User talk:Thony C.

Welcome! If you want to reach me by email, you can do so by returning to my user page or talk page and clicking "email this user"; also, my direct email is my usernmame (at) gmail (dot) com. For Wikipedia-related exchanges that don't need to be private, it's often easiest just to exchange talk page messages like these. Here's WikiProject History of Science that I mentioned. Learning wiki markup has a slight learning curve, but once you get the hang of it it's pretty straightforward. I hope you decide to stick around; it can sometimes be frustrating dealing with trollish editors, but for the most part you'll find many more like-minded people (i.e., that care about getting things as right as possible) than not. When you can bring solid sources and good writing to the articles, the myths you dispel here tend to stay dispelled (at least on an article-by-article basis).--ragesoss 23:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Here's some useful welcome boilerplate...

Welcome!

Hello, Thony C., and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! 

Hi Thony,

Welcome to Wikipedia. I saw your mentioned your interest in history and philosophy of science and mathematical sciences 1400 to 1700 at the Wikiproject page. I'm just starting to do some reorganization of the History of Mathematics article, and thought you might want to pitch in. --SteveMcCluskey 17:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steve,

Thank you for your words of welcome kind sir, I would be pleased to join your efforts on the History of Mathematics article and will do as soon as possible. I had thought to wait a little longer before trying my hand at anything here as I came to computers late in life and have no experience of things like HTML and so I'm a bit like somebody learning to ride a bike but with my hands tied together and wearing a blindfold! I wanted to practice a bit in private before going public but as they say learning by doing is the best method and so I will just plunge in.

Curiously, I recently read your book "Astronomies and Cultures" and was very impressed, as well as learning a lot. I read it at the same time as reading Robert Hanah's "Greek and Roman Calendars" and the two books fit together very well. One of my major interests is what I call the "Ptolemaic Renaissance" in the 15^th and 16^th centuries and your book provides very, very useful contextual background for my work.Thony C. 10:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thony,

Thanks for the kind comments and for your additions on history of mathematics. Its good to have someone with background in history of science looking at that article.

One caution, that article tends to focus strongly on pure mathematics (it got me involved in some unproductive historiographical debates) and there are objections to including material about the mathematical sciences (astronomy, optics, mathematical physics, etc.) Your edits will be very welcome and, as one of the rules of Wikipedia says, "Be bold!" --SteveMcCluskey 12:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steve, Having read your exchanges with Rick before making my small additions I am well aware of the problems that you have been having on the problems of historiography. I think we will have to take a bite of the 'sauer Apfel' as the Germans say and do battle on this one. If ones sticks to a presentist approach as favoured by Rick then one can't write a history of mathematics at all. Pure mathematics as we now know it is really a product of the 19th C. as is indeed applied mathematics, previous to that all post mediaeval mathematics was practical mathematics as opposed to theoretical mathematics out of which theoretical areas developed over longer periods of time; trigonometry during the 15th and 16th centuries, calculus during the 17th century and so forth. Even the 18th century was largely dominated by practical mathematics Euler, the Bernoullis etc did most of their work in mechanics etc. The 15th and 16th centuries were a period of intense mathematical activity that built the fundament on which the so called scientific revolution took place but it is all practical mathematics and mostly applied astronomy: astrology, cartography, chronometry, navigation, surveying...If one ignores this then one is left saying that there was no mathematics during these two hundred years which is just plain ridiculous. I will rewrite the segment on the Renaissance from this standpoint and see what happens!

Thony,

I understand your frustration with scientists who want to write history of science in the "heroic mode." One sees it all the time when senior scientists turn to write the history of their discipline; it takes time for them to learn how to do history. I remember Dave Lindberg telling me that it generally took three semesters for grad students coming from one of the sciences into the history of science to begin to think like historians.

We just need persistent effort to teach by the example of writing good history, and editing whatever isn't up to standards. --SteveMcCluskey 19:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to your comment on my talk page. --SteveMcCluskey 01:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thony, the naming conventions with capitals are mostly for the purpose of easier linking, since a term will generally appear in other articles not as an article title but just as a regular phrase. Only the first letter is case insensitive, so the article naming convention facilitates links in prose to other topics. See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Lowercase_second_and_subsequent_words_in_titles for a half-assed rationale. In a few cases, there are two different articles that differ only by capitalization, such as Address Book and address book.--ragesoss 13:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I noticed you were revising History of mathematics in your sandbox. That's definitely the way to go. However, it's best to start by copying the text from the article's edit box, rather than from the text as displayed. That way you won't lose the formatting and, more importantly, the footnotes. When you copy the text from the article's edit box, just close the edit box without saving the page.

It's also a good idea to give a notice on the article's talk page that you're doing this, so others can have a chance to chime in rather than be faced with a fait accompli when the new text is dropped in. Hang in there. --SteveMcCluskey 14:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steve

I just logged on to talk to you and found your message. That which I have in my sand box is a rough first draught. I was intending to do as you suggest as soon as I thought that I had something that was readable, if you get my drift.When I am happy with what I have written I will invite you and Sage to read and criticise it and if it passes muster then invite others to my sand box to offer suggestion, scream abuse, fall over laughing or what ever... Thanks for your advice on copying text, I will correct it next time I work in my sand box. Thony C. 16:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve

In case you haven't already heard, I wanted to inform you that Arno Borst died on Thursday aged 81. In my opinion an excellent historian who has written several clasics. Thought the news might interest you Thony C. 16:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thony

Sorry to hear the sad news; we met at a conference long ago and I have some of his books on my shelves. SteveMcCluskey 18:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The May 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 06:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thony,

I fixed the box on the paragraph you mentioned. The problem happens if a paragraph starts with a space.

