User talk:MichaelOssipoff

Welcome!

Hello, MichaelOssipoff, welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for registering an account with Wikipedia. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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 place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! -- Clem Rutter (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Missing material

A lot of advice I left here since February- has been deleted rather than archived. It is really quite pointless having a discussion when material uou may need to refer to has disappeared. You need to restore it by c&p the sections from a complete version. There is a lot material cluttering up the Talk:Sundial page that you need to host here too- it is in the form of a conversation- not good for an article talk page.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 10:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I use the talk-page to explain and justify a modification that I'm making.

DOwenWilliams used it for gab and conversations. Tell him then. I wasn't responsible for the clutter of that long conversation with DOwenWilliams.

Though I deleted your article-version, it's still available to look at, via History, correct?

--MichaelOssipoff (talk) 12:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)MichaelOssipoff[reply]

That is the second time you have reverted that text- it is getting to be very irritating. If you think you have something to say- take a copy of the agreed text, put it on your own sandbox page- work it up there and when it is ready, invite everyone to come and comment. I have two fairly long pages undergoing that process at the moment. See: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Mathematics/sandbox. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies but that is my last responce, today. Other matters to attend to. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for a copy

When I last had time available- I saw you requested a copy of the formula pages of Mayell & Mayell- back with my books, I have scanned them for you but you need to enable you email (under preferences) to let me send them to you. Let me know here when you are ready. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 10:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your article-version quotes formulas from Mayall & Mayall which the article alleges are incorrect. But they give the right answers for arbitrary examples of Lat, Recline, Decline-Angle, and Time-Of-Day. ...when the copying-errors have been fixed.

It would probably be improper to depend on material sent to me by the other disputant in the dispute.

--MichaelOssipoff (talk) 12:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)MichaelOssipoff[reply]

Do you want the scans I have done for you or not? If you do you need to enable you email? If not-have you now got yourself a physical copy? -- Clem Rutter (talk) 15:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snyder, Brandmaier and Sawyer

Most editions of Compedium are behind a paywall- but Don Snyder has published his contribution to March 2015. Obviously the crucial edition is Brandmaiers March 2005. I wonder whether I can use my BSS subcription to get a copy from the BSS library- any rate it will be a little lengthy. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 10:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at your Ref #42, and then I looked at your new Ref #43. Neither supports your article version's formulas or controversial statements.

So now it's a new, 3rd reference?

--MichaelOssipoff (talk) 12:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)MichaelOssipoff[reply]

What part of this are you having difficulty with. Don't you understand rotational geometry in vector notation? Can I ask how you can look at an article that is not actually available on-line? Do you have a subscription to Compendium?

But on the whole I am surprised that you can read a technical document so fast. I think that the Snyder 2015 reference will probably go when we have verified the Brandmaier 2005.

If you had been at the tutorial session with me in Lancaster this week you would have heard me talk about doing <math>...</math> there is a useful help page Wikipedia:Displaying a formula- but it does take a lot of thinking time. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 16:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to sections above

Clem:

Preliminary:

You aren't communicating. I've explained, at Sundial-talk, every edit I've made, including the deletions.

When you do a revert, you need to tell why, to justify it, to answer the reason that I gave for the edit that you're reverting.

Yes, Sundial-talk has had a lot of conversation. Unfortunately I was polite enough to let DOwenWilliams start and continue a conversation there. As for myself, I use the Sundial-talk page for the following:

1. To announce and explain an edit that I've just made.

2. To ask a question about the justification of an edit that someone else has made.

3. Sometimes to announce and edit that I'm reluctantly going to make if necessary.

In other words, Sundial-article business.

But I'm willing to discuss that Sundial-article business in individual discussion first, and maybe, to the extent that things are resolved here, some of it won't have to go to Sundial-talk.

If we're going to communicate via individual talk-pages, then I suggest that the best way is for me to post to your talk page, and for you to post to mine. ...because I get a notification when someone posts to my talk page, but not when someone answers me on their own talk-page.

