Talk:Decimal time/Archive 1

Dorían Ascher is a German theorist, and author of several books on metrology, time systems, and philosophy; unfortunately only in german language.Metric Time 04:23, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

note to contributers in the USA:

the use of non ISO standard seperators in articles should be avoided.

96% of the world uses a comma as a decimal seperator ex: (0,864) and a period (.) as a thousands seperator, ex: (1.000.000 = 1 million) the ISO standard is to leave a space between thousands, and to use a comma as a decimal point.

American date format (MM DD, YYYY) is also unique in the world (used only in the USA) and should also be avoided.

the world standard date format being: (DD MM YYYY), and the ISO standard (YYYY-MM-DD). ISO standard time format: (00:00:00)

the term Billion also causes problems when used in the American definition (1.000.000.000) since the rest of the world uses the chuquet system where 1.000.000.000 is a Milliard (1000 million) and 1.000.000.000.000 is a billion.

also, American Standard measures, based on obsolete English Imperial Units, should in all cases be avoided, since the USA is the only remaining country still using this system.

you will cause a great deal of confusion to those outside the USA (which accounts for only 4% of the world's population) by using standards unique to the USA. 81.225.211.117 05:32, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * 1) USA-centrism is a problem that US contributors such as myself need to be sensitive to, but please remember this English-language Wikipedia you are contributing to, and as such, properly tends to adhere to usages that are customary in English-speaking countries.
 * 2) Please read Manual of Style (dates and numbers) and familiarize yourself with what the current consensus positions are.
 * 3) As noted there, when the context is not scientific, very large numbers should be divided up by commas every three places. When the context is scientific and SI notation is being used, the separator should be a thin space.
 * 4) There's no need to be concerned about date formats, because a technical feature of Wikipedia allows you to view dates according to the custom of your own locale. This can be set in your user preferences. The only requirement is that dates need to be given in a format that the Wikipedia software will recognize as a date and can therefore convert propertly.
 * 5) The situation with respect to "billion" is by no means as clear or simple as you state. Chuquet himself was inconsistent and used one meaning in one part of his book, and the other meaning in another part! My UK informants tell me that usage in the UK is, in fact, inconsistent, with the 109 meaning being the one that is currently taught in schools, used officially in government reports, and universally in financial contexts, while 1012 continues to be used in other contexts. What France does is meaningful in fr.wikipedia.org but irrelevant in en.wikipedia.org; however, France has changed back and forth between different meanings for the word "billion," too.  A French informant tells me that in ordinary speech people say "mille milliard" rather than "billion" but I have not been able to confirm this.
 * 6) WIth respect to US versus UK spellings, there is a very firm consensus that usage should be consistent within individual articles but does not need to be uniform from article to article and should not be "corrected" other than to make usage within a single article consistent. I believe practice is similar with respect to most other US/UK/Australia/Canada/etc. differences.
 * 7) With respect to weights and measures, when U. S. customary measures are used a metric equivalent should always be given as well, but there is no policy against the use of U. S. customary measures. Dpbsmith (talk)]] 12:52, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I am the original author of this Decimal Time article,

therefore all variations to it's content are Edits. I do not object to others editing MY ARTICLE in a responsible manner, however those who persist in removing the original content and replacing it will their own article must be prepaired for the obvious eventuality of it being reverted back to the original, those who persist in making snotty peurile remarks, or imposing an attitude problem will be dealt with in a different manner. 81.225.211.117 06:14, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Please note that this is not "your article", it is wikipedias. If you dont want your contributions to be edited mercilessly, dont add them! Also, please do NOT deleate discusion from talk pages. Iainscott 13:31, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please dont delete my comments from talk pages. While it is, perhaps, acceptable to refactor your own comments, it is a serious breach of Wikiquette to change or deleate other peoples. Iainscott 14:19, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I assure you that the term Milliard has one meaning here in Europe (1.000.000.000), and that in European schools we are taught that 1 Billion = 1.000.000.000.000 81.225.211.117 08:44, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Only true in continental Europe. In the UK billion means 1 000 000 000. [[Image:Theresa Knott Sig.gif]] 15:48, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

actually both definitions are used in the UK, since Prime Minister Wilson decimalised the pound in 1970, with the new pound being based on the US dollar (a fiat currency, rather than metal based) this caused an inflationary trend which lead to Wilson accepting the US term Billion to mean 1000 Million, however many Brits over the age of 40 still use Billion to mean 1000 Milliard (1 Million Million). 81.225.211.117 08:58, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Dear 81.225.211.117: please use your Preferences setting to choose your viewing format for dates instead of editing the article to match your preferences. Please click on the preferences link at the top of the page, then "Date Format", then set it to whatever date format you like. There's no need to impose your preferences on those of us whose preferences may be different. Thanks. Dpbsmith (talk)]] 17:55, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Your audacity is truly astounding.


