User talk:SteveMcCluskey/Archive 3

Grant
Steve, let me ask a more detailed question about Grant's Assault on the middle ages. On p343 he says "Of crucial importance was Letronne's sweeping claim that flat-earth theories dominated to the time of Columbus and Magellan". This goes far further than Russell's allegations and I can't find any justification for this in the internet archive version of Letronne's article (p382-414, particularly 413-4). Is this an abbreviated version? It doesn't help that there doesn't seem to be an English translation.

The closest I could see was his rather vague statement: "All these old prejudices ... spread throughout the rest of Christianity; they reigned throughout the middle ages". Is this what Grant thought so damaging? In fact Letronne jumps straight over the time of Columbus and Magellan to Galileo and Newton, so that's rather misleading too. Chris55 (talk) 09:44, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Chris, I think an equally significant line in Grant's discussion is the one preceding the passage you quote.  Grant says "Although he [Letronne] allowed that a few theologians thought the earth was round, Letronne argued that the majority were committed to a flat earth, following the opinion of Cosmas Indicopleustes."  I don't have Russell's book at hand but Grant seems to be making the inference that if Letronne is saying that with few exceptions, medieval thinkers followed the view of Cosmas Indicopleustes (fl. ca. AD 550), Letronne is suggesting continuous belief in the flat earth from 6th century to the time of Columbus and Magellan.
 * I agree, Letronne doesn't speak of Columbus or Magellan (I didn't find either of them in a word search of his book), but then, I don't see the flat-earth myth as being solely about Columbus. Like Grant and other medievalists, I see the myth as part of a broader discussion of supposed medieval views of the nature of the earth and the cosmos, in which Columbus and Galileo were presented as two classic examples to demonstrate how medieval authorities "enforced their ignorant superstitions".
 * That, by the way, is the reason I feel an historiographical discussion is appropriate to the article.--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is equally important, but can you point me to any other statement in that Letronne piece that gives any more support for that than the one I've given already? There's an earlier statement on p412 that "Cosmas and other Christian doctors supporters of his opinion did not fail, as we see the authorities in support of their system" which is untrue but doesn't give any time frame so hardly has a sweeping character.
 * The other question is did anybody take notice of what this obscure paper said? If one had a few citations it might help to evaluate it, but 200 years later it seems to be nowhere except in their imagination. Chris55 (talk) 22:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your translation. The passage that seems particularly relevant is the following (I've copyedited your translation):
 * "All these old prejudices ... reigned throughout the Middle Ages. From there, the obstacles that the theologians of Rome opposed to the progress of true philosophy and sciences of observation, persecuting Galileo, destroying the Accademia del Cimento, causing Descartes to fear to rule about the movement of the earth, and making the learned Tycho have recourse to an astronomical system far less reasonable than that of Ptolemy."
 * Letronne's crucial argument is that these old prejudices, among which he includes the opinion of Cosmos Indicopleustes, reigned throughout the Middle Ages (régnèrant pendant tout le moyen âge). I don't know whether he was being deliberately deceitful or merely reflected outdated historiography, but the point is he was advocating that the belief in the flat earth was the dominant cosmology through the course of the middle ages.  He doesn't associate it with Columbus, but that's not really the point of the flat-earth myth.  Letronne's statement certainly supports Grant's description of "Letronne's sweeping claim that flat-earth theories dominated to the time of Columbus and Magellan".
 * As to your question of whether this paper was significant, I will note two points. First, Letronne was named a member of the Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres in 1816, when he was not yet 30, had a noted academic career, and was described in the centennial history of the Academy's journal the Année Épigraphique as the veritable founder of the study of classic epigraphy.  Second, this paper was originally published in Revue des Deux-Mondes, 1835, vol. 1, pp. 601 ff. and was subsequently reprinted in 1883 in the collection we're using.  These strike me as signs that his opinions were respected. Unfortunately, we don't have citation indices for the nineteenth century.  SteveMcCluskey (talk) 03:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Flat Earth
Why are we having almost the exact same discussion from the same editor (Chris55) on two similar pages (Myth of the Flat Earth and Flat Earth). He's obviously POV pushing - and from a poor position - have you tried bringing this to an admin to step in and put a stop to this? Ckruschke (talk) 16:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Universities
You are right, this is not the place. But it gets frustrating when one dude presses the same points for months, while making little intellectual efforts to understand the counter-arguments provided to him. And this happens not only in this article, but in 1-2 others, where he shows the same passive-aggressiveness towards others, so small wonder. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it would be a better idea to participate in this discussion and explain why madrasas don't fit the definition of a university even though they are the only Islamic institutions capable of granting a doctorate title. If you have a problem with a particular editor, try talking to him on his talk page instead. If that fails, see WP:RFCC -A1candidate (talk) 13:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Result of clarification request concerning "Psuedoscience principles"
You participated in this recent clarification request. This message is to inform you that the clarification request has been closed and archived. If you would like to read the arbitrators' opinion section, the request has been archived to here. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK  [•] 08:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