BTW, do you want those bolded headers to be treated as subsections. It's easy to do by framing the header with a number of equal signs: ===Subsection===

====sub-subsection====

That produces:

Subsection[edit]

sub-subsection[edit]

Happy editing, SteveMcCluskey 15:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kind sir.Thony C. 20:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The September 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 01:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A new May 2008 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter is hot off the virtual presses. Please feel free to make corrections or add news about any project-related content you've been working on. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss (talk) 23:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's here at long last! January 2009 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter is ready, with exciting news about Darwin Day 2009. Please feel free to make corrections or add news about any project-related content you've been working on. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse --ragesoss (talk) 02:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to participate in the vote at Talk:Science in the Middle Ages#Ballot box as an attempt to establish a consensus. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments re Father Of. Hopefully things will settle down there. Meanwhile, Hi I'm new around here and will set this page up properly some time in the next two weeksThony C. 12:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC) is clearly a lie and needs upgrading William M. Connolley (talk) 10:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's a correctly dated historical statement ;)Thony C. (talk) 11:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Check out Talk:Science in the Middle Ages#On vote Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thony C.. You have new messages at Orphan Wiki's talk page.
Message added 15:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Orphan Wiki 15:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Mercator article is in serious need of attention. It would have been nice if you could have expanded your replacement paragraph. For example some 'new' readers would welcome information on the construction of gores and references where examples may be viewed. It is clear (from the lack of references) that the original author of this page had not read much of the vast literature on Mercator. Perhaps you could add that to your challenges. For which, good luck. Peter Mercator (talk) 09:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you post your very excellent Mercator draft page? I'm currently starting work on a public lecture on the life and work of Gemma Frisius and Gerhard Mercator, which I shall be holding in autumn (in German!). If I find time I shall make additions/ changes to both their Wikipedia pages. Thony C. (talk) 10:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the encouraging comment on (presumably) the draft for a new Mercator Projection page. (If you meant the Mercator 1569 world map page then that has been posted and is on way to completion). I have had one other positive comment but also a more negative response criticising my 'non-encyclopaedic' style. I suppose once a pedagogue always a pedagogue. I am certainly not a historian! Peter Mercator (talk) 11:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take a look at Talk:History of physics#Era change? As I said there, It appears that BCE/CE was used uniformly in the article text (with the exception of the 2 to 3 entries in timeline table at the end of the article) from 21 February 2010 until the first instance of BC was inserted into the text on 3 July 2012, nearly 2.5 years later. I saw your edits to maintain consistency such as "I think a modern, non-religious, neutral historical dating system is prefereable". I'm concluding that such a long period of era stability seems to point to a consensus. Is it possible you could you provide some history to the current discussion? Thanks. Mojoworker (talk) 18:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!

Hi Thony C.! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editors are welcome! (But being multilingual is not a requirement.) Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 21:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	You've been invited to be part of WikiProject Cosmology
	Hello. Your contributions to Wikipedia have been analyzed and it seems like you'd have some interest in a new project. I hope you can contribute to it by expanding the main page and later start editing the articles in its scope. Make sure to check out the Talk page for more information! Cheers Tetra quark (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Please read article talk pages before undoing revisions.
And I know you don't prefer "too much detail" but I would prefer to get a little more detail and some discussion before revisions are undone.

Keep in mind everyone is not trying to spam wikipedia all the time.
Treating editors less as spammers with ulterior motives and more as humans trying to increase the quality of wikipedia articles may help a little in increasing quality participation.
Spammers don't care for your quick terse reverts. Editors do. By doing quick reverts without discussing it you're alienating the editors not the spammers.

Peace

Vanya (talk) 02:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thony C.. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thony C.. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thony, so where do we put that Ioannes is Latin for John? Stevenmitchell (talk) 13:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As his real name is Johannes and not John you don't and his real name Johannes Müller is at the beginning of the very first sentence of the article

Hello, Thony C.. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...this,[1] your correction is fine. The wp:deny was because the previous change had been made by a banned user. Banned users are not allowed to edit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes Schöner was an article with a long short description. See here

With short descriptions, we have a situation where we are aiming to have a maximum of 40 characters. The driving reason is that the short description is displayed on the mobile access to the article in a search result. 65% of access to Wikipedia is now via mobile devices or tablets. With courtesy, your reversion somewhat defeats that objective to display a short description that is readable on the mobile device. You have moved the article beyond the 40 character limit. Now I accept he was priest and mathematician, but I was editing History of Astrology category. So I take you back to the issue attempting to resolve: descriptions over 40 characters get chopped off. In this instance, your guidance is sought. What form of short description would you consider appropriate? --Whiteguru (talk) 05:30, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So somebody has decided that "short descriptions" should be totally inadequate, misleading and next to useless because they are not allowed to exceed 40 characters. In that case write what the f++k you want!

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain your note on the De Lacey O'Leary attribution for Aristotle; as he was the author cited in the reference, the attribution could hardly be characterized as vandalism. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 11:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my bad read too quickly and reacted without proper thought Thony C. (talk) 13:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edit to Francis Bacon, categories are case-sensitive. You can't change the capitalization on a category in an article if the actual category uses different capitalization. The bot has repaired your error. If you feel strongly that the category should be changed, you can bring it up at Category talk:Lord chancellors of England but I suggest you read MOS:JOBTITLE first. Also, whenever you add a category or change the spelling in a category name, always check the results; if the category is a red link, something's wrong. Schazjmd (talk) 13:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]