The Situation:

Yes, I know you're on vacation and too busy to explain your actions. But you shouldn't do actions that you don't have time to explain.

Twice you've reverted my deletion of your implausible controversial statements, and your Reclining-Declining formulas. I deleted them because they were entirely un-sourced.

First you implied that your Ref #42 supported the statements and formulas. I found out that it didn't, and I explained that, when I deleted. Then you reverted the delete, having added Ref #43, and implying that it supported the material that you were again un-deleting. And, again, I found that Ref #43 didn't support the controversial implausible statements, or the formulas, either.

That's two phoney references. But this time, you've reverted the deletion without even pretending to add any references to "justify" it, and without any explanation. Not only no explanation at Sundial-talk, but also not even any explanation at History.

Reverts based on phoney references are bad enough, but reverts without any explanation at all are nothing but vandalism.

Is it that you regard yourself as the honcho or owner of the Sundial article? ...so that the rules, policies and principles of Wikipedia don't apply to you? How else could you so blatantly keep re-posting deleted material that you can't give valid citation for?

Proposal(s):

My requirements for verification are more lenient than those of DOwenWilliams. He wants proof for any formula that you post. For me, it would be sufficient if you merely show one example in which your formulas give the right answer.

Specifically: An example, with some arbitrary latitude, recline, decline-direction, and time-of-day ...in which your formulas give the correct dial-orientation of the style, and the correct dial-position for the hour-line for that time-of-day.

And, if you find the formulas too difficult, or too much trouble, so that you don't want to do such an example--then how can you think that they should be in the article??!

Of course, if you report a successful answer with an example (specify the example and the answer), then I'll check to find if there's another example in which your formulas give a wrong answer.

Anytime that you give a citation, a reference, to support your re-posting of your text, when I've deleted it, I will ask you, at Sundial-talk, if you affirm, if you guarantee for sure, that your reference supports the deleted material that you're re-posting.

If your answer is "Yes", then it had better be true, because I'll check.

If your answer is no, then it's an admission that your re-posting can't be justified.

If you don't answer, then we can only assume that that reference is as (again) phoney (in its alleged support for your contested text) as was your Ref #42 and your Ref #43.

Of course that doesn't just go for your formulas. It goes for your controversial implausible statements as well.

You could give a (genuine) citation of a source that makes those statements. Then we can look at that source, and find out why it says that.

But you could also just give one example in which Mayall & Mayall's Reclining-Declining formulas give a wrong answer. But you'd need to use the actual formulas from Mayall & Mayall (in their latest version), as opposed to someone else's miscopied version.

I'm posting this to your individual talk-page, because you've shown some willingness to communicate at individual talk-pages, and you've shown no willingness to answer at Sundial-talk.

However, when, and to the extent that, this can't be resolved here, at the individual talk-pages, then I'll have to ask the same questions at Sundial-talk. You really need to answer and post there, to justify your edits.

--MichaelOssipoff (talk) 10:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)MichaelOssipoff[reply]

1104 GMT, 14 April, '15

[quote] . What part of this are you having difficulty with. Don't you understand rotational geometry in vector notation? . [/quote]

Which part of Wikipedia's citation policy don't you understand? A cited article doesn't serve as a reference for your formulas unless it contains, is a source for, those formulas.

If you want to replace your current formulas with those of Brandmaier, then do so. Then you can validly cite his article as a reference for the formulas. But be sure to include his formulas for the dial-orientation of the style.

But, as I said, by my lenient standards, you could verify your formulas merely by showing an example in which, with an arbitrarily-chosen latitude, recline, decline-direction and time-of-day, your formulas give the right answer for the dial-orientation of the style, and for the dial-position of the hour-line for that time-of-day.

As for your implausible controversial statements (That Mayall & Mayall is incorrect, and that only in the last decade has there been agreement on how to mark Reclining-Declining dials), you haven't mentioned any justification, of any kind, for those statements.