blacklisted source at University
Hi, there is a brief discussion of the black listing issue at University on the blacklisting page. This may make sense to you; it doesn't make much sense to me! I am considering requesting whitelisting per the discussion there. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

List of archaeoastronomical sites by country
Just took Tiwanaku off this, but I see it's on the Heritage Sites of Astronomy and Archaeoastronomy list. On a separate issue, I'm not clear whether copyvio stops us from using the list. Dougweller (talk) 15:51, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * the list you cited is both restrictive, in the sense that it only includes sites on the UNESCO World Heritage List, and broad, in the sense that it includes all such sites with "possible connections to astronomy". I'm not familiar with Tiwanaku from the archaeoastronomical literature, so I don't object to your deleting it.  Like many lists, the List of archaeoastronomical sites by country seems to have gathered a lot of marginal entries.  I'm not much of a list person so I don't plan to dive in and try to cull them out.  --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I noticed that it seemed to go from the UNESCO list to stuff that was dubious. Thanks, that answers my question. I don't like lists very much but I like bad lists even less. Dougweller (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Heath brothers
After reverting an edit by Richard Heath, who has just set up an account, I took a look at his brother's article and raised it at WP:FTN. I'm not sure who else is interested in archaeoastronomy and is active now. Dougweller (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And see Megalithic yard. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Flat earth myth
Please take part in discussion of this subject if you have time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth#The_Treaty_of_Tordesillas_and_contradiction_to_this_article). Thanks in advance. 46.70.190.130 (talk) 19:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Paper that would be useful
I wrote to Clive Ruggles at his rug:le.ac.uk the email below, but no reply.

Dear Professor Ruggles,

This might be very cheeky, but I am trying to improve the Wikipedia article on Carahunge which is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zorats_Karer (problems with it are being discussed on the talk page). I'm dealing with people who want to give it a very old age and I just discovered a preview of a forthcoming article at http://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-1-4614-6141-8_140 which it appears is exactly what our article needs. I expect you to explain why it's impossible to get me a copy, but as you know, if you don't ask you don't get.

Will you be able to get hold of it at some time> Our article on Zorats Karer is pretty bad but that's mainly due to lack of good sources. This should fix that. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It would be great if you worked on this. I was confused by which says "will also be accessible to students and serious general readers." Dougweller (talk) 12:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Anno Mundi
Thanks again for your recent edit. I didn't think that passage was quite right. Not the first time I've wished to have a copy of On the Reckoning of Time. Evensteven (talk) 01:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The IP just added a source by Richard Watson II
See and  - and if you want, his Facebook page - I've told him not to add it again. Dougweller (talk) 14:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * @Dougweller Thanks, I've been after the IP for making numerological edits related to the number seven on various astronomy related articles, notably at History of Astronomy.  It seems there's a dynamic IP allocation here, as "Ben Franklin" has been editing as User:50.153.107.0, User:75.74.130.115, and User:50.153.102.0.  Your block looks like a good start.  SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I blocked? Not him, I've reported him at WP:ANI. Dougweller (talk) 15:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge pb.png
Thanks for uploading File:Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge pb.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 01:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

5 elements
What you have found actually unreliable there? Previous version includes a imaginary 9th century text and has no citations and each of these citations are actually reliable enough for citing some of these very commonly known information. Bladesmulti (talk) 22:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

