of people have quite simply been vandalising that article by putting in rubbish like that nonsensical claim about Yugoslavia. They have made so many changes that those of us trying to stop their vandalism have sometimes not spotted one or two changes among the paragraphs and paragraphs of rubbish they keep adding in. So please do not think I think that Yugoslavia was a satellite state of the Soviet Union. I know it wasn't. But in trying to undo so much vandalism to that article, sometimes I, 172 and Tannin miss some of the rubbish they add in. That was one bit of rubbish that got through unintentionally. ÉÍREman 01:09 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, ÉÍREman I've fully understood you. I know it is hard to check all those vandalisms and inaccuracies. I can say that my Wikipedia working area looks pretty much the same of yours from your user page photo. My engine is PC. I also smoke too much. Recently I've changed my light Philip Morris's LMs to Tobačna Ljubljana[?]'s light Route 66. Hard is our job, I know. And one more thing. My life from early 1960s to early 1990s in Yugoslavia was wonderful. That was my youth. We have never believed that such a big tragedy shall happen in this great state, after its system has crushed up. We also never know what will happen with our own home planet. Nobody can tell which system is the best for all the people. I hope that European Union will last some time and that it would be a solid community without so much violence and bad things. We need peace after all. --XJamRastafire 01:47 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

The Ptolemaic vandal has been vandalising pages on ancient Egypt, adding in mythical Cleopatras, etc. One of their Cleopatras supposed lived for 1000 years. Their nickname refers to the pages they vandalise. If you find them adding yet more phoney Cleopatras (Cleopatra VIII, etc) revert it immediately. ÉÍREman 23:25 May 12, 2003 (UTC)

---

Hi! On T-34 you filled in: 373 W (500 hp) But according to hp one hp is about 745 Watts! So I guess it should say kW. But anyway, Great idea adding the SI units to the tank articles. -- Jniemenmaa 15:05 22 May 2003 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Silly me. I must correct all other articles. Thank you for your kindly note. --XJamRastafire 15:13 22 May 2003 (UTC)

---

XJam, a contributor on the french wikipedia have some difficulties with the interlanguage links on the slovenian wikipedia. Can you confirm me that they doesn't work (yet)? Thanks. -- Looxix 19:24 31 May 2003 (UTC)

Yes, Looxix this is absolutely true since Slovene Wikipedia does not yet work with a new software. I would desperately like that the whole wikipedia can be moved in a near future. I think that all old versions which are based on .../.com adresses does not work. But until then I am leaving those links although they do not yet work. Looxix, since you are working hard on astronomy pages can you please, if you have some extra time, look at Hipparchus (now moved to Hipparchos page) since I would like to know what is opinion of other wikipedians in these cases. I've lost all my mood to contribute further on as Tom Peters attacked me so severe.

XJam, Thanks for your reply concerning the interlanguage links on the slovenian wikipedia. -- Looxix 22:07 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

XJamRastafire, you may contact me at karantanec(a)email.si to discuss the Veneti theory. Regards, Simon.

---

Hello. Just wondering - do we really need to show full URLs in the external links section? It seems to be the convention round here not to do so. -- Oliver P. 21:45 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I think it was Axel who proposed this manner to me for printing purposes. I stick with his advice, since it seems useful for me. --XJamRastafire 21:53 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'm not sure how to format external links like that, though - the one in Dirichlet seems to spill over into two lines... -- Oliver P. 22:21 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)