And, even if you verify your formulas, in one of the ways that I've suggested, I'm considerately informing you that I'll check the Wikipedia policy-pages, for what they say about cookbook formulas. I don't think they have any place in the article. Neither did DOwenWilliams, until he had a hissy-fit in the conversation that he started. You yourself must not like them much, because you aren't willing to try your formulas out, to show that they can give a right answer.

For the above-stated reasons, if the Wikipedia's policy-pages disapprove of cookbook formulas, a cookbook impersonating a technical textbook, then I will delete the formulas for that reason.

[quote] . Can I ask how you can look at an article that is not actually available on-line? Do you have a subscription to Compendium?

   But on the whole I am surprised that you can read a technical document so fast. I think that the Snyder 2015 reference will probably go when we have verified the Brandmaier 2005

. [/quote]

I looked at your Ref #42 and your Ref #43. Neither give any support to your implausible controversial statements, or to your formulas.

So now you're trotting-out yet another reference. This is getting tiresome. I'm tired of asking people to show me articles, and they're probably getting tired of it too.

So now it's a new one; it's Snyder this time.

I'll ask you what I asked you before:

1. Do you affirm that your latest reference, Snyder, supports your implausible controversial statements (defined above)?

2. Do you affirm that your latest reference, Snyder, is a source for your formulas (not some allegedly equivalent formulas)?

I'll try to obtain Snyder's article, if I can get it for free, or if you're able to affirm that it supports your contested text; and if you've clearly specified where it can be found.

But you must understand, that, if you fail to affirm (here or at talk-Sundial) that your new reference supports your implausible controversial statements and your formulas, then there's no reason for anyone to believe that your new reference is any less phoney than your previous ones.

And, in that case, when you vaguely imply that, finally, this is the reference that supports your formulas and your implausible controversial statements--then your vague, evasive, implication isn't worth the $6.00 that it would cost to check it's veracity.

But re-posting your implausible controversial statements and your formulas, with no valid citations, reverting my deletion of them, won't do. And this time you haven't even made a pretense of offering a reference. That's vandalism by anyone's definition. That's being noted by those who are watching the edits.

Feel free to reply at my talk-page, or at the Sundial-talk page.

--MichaelOssipoff (talk) 11:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)MichaelOssipoff[reply]

If we keep all the conversations in one place it is far easier- I have moved your comments back here. Don't worry I have you on my watch list, which runs to over 1000 pages. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 12:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in a edit summary. Slow down. You have just added 5000+ characters- elsewhere- I need reading time- but first I have spent 22 minutes moving the text back here- which I could have spent on editing. For goodness sake stop personalising the whole thing- and give people time to research and respond. I asked some direct questions in 4 sections above. I am looking for direct answers- do you want me to send you the scans I made for you? When I know that I will move on to the next point you made in your personalised responses on Talk:Sundial- but I am not reading any further until I know whether that is no longer required.

Where the hell did you get the idea I was on vacation! The point on Lancaster was to assist in a tutorial on Wikipedia editing to the UKs top mathematician, which has taken about a months solid editing. As a spin I have two page in sandboxes relating to Help wirh referencing, and the Manual of Style. The uploads to Commons of the 500+ photos I took will take days. That and work away from Kent- it is illegal to edit on a lap-top in the fast lane of the A1 M. Slow down- I don't need extra proposals- I have a long todo list and the keyboard time used in this response has obvious implications. Do you want those scans of Mayell and Mayell or not. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 12:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your questions and comments:

No, I don't need the scans, but thanks anyway.

I've already tested and confirmed Mayall & Mayall, via the imperfectly copied formulas in your note (b).

As regards my invitation to you, to show an example in which Mayall & Mayall's formulas give a wrong answer, I trust that, if you do so, then you'll also post, at Sundial-talk, the formulas that you found to give an incorrect answer (Mayall & Mayall's own version of their formulas).

I apologize if it's irritating when I delete your completely unsourced questionable text--text without any valid citations. Therefore I suggest that you either take the text down, or else support it with valid citations, or by the examples that I suggested that you show.

I want to make this explicitly clear: I'm giving you a chance to support your questionable text, by citations, or by showing exzmples. I've offered various means whereby you can accomplish that.