December 2014
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Leadership Conference of Women Religious. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 22:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BRD the onus was on you to begin discussion rather than revert without explanation. The deletions, made without explanation, were considered vandalism, and I will continue to regard them as vandalistic until they are justified by Wikipedia policy. As it is, their deletion violates WP:NPOV. Elizium23 (talk) 22:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Matthew VanDyke edits
Dear Steve - thank you for previously contributing to the discussion regarding the Matthew VanDyke page. As you know, this page is currently subject to an editing dispute on both the Talk Page and the BLPN. In order to help resolve the dispute, please can you kindly confirm if your support for or objection to the debated edits has been fairly summarised in the table on the Talk Page? If your position has not been fairly summarised then I apologise and invite you to correct it (or let me know and I can do this for you). Thank you. - Slugfilm (talk) 01:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

History of scientific method‎; Ekplatonos edits
Hello, I understand your concerns. You may wish to reconsider, the book is on the shelves of libraries such as Harvard, Oxford, Stanford, Berkeley. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekplatonos (talk • contribs) 08:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia, being edited by amateurs who cannot be expected to evaluate content, relies instead on rigorous formal criteria for accepting a source. The fact that Nikoletseas's book is held in the comprehensive collections of major research libraries does not modify the fact that as a self-published book it was not subject to independent scholarly review before publication. Therefore it is not a reliable source. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 12:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

YPG and NPU
I would argue that Michael Enright (actor) being a high value target for the YPG is substantially similar to the high media profile for Matthew VanDyke in his role with the NPU. I'd argue the substantial link is that two white celebrities are involved in a propaganda (non-fighting) role with two non-ISIL (and ISIL opposed) groups. I think there's a substantial link and I'd like a third opinion on a talk page - I'll ping some previous editors. -- Aronzak (talk) 22:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Bold embolismic month?
Hi McClusky, thanks for pointing to MOS:Bold in Intercalation (timekeeping). I did it because ther's redirect from "embolismic month." I now bolded that instead. That would be correct to do, right? Mistakefinder (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks OK, except for the italcs which I changed back to quotes.--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 02:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

May 2016
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=718971925 your edit] to Minute and second of arc may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ref>NASA.gov Pluto Fact Sheet.

Reference errors on 6 June
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * On the Atmospheric refraction page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=724060444 your edit] caused a cite error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F724060444%7CAtmospheric refraction%5D%5D Ask for help])

"An original research" for you
Hi,I'm Q5968661. Complete table for Julian and Gregorian calendars 27.154.63.66 (talk) 07:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't see how this relates to our discussion at Talk:Lunisolar calendar.
 * As a technical aside, it would help the development of articles if you would login using your Username before making edits. In that way, you could be properly credited for your contributions and it would be clear who one is talking to when discussing improvements to articles.  As it is, edits (which are apparently yours) have been appearing under a variety of IP addresses.  --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. Here is another "original research" that relates to the discussion -- Leap year shift table. I hope you will like it. Q5968661 (talk) 14:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I presume you are aware that original research is not allowed in Wikipedia. That is one of the hardest things for academics to learn.  We're used to the idea that an original discovery is a good thing; but on Wikipedia an original discovery is only acceptable if it has already been published in an independent, reliable source. Your links here to your own "original research" don't advance your case. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

1 + 1 = ? = original research without reliable source. Nothing to say but ridiculous.

The formula: T or F (R or W), if T or R, then How or Why and if F or W, then remove. Am I right? Q5968661  27.154.63.66 (talk) 09:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Without further context of what you plan to do with that simple calculation, I can't answer whether it's permitted on Wikipedia. Routine calculations are permitted on Wikipedia; however using calculations to demonstrate a point on which there is not agreement are not. For example, a calculation of a hypothetical table for the Julian and Gregorian calendars would not be acceptable without a discussion (including citation of reliable sources) showing that such a table accurately depicted the pattern that is found in the sources. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

If so, many of the contents of articles on Wikipedia should have been deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable: If the table or formula can be verified by users themself (including ourself), why it must need to cite sources? For what do we include citation of reliable sources? Of course, it is for the verifiable, but they have been verified without any citation of sources. Using calculations to demonstrate a point does not need citation of sources but the point itself does need. Q5968661 27.154.63.66 (talk) 01:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

For example

The epacts for the current Metonic cycle, which began in 2014, are: (M = March, A = April)

This table can be extended for previous and following 19-year periods. A formula for paschal full moon date can be derived from the table and is valid from 1900 to 2199.
 * PFMd = 45 - (Y mod 19 × 11) mod 30
 * if Y mod 19 = 5 or 16, add 29
 * if Y mod 19 = 8 add 30
 * if the result is over 31, subtract 31 (and the month is April, instead of March)
 * For the example of 2013 (mod 19 = 18), PFMd = 45 - (18 × 11) mod 30 = 45 - 18 = 27M.

