User talk:MichaelTinkler/Old


 * Thanks for your messages. I'm not leaving - I'm just going to


 * 1) stick very narrowly to writing about what I care about


 * I do not know if Art falls into this category, but in talk:Art Larry Sanger writes: 'MichaelTinkler, help!!!'--branko


 * 1) edit bad work without explanation unless it is requested
 * 2) forget about trying to teach - which is hard for me to resist
 * 3) write a few 'tools' entries, which will be 'teaching', but which I think we need.

-


 * edit bad work without explanation unless it is requested


 * This being the key. Don't argue with them, what's the point? You're right, they're wrong. Run through historical crap with a steamroller and don't explain. I'm finding this arrogant attitude to be very helpful myself :) -- Paul Drye


 * In the specific instance of Michael editing certain persons' historical work, I would support this resolution as well. Good luck!  (Now departing Gallup, NM.) --LMS

Thanks for writing. I've just ordered a set of books (hopefully on my doorstep when I get home from work to-day) that you would probably find interesting if you've not seen them before. Actually, anyone would be, but it's a 5-volume series called the History of Private Life. It starts way back in the ancient world with details about the good stuff -- daily activities rather than kings and wars and politics. I found copies at http://www.powells.com/ for reasonable price. Anyway. Merry Christmas! NathanBeach
 * Yes, indeed. I have volumes I & II here in the office.  I think I have volume IV at home.  I'm liberating them volume by volume from my parents' house....  Good stuff.  --MichaelTinkler

Micheal, i know you probably won't have time, but i always thought that Gniezno in 1000 AD wa sole goal of Otto III pilgrimage. Could you please direct me to some informations? I am also wondering how meeting in Gniezno (zjazd gnieznienski) is called in English? szopen


 * You know, I'm not sure what it was - a synod in Gniezno, or some other kind of assembly.  Some historians I've read present Otto's travel in 1000 as a coordinated, planned progress from Gniezno to Aachen to Rome for symbolic purposes.  It may well have been 3 unrelated actions - emperors moved around a lot anyway.  His trip to Aachen was either part of one pilgrimage with many stops (Adalbert, Charlemagne, Peter in Rome) or 3 trips that had relgious components (travel to rule the empire, with visits to the saints on the side).  --MichaelTinkler


 * I know that he changed his titles during pilgrimage (Servus Iesu Christi et Romanorum imperator augustus secundum voluntatem dei salvatoris nostrique liberatoris) which he abandoned after Aachen (in my book it is said that he use that tile only twice later, while consequently used during pilgrimage, he was accompanied by Pope legate. Seems that it weren't just usual Emperor's travels. Meeting in Gniezno resulted in political (which we know from Polish tradition, written 100 years later by Gall Anonim) and Church organisational (which we know from contemporary Thietmat Chronicle) results (i know you as medievalist probably know that, i am just thinking). If we accept reliability of Gall Anonim, then term Synod would be, i think, wrong. Assembly then? szopen

I think 'meeting' is fine unless there is something more definite. Titles are probably more difficulty than they're worth - notice that Otto uses different titles on different occaions for different purposes - they do not tell us about anything more than how the person wished to present himself at that instance. A title used in only three documents is REALLY tricky! JHK and I are working on an entry on titles at the moment, but we can't even decide what to call it yet! --MichaelTinkler

Michael: take a look at Charles IV again. Is it just me, or you have not delinked Sigismund and have not edited Emperor of HRE Germany? szopen]] -- M. T., please take a look at Widewuto and at the Cromer description of Prussia. In my original Widewuto text I did not write that St. Adalbert's death in 997 happened under Widewuto and Prutenos reign. While you edited that, somehow it now reads to be that timeframe. When you read bishop Cromer's report you will find a different time span. Please adjust the Widewuto text so that it does not read as if St Adalbert's death and Widewuto are at the same time. Thank you. H. J.

Well Michael excuse me for calling you Mike. I thought at firt glance it would be suitably to call you in that way as a polite form. My official name is Janez (as John in English), but everybody had always called me Jani (as Johny) so that's why. I must also thank you for correcting my errors e.g. about capitalising nick names as in Pliny the Elder. This is a little bit hard stuff for non-Enlish person I must admit. I think there are many more. But a good thing is that these persons are participating in making English version of Wikipedia, don't you agree. I wonder how many non-English wikipedians are there? And their participation in its English part is not forbidden, right? Of course I am trusting you in making things look English. And finally that is not my astronomy. As Sir Fred Hoyle years ago had said we know so little about those great ancient astronomers and scientists. The subjects from natural sciences are sometimes very hard for pure historians. I think there's something more in plain reconstructing their times and works. This is our heritage and we all should not forget it. And in the other hand English reading persons should encourage all non-English ones. I am brave enough to put my contributions in English world to judge it so perhaps I shoul not be disqualified at once. I am still learning from English language of course - and probably you should learn something from astronomy and such. I must also say I am very carefull with my English manners of expressions and sometimes it is too much for me indeed. As I wrote I will use your sugestion on B.C. markings. In Slovene we use even worse and longer notation (346 B.C. is 346 pr. n. &#353;t.). Before knowing about proleptic Gregorian calendar I was writteing -346, which is wrong of course and it should be -347. But with my other knowledge on astronomy I am also allergic on streetlike additions of any kind where there's no null element. In the western world we use a system for dating which was imposed by Christian church. And why time should be less important than for instance a three dimensional space where there's a coordinate central point (0,0,0) and in dating of time there is none... This is probably another face of our strange and insignificant Adam's world. I'll be brave enough still to continue my works herein regardless the reproaches. I should be, because I like Wikipedia a lot. My best regards. --XJam [2002.03.20] 3 Wednesday (0)
 * Oh, please - systems without zero are perfectly understandable when one accepts that the count is for YEARS, and the birth took place once, on a DAY. Not that we have the right day, yes, it's a convention, yes, and Dionysius the Skinny was off by 4 years or so, yes, but it's what we work with.  Read about the Malay market-week sometime.


 * Second, don't go blaming "the Christian Church." The central church authorities in the middle ages both preferred using regnal years of emperors;  it was the Carolingian kings and emperors who did it!  I should write the damn entry I've been meaning to write for some time, but until then see the works of Richard Landes (google him - he's available). MichaelTinkler


 * I trust you on English but should I trust you on what you had written. I'll check someday about those Carolingian kings and about proffesor Landes' claimings. (But this takes times). I really don't know what did you mean about understandability of zerolike systems. (Perhaps my English is not well enough). Anything what differs from natural counting is strange vice versa. Try to think about that more. I don't know the term Malay market-week. The Christian Church's aproach with regnal years is even vorse then the Christ's birth aproach. But this has nothing or not much to do with astronomy. When Copernicus tried to participate in a reform for a new calendar was a little bit later - and futhermore - that time authorities did not include the knowledge of arab astronomers (i.e. Thabit, Omar Khayyam (I have pretty extensive article on this at Kvarkadabras in my native language and I should translate it in some occasion http://www.kvarkadabra.net/?/zgodovina/teksti/koledar_hajam.htm - you can check at least pictures). And Dionysius is another good example for proper usage of a grammatical article the. I guess we're in the middle ages still. --XJam [2002.03.28] 4 Thuesday (0)

Michael, how would you translate Humanae Vitae? AxelBoldt

would that be "...of human life", or perhaps "human lives"?
 * "of human life". "lives" would be humanarum vitarum, Of the Lives of Humans (or even Persons).  With a preliminary De the better translation would be "Concerning", but without it we assume the genitive "of". MichaelTinkler