And, make no mstake, you do need to support the questionable text.

I'm not going to delete it again this week. I'm going to wait, to give you a chance to support the questionable text by citations or examples. ...in the ways that I've suggested.

You asked how I looked at an article that isn't available online. Are you referring to Compendium 22:1, March 5, "Sundial Design Considerations", Snyder? It is available online.

I'm not quite sure what makes you think that I'm personalizing this. You mean because DOwenWilliams is calling me names? I'm only trying to assure the accuracy of the article. The implausible controversial statements are so preposterious that they badly need citation or verification with an example. You've yet to show any valid citation for your formulas.

It isn't personal.

I know you're busy. As I said, however, if you don't have time to justify what you do, then don't do it.

--108.132.238.27 (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)MichaelOssipoff[reply]

15th April

That was a far better edit- though still technically a third reversion. To complete the job however you need to put the correct formula and text back into a footnote so readers can refer. Use an {{efn}}. It is not acceptable to remove material solely because you suspect that a reference that you have not read is not valid. You have aroused my interest sufficiently to buy a copy of Brandmeier. Do you still want the scans I prepared? The world of sundials is very broad- and Snyders paper alerted me to the fact that the mathematical underpinning used comfortably in the last century as epitomised by The BSS definition and Mayell and Mayell has run its course in the same way that programming has moved on from C to C++. You are right I am short of time- if you look on commons you can see the images I am uploading [1] - a hundred a day keeps the doctor away- but off wiki it is far more complex. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 12:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clem:

You said:

[quote] . That was a far better edit . [/quote]

I merely removed the statements claiming that Mayall & Mayall are incorrect, and that only in the last decade has there been agreement on how to mark Reclining-Declining sundials.

[quote] . ...though still technically a third reversion . [/quote]

If you're referring to the 3-reversions rule, that rule is about 3 reversions in a 24 hour period. In fact, the descriptions of the rule imply that it refers to 3 reversions by the same person in a 24 hour period.

[quote] . To complete the job however you need to put the correct formula and text back into a footnote so readers can refer. . [/quote]

I didn't remove your formulas and text.

[quote] . Use an {{efn}}. . [/quote]

There was something like that left in the article, something about "efn",when I completed my edit. I assumed that I'd accidentally left it in, and that it no longer served a purpose, and so I deleted it. What was it?

If it had to do with your note (b), I didn't think you'd still want to have note (b), because its purpose was to show the Mayall & Mayall formula that you claimed is incorrect. So, when I deleted that claim, there seemed no more need for note (b).

You or I can put note (b) back in (if that's what I removed when I deleted the "efn" thing). But, if so, it will have to be introduced differently, as (part of) another set of Reclining-Declining formulas, those of Mayall & Mayall. ...and without the claim that it's incorrect.

Sure, I'm in favor of restoring the Mayall & Mayall formulas (and their associated text), but without your claim that they're incorrect. But why should they be in a note? Why shouldn't they just be part of the article then?

[quote] . It is not acceptable to remove material solely because you suspect that a reference that you have not read is not valid. . [/quote]

Nonsense. I didn't say that I suspected that your references are not valid. I stated that they are not valid. Do you see the difference--between saying that I suspect that they aren't valid, as opposed to saying that they definitely, blatantly obviously, aren't valid?

They're not valid for supporting your statements or your formulas, because neither of your references mentions those statements or formulas.

And it wasn't just one reference. It was both of the references that you tried to use. They were both phoney (in regards to your use of them to support your statements and your formulas).

[quote] . Do you still want the scans I prepared? . [/quote]

No. I've already confirmed Mayall & Mayall's formulas, by the miscopied (partial) version of them in your note (b)

But, if you're going to show an example in which Mayall & Mayall's formulas give a wrong answer, then you need to post their formulas that you say give a wrong answer--their own version instead someone else's miscopied version. In that eventuality, don't send the formulas to me. Post them at Sundial-talk, or, better yet, in the article itself, or a note at the bottom of the article.