The formula can be changed as below
 * PFMd = (45 - Y mod 19 × 11 mod 30) mod 31
 * if Y mod 19 = 5 or 16, subtract 2
 * if Y mod 19 = 8, subtract 1
 * if the result is less than 19, the month is April, instead of March
 * For the example of 2017 (mod 19 = 3), PFMd = (45 - 3 × 11 mod 30) mod 31 = 45 - 3 mod 31 = 11A.

Do we need the sources for the procedure or not?

Mental calculation to determine the date of Easter Sunday: I'm thinking about that "Hello !!! Try it the other way around. I'll give you the dates: 22 March and 25 April, and you determine the year (the last and the next occurrence). Thanks. :–D 195.91.110.132 (talk) 16:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)". Would you like to work it out too? Q5968661 (talk) 11:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * This discussion leads nowhere. This is my last comment; I'm not going to reply further.  --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 18:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

The last "original research" for determining the date of Easter on WP, happy Easter day to you!

Easter day is the first Sunday after PFMd. Look up the table below for the date of Easter day:

For year 2017 (17, GN = 4): DL = A, corresponding Sundays = 26M 2A 9A 16A 23A, PFMd = 11A, so Easter Sunday = 16 April. For year 1943 (15, GN = 6): DL = C, corresponding Sundays = 28M 4A 11A 18A 25A, PFMd = 18A, so Easter Sunday = 25 April. For year 2100 (0, GN = 11): DL = C, corresponding Sundays = 28M 4A 11A 18A 25A, PFMd = 25M, so Easter Sunday = 28 March.

Q5968661 110.84.34.111 (talk) 13:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

thanks for the help with Archaeocryptography
thanks for adding 'In literary studies' section to the Archaeocryptography definition. I appreciate another enthusiast as yourself. I am 33 year old writer, programmer, designer. I am actually looking to write a book on the subject entitled "mathematical facts and megalithic structures". It would be great if we could collaborate, I could really use a step in the right direction with that. I write for a computer security magazine and this is the next step I want to take with my hobby in archeology and cryptography and well writing. Check out my article on the great pyramid: http://www.handylore.com/a/math-facts-about-the-great-pyramid I also wrote handylore in C#. I read about you a bit. very interesting. I hope you have a good day. And I hope to hear from you sometime. wiki said you might not respond right away. No problem, I myself do not log-in very often. Oddacon (talk) 10:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

New Maya video trailer
Yeah your right sorry on reflection that was a bad idea, I should't have put it in the article. Thanks for removing. Originalwana (talk) 08:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Canada's Stonehenge
Hi - not sure what to do with this. Unless Ruggles book here discusses it, I can't find any reliable sources. Doug Weller talk 18:26, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing that one up; I've never heard of the site before and the book seems to be by an amateur. Of course, Alexander Thom was an amateur, but Freeman is no Alexander Thom.  The site seems to relate to the family of Medicine Wheels, which have been studied for their astronomical functions.  There is a short article on Medicine Wheels in Ruggles's Handbook but it doesn't mention this site or refer to this book.
 * Offhand, the article seems like a case of WP:BOOKSPAM or perhaps falls more appropriately under WP:ARTSPAM. If the latter, it might be open for deletion.  An article on the purported astronomical site would be more appropriate than an article on the book.  --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:36, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll ask at WP:FTN. Thanks. Doug Weller  talk 20:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Done that. It's notable enough, found a a review in an archaeological magazine on it (I presume you have access, if not, I've got a copy), so it would pass AfD. I also present to you the stub Majorville Cairn and Medicine Wheel site - if you can find time to improve it that would be great! Doug Weller  talk 11:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link to Yellowhorn's review in the Canadian Journal of Archaeology. He points out several details:
 * The Book is self-published.
 * The Author engages in "speculation that treads close to fiction".
 * "Too many passages pivot around conditional phrase structures, such as perhaps, presumably, seems to be, and might have been, that leave the impression of speculation where a conclusion ought to be."
 * I'll work some of that into the article on the book.--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