 * 1) Wikipedia has no concept of "author".  You submit text with the knowledge that it will be edited mercilessly.  In fact, every time you submitted text, you were notified of this (look at the bottom).  Also, DaBlaze was the first writer on this subject. (actually he was not a writer on the subject at all - metrische zeit originally posted the article)
 * 2) All variations to its content are considered Edits only because that's an English word that means a variation of content.  Its a tautology.  And learn to spell.
 * 3) Also, please refrain from crude HTML.
 * 4) As has been brought up before, this is the English Wikipedia.  Most English-speaking countries use comma for thousands and period for decimal.  Using, say, German notation in an English article is not only presumtuous and confusing for English speakers, but also for those educated enough to know the difference in notation (which my English class taught me, at any rate).
 * 5) Original research does not belong in Wikipedia.  Please include references that support the subject if its origin is questionable.  Wikipedia data needs to be confirmable, i.e. there must be sources that will validate information on Wikipedia.
 * This is all I have to say for now. Please, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia before trashing other people's work, pushing your own agenda, accusing others of arrogance, and preaching from on high what we are to do. -- Yitzhak 17:46, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I would first like to apologise for my persistant reverts and header removal, I give you my word as a gentleman that no such edits will occur again. it was not my intention to be disrepectful, nor uncooperative. I would prefer to work with all of you in working out an positive solution which is acceptable to everyone.

in regards to formatting, there is absolutely nothing wrong with american standards, I would simply like to suggest that ISO formatting is a global standard which is comprehensible to anyone (americans, europeans, asians, etc..), and that such formatting would be a reasonable compromise. opinions? Metrische Zeit 10:47, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Please see Manual of Style (dates and numbers) for the collective opinion of many Wikipedians, and the "reasonable compromises" that have been agreed upon for the English-language Wikipedia. Dpbsmith (talk)]] 21:59, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Actually Yitzhak, the anonymous poster originally submitted this article, although I was the first to attempt to copyedit it. But thanks for your support! --Dablaze 06:14, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

I apologize for disrupting this "english only" encyclopedia club Metrische Zeit 08:43, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yitzhak, Your tendancy to assume things without knowing the facts is truly astounding, Dpbsmith also shares your talent in assuming that Ascher had authored this article, and that because he cannot locate a book published by this author, that such a book has never been published.'''

'''I am the original author of this article, and now that the article has been sufficiently trashed I will from now on desist from contributing, and refering to ENGLISH wikipedia, best regards Anton Voormann, Bremen, Germany''' Metrische Zeit 08:43, 31 Aug 2004

familiarize yourself with Wikipedia before trashing other people's work, pushing your own agenda, accusing others of arrogance, and preaching from on high what we are to do.

and this coming from you? you take an original article, trash it beyond reckognition, and accuse the original author of trashing the article after restoring it to it's original state. how ironic is that? 81.225.211.117 11:07, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Dorían Ascher [*] has to my knowledge not published any books. Any advocacy of Tempus Spatium or the Pandecimal system is most likely written by himself. (You can usually tell by the lack of capitalization and punctuation.) 213.200.147.232 08:28, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC) Restored after removal when the next 'graph was added
 * * User:David.Monniaux removed what he described as "personal info", from the spot where the bracketed asterisk appears above. I'm not satisfied that there is any good reason to change it at all from the original text, and IMO doing so is at odds with WP's general policy and its need to preserve the context of discussions.  The change was thus at best a bad precedent -- especially in the context of the Ascher's violations of policy, in the assertion of his demands (whose reasoning i find laughable) to falsify the history of this discussion, including that we remove information that he himself contributed under GFDL. I'm satisfied if the information removed is replaced by what could be deduced (assuming the IP contributor was accurate) and could reasonably be seen as weighing on the evaluation of Ascher's significance, credibility, and so on: to wit, that Ascher was at that time in his 30s and living in an internationally known EU city where German is a foreign language. I grant that his exact DoB and city of residence were no more relevant in setting the context than these two facts, and thus consider that the substitution does no direct harm. IMO that circumstance avoids the indirect harm that concerns me, by avoiding any precedent for removing information that is needed to avoid deforming the context of discussions. --Jerzy•t 01:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I contacted Wikipedia a year ago to have this copyright protected material removed, which was posted here without my persmission. My copyright protected material is Not to be posted anywhere on this site. furtherfore, neither my name nor personal information is to be posted on this site. nor anything relating to myself in any way shape or form. '' One sentence, in apparent violation of WP:NLT, has been removed here. The IP who posted it is welcome to replace this annotation with any clearer statement that is consistent with that policy. In that case, they should add " 02:27, 30 January 2006 & " in place of the "unsigned" notation at the end of this paragraph, to properly document both of their edits. '' Thank You! D.A. 30 January 2006. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.225.195.17 (talk &bull; contribs) 02:27, 30 January 2006  (UTC)