User talk:Joe Kress

/Archive 2004/03/23–2006/10/08 /Archive 2006/10/15–2009/04/20

Decimal time
Please add an exception for "decads" in Decimal time. Because this is fictional and matches Asimov's spelling of "centads", it should not be changed to "decades". — Joe Kress (talk) 19:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for spotting that. Consider it excepted! :)
 * Cheers, CmdrObot (talk) 19:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

NATO Phonetic Alphabet Undo
Nevermind -- see Talk:NATO phonetic alphabet. 209.159.37.194 (talk) 22:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Greek numerals
Why did you remove my reference? Languagehat (talk) 22:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Answered at Talk:Greek numerals. — Joe Kress (talk) 23:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Affirmation of daily rotation in 24 hours
The Earth's rotation in 24 hours exactly is organised around a formal proof of cause,effect with values in support and it cannot be disproved.The 'sidereal time' value represents a specific line of reasoning based on timekeeping averages originating with John Flamsteed who inverted the references for daily and orbital motion and created a catastrophic situation in the process.

There is nothing worse than the 'fact' of the Earth rotating in the 'sidereal time' or rather,it exists on the same conceptual level as a flat Earth.The matter,which arises from Flamsteed ill-considered conclusion in the late 17th century by correlating the return of a star directly with planetary dynamics and specifically daily rotation, requires immediate attention insofar as a society which cannot express the basic facts of planetary shape,rotation and rotational characteristics contained in the fact that the Earth turns at 15 degrees per hour is in serious difficulties.

The simple formal proof for rotation in 24 hours -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Earth%27s_rotationOriel36 (talk) 17:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Answered at Talk:Earth's rotation. — Joe Kress (talk) 19:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

180th meridian article name
Hi, I noticed that you prefer the article to be at 180th meridian as opposed to antimeridian, yet the edit summary says, "antimeridian depends on prime meridian". If this is the case, then would it not be better to name the article "antimeridian", since all the points on the antimeridian have an antipode on the prime meridian? Thanks. 23:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Answered at Talk:180th meridian. — Joe Kress (talk) 21:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * New message at 180th Meridian Talk Page     23:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Break Tag
Hi again, you seem to have removed the break tag. It was inserted because of this bit of text. ""These festivities recall the story of creation and the ancient cosmology of Iranian and Persian people.""

This has overlapped with the picture. This problem is now back again. There maybe another way to fix it that I'm not aware of, but it does the job for now. It seems justified to putback the break tag. Thanks. 23:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What browser are you using? No overlap exists in either IE7 and FF2 on my computer when I view Equinox. — Joe Kress (talk) 01:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm using Firefox 3.0.13, in which the text doesn't appear to wrap around the picture properly. It might a problem with the brower as opposed to the page. Thanks.     11:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 21:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

References for invariable plane and other subjects
[From Terry0051] Hallo Joe K, thanks for posting your list of references on Talk:Invariable_plane, it certainly gives a strong showing -- and contains much of wider interest also, specially this item Astrometric and geodetic properies of Earth and the Solar System, it looks like a whole treasure-house I didn't see before.

There's also something curious about it, if you compare it with another copy I found online at the AGU (searched because I had trouble trying to decipher one of the equations in the JPL copy). It turns out there is a big difference in legibility. I occasionally noticed that the pdfs in the JPL online database seem to be scrambled as if passed through some kind of rather bad OCR process. This is another of them! I can't think how it could be accidental.

The AGU page, besides offering an not-scrambled version, also shows a whole lot more material of related reference interest: Global Earth Physics (handbook) 1995.

So thanks for the Yoder link and the others: With good wishes Terry0051 (talk) 15:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Nautical time
With reference to this edit have you actually checked the reference to make sure it contains appropiate information? From your edit summary I get the impression you have added it on the assumption that it was what RadioFan meant to do. When I removed the strange bit of RadioFan's edit I left a message on their talk page saying what I'd done and from their reply I'm far from certain that they meant to duplicate the reference and instead it was just some weird error. Therefore unless you can confirm that the book is a good reference for that paragrah I don't think it should be included - at least without checking with RadioFan. Dpmuk (talk) 10:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

104s link
Hi again, it seem that once again you have reverted my edit. Generally exponentiation is written using superscripts. The only reason that the page name didn't have this superscript is because html tags can't be used for page names to give the exponentiation required; but the link name can use html tags, so it should be perfectly justified to restore the superscript tags to the link name. Thanks. 12:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I found an exception to the general rule against piping in WP:PIPING for technical reasons, so I won't object. However, I think the short line under the superscript in linked names is ugly (10$4$)—the underline indicating a link should be continuous with that under normally sized characters. You might consider replacing 104 with 10$4$ due to the smaller number of typed characters. Although personal preference, 10 results in a smaller superscript font: 10 vs 104. — Joe Kress (talk) 00:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I wasn't actually aware of the "sup" and "smallsup" templates. It is a lot more convenient and the small superscript does look a lot better. I'll probably use that one, thanks for that tip.     17:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Please contact me
Dear Joe Kress Please contact me via wikipaedia internal e-mail. I have a bronze calender and wish to discuss it. cheers chris-do-algarve Chris-do-algarve (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not use e-mail with Wikipedia. I do not know what you mean by a "bronze calendar". I have no interest whatsoever in proposed calendars, only in historical or existing calendars. — Joe Kress (talk) 07:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Dating Creation
Thanks for help on the reference, man. 76.244.59.146 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC).

Editing talk pages
Hi, you seem to be editting the entire talk page, rather than just individual sections. This makes it harder for other readers to tell which section you've added your comments to. Thought you might like to know. --Michael C. Price talk 07:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You are correct. Although I have "Enable section editing via [edit] links" checked in my preferences, I almost never use it. I always click on the "edit this page" tab, rather than a section of the page. I've used this method since before section editing was even allowed in Wikipedia. Indeed, just finding the section [edit] is difficult on talk pages with long active sections. I easily find edits anywhere within articles or talk pages by clicking on "hist" to the right of any articles or talk pages on my watchlist and then "compare selected revisions" since the last time I checked the page. This allows me to find multiple edits by editors (including vandals) anywhere on the page. A watchlist only indicates the last section edited by the last editor of any article or talk page, so that is useless for finding multiple edits. Clicking on the names of articles or talk pages on my watch list and then clicking on its history is indirect. Furthermore, clicking on the individual time/date of edits within an article's history is much too slow for me. Nevertheless, I'll try to use section editing on at least talk pages for those that don't use my technique. — Joe Kress (talk) 09:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I just tried to use a section edit in an article and found it utterly useless if a reference is included, because the text of references are in another section which is not shown in "Show preview". — Joe Kress (talk) 22:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, good point. That is a real drawback with section editing.  Swings and roundabouts, I guess.  --Michael C. Price talk 22:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A workaround is to temporarily add a

Disambiguation link notification for December 25
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nautical mile, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page League ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Nautical_mile check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Nautical_mile?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:37, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 16
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 0, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page None ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/0 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/0?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Calendar (New Style) Act 1750
I notice that you are a regular editor at Computus, so I wondered if perhaps you might be able to advise at Talk:Calendar (New Style) Act 1750? I suspect that we may have a very long-standing, credible, but unsupported assertion.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)