atmospheric refraction
you reverted my edit but I don't understand why. my edit was regarding the *effect* of refraction on visibility. an increased effective radius *is* what makes otherwise hidden objects visible. as an extreme example, consider an effective radius of infinity, or a "flat earth": nothing will be hidden by curvature. John Comeau (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

for some actual numbers, see http://aty.sdsu.edu/explain/atmos_refr/horizon.html, showing R'=1.167R, or a radius of about 7440km vs the actual 6378km. John Comeau (talk) 18:16, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

my concern here is as a computer programmer, I have to be able to turn these formulas into code. and when I do that and the result is completely the opposite of the textual description, I have to determine which is correct. and the textual description, as you reverted it, is exactly the *opposite* of what the math gives, and also opposite of observable phenomena. it misleads people who are trying to understand. I am going to undo your reversion unless and until you can show me how I'm wrong. John Comeau (talk) 18:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Just trying to get back to work after a cold I picked up on an Eclipse trip, but on re-reading the passage, I think you're right. I apparently had been thinking of the effect of changes in the radius of curvature when I "corrected" your edit.  It probably should stand but I'll recheck after I'm thinking more clearly. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 22:34, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Johannes Kepler
Hi Steve

After some more inquiry I found that the literal phrase "thinking God's thoughts after him" can't be contributed to Johannes Kepler, but is probably a capsulized version of a writing from his hand: "Those laws [of nature] are within the grasp of the human mind; God wanted us to recognize them by creating us after his own image so that we could share in his own thoughts." Reference to this writing: Letter (9/10 Apr 1599) to the Bavarian chancellor Herwart von Hohenburg. Collected in Carola Baumgardt and Jamie Callan, Johannes Kepler Life and Letters (1953), 50

I therefore propose I rephrase the addition I made to reflect this.

Also I will rewrite the protion with respoect to his view on God's design of the cosmos with references to britannica.com/biography/Johannes-Kepler

Kindly confirm if you agree to this approach.

A. de Bont(talk)


 * My problem is with use of primary sources (Kepler's own words) without interpretation by secondary sources (historians, etc.) to provide interpretation of what those words signify. This is a violation of Wikipedia's policy against Original Research, specifically "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation".  This would include a claim that Kepler's religion motivated his scientific work.  There is abundant secondary literature on Kepler's religion; I suggest you do some research to find it.
 * As to your proposed edits, lets see if what you do conforms to Wikipedia policies. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 01:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


 * How about this:
 * It was mainly because of his firm believe that the cosmos was created by God in an orderly fashion, reflecting the devine plan of God, that he attempted to determine and comprehend the laws that govern the natural world, most profoundly in astronomy. His main objective in this endeavour was to glorify God, as he once wrote to Maestlin: “I wanted to become a theologian; for a long time I was restless. Now, however, behold how through my effort God is being celebrated in astronomy.”
 * It was mainly because of his firm believe that the cosmos was created by God in an orderly fashion, reflecting the devine plan of God, that he attempted to determine and comprehend the laws that govern the natural world, most profoundly in astronomy. His main objective in this endeavour was to glorify God, as he once wrote to Maestlin: “I wanted to become a theologian; for a long time I was restless. Now, however, behold how through my effort God is being celebrated in astronomy.”


 * The phrase "I am merly thinking God's thoughts after Him" has been contributed to him, although this is probably a capsulized version of a writing from his hand:


 * Those laws [of nature] are within the grasp of the human mind; God wanted us to recognize them by creating us after his own image so that we could share in his own thoughts.




 * All content of the first sentence is derived from the referenced Britannica pages.
 * A. de Bont(talk)


 * No response equals approval...