[quote] . The world of sundials is very broad- and Snyders paper alerted me to the fact that the mathematical underpinning used comfortably in the last century as epitomised by The BSS definition and Mayell and Mayell has run its course in the same way that programming has moved on from C to C++. . [/quote]

You meaning is unclear, but that's ok.

If you mean that different formula-derivations are popular now (with some people anyway), then I won't contest that, because I'm not interested in matters of fashion. I'll defer to you on that.

But if you're trying to imply that "the mathematical underpinning used comfortably in the last century" is incorrect, then of course it's entirely your business what you believe. But don't try to say it in the article unless you can support it in some way.

But, if that's what you meant, then thank you for explaining what motivated your claims to that effect, that you had in the article. I merely say that they'd need some support in order to be in the article.

[quote] . You are right I am short of time- . [/quote]

Being short of time doesn't justify doing reversions and not supporting or explaining them. If you don't have time to explain and support them, at Sundial-talk, then don't do them.

If the re-typing the "efn" thing into the article, at the edit screen, will restore note (b), and if that's what you want, then you or I should do so. But, if we do, remember that the article must no longer say that Mayall & Mayall are incorrect, unless you can support that claim, via an example, or maybe vial a citation (in which case I or we can look at the cited article to find out why its author says that, and how he justifies it).

The published wikipedia guidelines and rule clearly state that you need to explain, support and justify your reversions, at the article-talk-page.

Read wikipedia's pages regarding reversions.

Read wikipedia's pages about the need for citation.

Ok, so you have no idea what the source is, for the formulas that you keep re-posting.

Not a problem. Replace them with formulas from a known source, a source that you can cite. How hard is that?

Or, alternatively, if you really want to keep those particular formulas in the article, then try them out, show an example in which they give the right answer, for some arbitrarily-chosen Latitude, recline, decline-direction, and time-of-day.

As I said, if you consider your formulas to be so difficult to use, or so much trouble to use, that you aren't willing to try them out on an example, then how can you possibly think that they should be in the article?

As I've said, then, I've offered you ways that you can have validly-supported formulas in the article.

p.s. Another thing to read in wikipedia's pages: Their page about Wikipedia: Status quo stonewalling.

--MichaelOssipoff (talk) 02:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)MichaelOssipoff[reply]

{{efn}} are used to generate footnotes - as distinct from {{sfn}} which are used to generate references. They are badly documented- which is another project I am working on. So taking as an example the agreed version,

Previous formulae given by Rohr and Mayall are not correct. {{efn}} The angle H_\text{RD} between the noon hour-line and another hour-line is given by the formula below.

you will see that I used an {{efn}} to encapsulate the old text (the Mayall & Mayall formulas that I wrote yonks ago) and put them in a footnote. ie they were moved but not overwritten, and thus available to sundial constructors who use this article. ^[a]. The text encapsulated in the {{efn}} is then reproduced in the section tagged {{notelist}}. I have left an example in the text above- Wikimedia software is complex and it will do other things but those are outside me comfort zone. As an aside, I wouldn't want to loose any of Mayall & Mayall formulas as they have served us well for 80 years. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 08:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Example footnotes

^ Most use a computer program or the BSS definitions.

Have you had a chance to experiment with {{efn}} yet? This seems to me to be a very important skill to acquire.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 10:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Solutions to the unsourced, untested, formulas problem

(new heading for clarity) Ok, you're being reasonable by not reverting my removal of the claim that Mayall & Mayall are incorrect, or the claim that only in the past decade has there beein agreement on how to mark Reclining-Declining dials. Therefore I'll wait a month for the un-sourced formulas to be fixed.

...either by:

1. Stating their source

Or

2. Replacing them with formulas from a known source, which you can cite.

Or

3. Showing one example in which your formulas give the right answer

...(but hopefully they don't give a wrong answer in other examples).

A month is fair, right?

Why do I want the formulas to be verified accurate?

It isn't because I don't want them to discredit wikipedia or the article.