RE: December 2017
I don't find them inappropiate. "First civilization" is a term, and it doesn't matter where it's accompanied by. In addition, some of the words I linked redirected to "civilization", so I linked to "first civilization". Tajotep (talk) 10:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

No, no, he doesn't
No, Pope Francis doesn't speak against something. Read the source. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 02:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 02:24, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I presume you are referring to our edit dispute in the Theology of Pope Francis. I will reply here and copy this discussion to the article's talk page. Theology of Pope Francis cites as its source an article in America magazine, by Gerard O'Connell, "Pope Francis says with magisterial authority: the Vatican II liturgical reform is ‘irreversible’."   The relevant passage follows:


 * "After this general reflection, Francis went on to address some specific aspects of the Italian conference that focused on the theme 'A live liturgy for a live church.' 'The liturgy is "alive" because of the living presence of Christ,' he said. “'Just as without a heartbeat there is no human life, so too without the pulsating heart of Christ there is no liturgical action.'


 * "While some have spoken of celebrating the liturgy looking 'to the East,' Francis today emphasized that 'the altar is one of the visible signs of the invisible mystery, the sign of Christ the living stone.' For this reason, the altar is 'the center to which the attention converges in all our churches.'"


 * In O'Donnell's account, Francis was contrasting ad orientem to a focus on the altar. O'Donnell's account is a legitimate reading of the source you provided. If you want to answer O'Donnell, cite the original source in the article, but the Jesuit magazine, America, is a reliable source, even if you disagree with it.  --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 02:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Thumbs up! (for helping Save the "Ordin" )
Greetings, User:SteveMcCluskey. Thank you for helping preserve the "ordin" where it still has a rightful (if evidently eroding) place. I was shocked when I searched for "ordinate direction" at Wikipedia that I was not taken directly to a page, heading, or subheading by that name. After all, it had been the standard term for generations for what evidently is today "intermediate" or "intercardinal". I was likewise shocked when I went to look for a standard (bulletproof, boilerplate) citation for it at that time to discover it's galloping eradication from modern thought - at least so far as it is expressed on the World Wide Web via the Internet and, ultimately, captured in fractional popular public part at Wikipedia. That last compound phrase being key, as (there has got to be a word for it, I just don't know it) "reality" is not synonymous with what is found merely via Google, Safari, et al, in the public pipelines, portals, and repositories they search.

Just because something is or isn't there in some relative abundance or lack does not mean it is not so. It just means that for one reason - or bias - or another it is not fully represented there. There are, as you can well imagine and impute, all manner of reasons why such dynamics occur. Everything from matters of secrecy to simple age bias, as the Internet is a field, and field of battle, dominated disproportionately by youth, and likely ever will be in manners of degree as technology changes and is most broadly adopted and easily absorbed early in the human learning curve, increasingly via elementary education. Thus there are, as I previously referenced, generations of once gradeschoolers and scouts who learned that ordinal numbers represent "sequence" and cardinal numbers "quantity" and once knew their way around a compass that will tickle or peck at keyboards and keypads instinctively hunting for things like "ordinal directions" they learned right alongside their kindred "cardinals" and not find them, or only with effort, alarm, and increasing levels of duress.

This, however, does not mean the terms do not deserve to be recognized, at least in their historic roles &mdash; as they are, certainly were, part and parcel of an array of words, concepts, and compounds arising from and sharing the same "ordin" root in "ordinary" (a means of ranking a thing relative to another in quality or number) and "ordinate" (which has a great permutation of usages). Such as the "ordinate" in coordinate, a noun and means of identifying a point on an X/Y axis which everyone learns in geography and relies on in trigonometry; and verb "ordinate", to arrange items, ideas, manpower, and so on into their proper relationships. And "ordinate", a verb kin to the verb "ordain" indicating distinction, elevation, or investment with higher qualities. Also "coordinate" on its own, a noun representing the combination of two "ordinates" &mdash; co-ordinates &mdash; identifying a specific point in space relative to an axis; and "coordinate" the verb meaning to bring order and organization to a task; the very similar verb denoting common action in so doing; and the hyphenated verb "co-ordinated", meaning to possess the qualities of common and fluid action, movement, and condition.

Then we have subordinate, which has at least seven meanings (two nouns, two verbs, and three adjectival) spanning from a thing being "subordinate" (for being lesser to or lower than another; that is to say, its relational "ordinates" &mdash; relative position &mdash; are sub-, lower, than what it is being compared to), to "subordinate" the verb (to make dependent, subservient, or inferior, as in subordinating a loan, lein, or lease), to the adjectives for variously being lower in rank or importance, subject or submissive to a higher authority, or incapable of standing on its own syntactically.

Last, we have the root's black sheep, inordinate, something out of normal or accepted bounds. Nobody or nothing ever wants to be "inordinate" &mdash; unless it involves praise, as in "inordinately brave", "handsome", "beautiful", or "fast chugging a beer".

You, sir, were inordinarily thoughtful in reconsidering a way of integrating a valid but increasingly relegated usage of a term heading towards anachronism (rather than still incubating as a neologism) where one belongs. And inordinately graceful in sending on a thanks in so doing. The recognition is returned in kind. If only there was a Wikipedia Suggestion Box where we could request the addition of a "Back at you!" button to automate reciprocation. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your kind thoughts but, as you may have noticed, I added a citation needed note to the alleged historical use of the term ordinal directions as now claimed in the Cardinal direction article. I have been troubled by this usage for quite some time; when I first looked at the Google ngram viewer (which is based on the Google Books database), I found that ordinal direction was rare, and when I sampled the sources where it was first used, I found it to be often used as synonymous with either cardinal directions or intercardinal directions. It is a rare and ambiguous term. Going to an authoritative source, the terms "intercardinal direction(s)", "ordinal direction(s)", or "ordinate direction(s)" never appear in a full text search of the OED, while the phrase "cardinal direction(s)" only appears twice:
 * "The principal axes of the velocity ellipsoid are oriented along the cardinal directions of the galactic coordinate frame, except for the youngest stars."
 * "The Nawa Sangga, the magic rose of the winds, the Balinese cardinal directions."
 * Looking at ordinal directions in the sense of intercardinal directions, most of the sources I found in Google were recent and based on Wikipedia; it seems the term ordinal directions is a neologism, not a historical survival. This is the reason I added the "citation needed" note for the claim that the term "ordinal directions" is a historical or obsolescent term for the intercardinal directions. If you can find good secondary sources for the early use of this phrase, they would be welcome to the article. The citation of sources that merely use the term,, however, approaches the borders of Original Research.
 * Since you used ordinate directions as a term, I tried that in the ngram viewer and found it to be much more common than ordinal direction. However, on checking the underlying sources, I found that the result comes from the common use of the term "co-ordinate directions"; the ngram analysis treats the hyphen as a space and the hyphenated "co-ordinate directions" becomes the trigram "co ordinate directions" or the digram "ordinate directions." From this sample, it seems that the term has nothing to do with either cardinal of intercardinal directions.
 * --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I provide that cite as soon as I realized you had requested one. No, "ordinal direction" is not a neologism; it is historic, taught for generations.  Please refer to the top two paragraphs of my original post here.  Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 03:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for providing the link but the source falls short on three grounds. First, it does not state that the term "ordinal direction" was used in the past and is therefore a historical usage. Secondly, it is an unsigned web page, not what one would call a reliable source. Finally, I suspect this page may, in fact, be based on Wikipedia, a form of circular reference which would be unacceptable. Either of these is enough to make it inadequate to be an adequate source for a claim that the term "is historic, taught for generations." --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Kokino
Hello, I noticed your edit on Kokino. It appears to remain listed on the country's tentative list on the UNESCO site and was apparently nominated in 2009 not 2011. Would a site that is a rejected still be showing up on the website? -- Local hero talk 21:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Good question. There are two stages in nominations for the World Heritage List. In the first stage, a site is submitted by a state party as part of its "tentative list" of sites, which Macedonia (now North Macedonia) did for Kokino in 2009. UNESCO's World Heritage Centre published the tentative lists of states parties on its website "in order to ensure transparency…". Macedonia subsequently submitted a formal nomination dossier in 2011, which was rejected because of the failure to demonstrate firmly the astronomical characteristics of the site. After rejection of the formal nomination, the site may still remain on the state party's tentative list. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 01:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Interesting, thanks for the explanation. -- Local hero talk 03:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Admiration
Beautifully put: "Faced with this duality we can't just pick the sources that fit our particular point of view. It is both wise, and in accordance with Wikipedia policy, to follow what the secondary writers, who have extensively studied a wide range of historical sources, have to say."

Applause! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Computus
On the "Computus" talk page you wrote

"Much of this secondary literature can be used to support the passage with the frequent citation needed flags from the section on Tabular Methods. I'm busy at the moment but will provide appropriate citations in a few days. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:43, 1 May 2019 (UTC)"

I have provided secondary sources for several of the requested citations, and would appreciate if you could check your sources and see of you agree with my edits. Also, I was not able to find a citation for the paragraph that begins "Historically the paschal full moon date for a year...." Although the role of the golden number was changed and reduced to the point that it could be ignored completely if desired, I don't have a citation for the claim that "the tabular dates go out of sync with reality after about two centuries." Obviously the old method does go out of sync, but I don't have a reliable source for how quickly this occurs.

I would also delete beginning at "but from the epact method, a simplified table", to and including paragraph after the table with year headings 2014–2032. This table appears to be original research, along the lines of what if we redid the work of the clerics, mathematicians, and astronomers of Alexandria, and made their method agree as best as possible to the 21st century astronomical positions of the Sun and Moon? Jc3s5h (talk) 00:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 16:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 15:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 20:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Archaeoastronomy in Malta
Hello SteveMcCluskey, thank you for your kind instruction concerning my Wikipedia entry about archaeoastronomy in Malta. Please feel free to read and to study my Wikibook. So far nobody seems to be interested in its content or even in an appropriate publication. However, this is although it is easy to contercheck for any astronomer and it might be an important contribution to archaeoastronomy. --Bautsch (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

You may benefit from using RedWarn
Hello, SteveMcCluskey! I'm Ed6767, a developer for RedWarn. I noticed you have been using Twinkle and was wondering if you'd like to try RedWarn, a new modern and user friendly tool specifically designed to improve your editing experience.

RedWarn is currently in use by over two hundred other Wikipedians, and feedback so far has been extremely positive. In fact, in a recent survey of RedWarn users, 90% of users said they would recommend RedWarn to another editor. If you're interested, please see the RedWarn tool page for more information on RedWarn's features and instructions on how to install it. Otherwise, feel free to remove this message from your talk page. If you have any further questions, please ping me or leave a message on RedWarn's talk page at WT:RW. Your feedback is much appreciated! Ed  talk!  18:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Computus
Hi Steve McCluskey, after your undo of my change in Computus, the History section now shows again a literal "{efn|" and the footnote text intermingled in the main text. That was the actual issue I was trying to fix. --2001:4DD0:2192:0:6CA4:BC28:72B1:5499 (talk) 11:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, I see what you were trying to do. I didn't catch the "{efn|" at the beginning of the text. If I were doing it, I'd delete the "{efn|" and let the comment stand in the text. It seems like it belongs there. I'll copy this to the computus talk page. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:23, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The other footnotes in that article are structured and have their "}} }}" the same way as I've changed the one we're discussing to. I'm a bit at a loss understanding what the exact problem was with my change. --2001:4DD0:2192:0:6CA4:BC28:72B1:5499 (talk) 00:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I see your point. Upon rereading the passage I agree that the material belongs in a footnote, not the main body of the text. I'll restore yor version. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:05, 13 September 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) 16:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the query but I generally focus on early medieval computus and am not familiar with "modern" sources concerning the 18th c. British calendar reform. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you anyway. I was just in hope that you might have come across something in your travels and parked it as incidental to your main interest. Thank you for your kind reply. (I enjoyed your reference to 1750 as "modern", which it is if your interest is half a millennium earlier). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


 * As you've no doubt noticed, I've wandered out of my preferred time frame to look at some sources on the 1751 debate. BTW, my preferred time period centers on Bede, who is more than a millennium before the English Calendar Reform.--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 03:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for some great help. Actually I only got involved by cleaning up some very poor (and in a couple of cases, subtly vandalised citations [Geo II changed to Geo III]). I've also been mentoring a new editor who has contributed a lot of useful new material but needs help with WP standards. As I suspected, he has a copy of Poole and quoted [at his talk page] a section that he thinks justifies the view that the CoE was somewhat hoodwinked: I have asked that he copy his assessment to the article talk page so that we can all have a look.
 * I suspect that you will want to get back to Bede and his times, now. But if I may tempt you with another article that has a deficiency nearer your era of interest, the article Computus has 'citation needed' tags for the dates that the British and Irish churches celebrated Easter and when they fell into line. Ok, don't tell me, I suppose that this is before your time! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:09, 13 November 2020 (UTC)