It's because, if someone tries to use the formulas, and they don't work, that person might think it's their fault. That isn't acceptable. If you have formulas in the article, then they must work. That's why they must have some kind of verification.

As I've been saying, I don't think formulas are right for the article anyway, but that's another topic. I'll probably pursue that matter later.

For now, all I'm asking is that the formulas be verified, supported in one of the 3 ways suggested above, within a month from tomorrow.

--108.132.238.27 (talk) 03:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)MichaelOssipoff[reply]

I am not following this hare- as I have said I need a stable article to work with and when I have time I will buy a copy of Brandmeier- and if your email is open I can send you a copy too- and go back assess each of the points, including the notes I have previously left on the talk page. I assume good faith even when it is difficult and need your assistance in many ways. It is very likely that I it will be within a six week time frame it is more likely that I will start on cleaning up the format of the references first. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 08:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it's a deal then. Though 6 weeks is a lot, and though text isn't supposed to be up before it's supported, I'm overly co-operative, and in this instance I probably shouldn't ask for everything to be fixed right away. 6 weeks then.

And yes, I've been acting in good faith.

--108.132.238.27 (talk) 14:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)MichaelOssipoff[reply]

One more thing:

Ok, I was mistaken to say that we have an agreement. All you said was that, in 6 weeks, maybe you'll start doing something about the un-sourced and un-tested formulas in Reclining-Declining. You didn't even throw me a bone.

--MichaelOssipoff (talk) 04:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)MichaelOssipoff[reply]

The Mayall & Mayall formulas

Clem--

You mentioned that, with the Mayall & Mayall formulas in note (b), people have those formulas available for use.

Not yet though. It needs some fixing.

In general, it needs to be copied in its entirety.

Specifically:

1. Where Hrd1 and Hrd2 each appear alone, on the left side of an equation, each of them should be preceded by "tan"

...but Hrd = Hrd1 + Hrd2 is correct as it stands.

2. It should be specified that R is measured from the horizontal. (Yes, I know, nowadays we'd more likely call that "Inclination", and use the symbol "I").

3. It should be specified that D is measured from the north (clockwise). In other words, D is the azimuth that the reclined dial is facing.

4. Mayall & Mayall's formulas for the dial-orientation of the gnomon should be included, if the formulas are to be of practical use.

But, in general, their formulas, and any accompanying text, including any instructions, should be included.

Additionally: Why should Mayall & Mayall's formulas be relegated to a footnote, instead of being in the section itself?

So then, maybe the "efn" isn't needed for Mayall & Mayall's formulas, if there isn't a justificatin for relegating them to a footnote.

--MichaelOssipoff (talk) 03:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)--MichaelOssipoff (talk) 03:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)MichaelOssipoff[reply]

I spent the whole morning trying to locate my Dover edition of Rohr. It is a different format to the others so doesn't sit next to them on the shelf. I keep a copy of the BSS formulas (available on line) in both Mayall and Mayall and Waugh. I had a look to see if there was a pdf of Rohr on line, and solved one mystery but... uncovered a few more.

Reclining/declining dials are important as they reveal the 'general planar sundial' (snyder p6, Example 2). All other dials with a north facing (style/gnomon) are just special cases of this dial. More on this another day.
BSS glossary gives the formulae in section 4. Mayall& Mayall describes a construction technique for Reclining-Declining dials on page 122. Nowhere in their book are any formulae given. So whatever the formulae are that we are blithely attributing to Mayall& Mayall- are not theirs.
I have now ordered a CD of all the NASS Compendium articles- it had to be done with a cheque via the post, so goodness knows when that might arrive. It should contain the 2005 Brandmeier article-and a more promising one from 1998 (snyder p14 references: for details). With 20 years of articles to read it looks exciting and timeconsuming. The evil side of my brain is thinking that is a potential 240 new Wikipedia articles-480 if we do a biography of each of the authors.
I have looked at the BSS Glossary- and a lot of the formulae are of the form SD= arctan() etc so it is likely that a 'arc' has been dropped by accident- but we still need to identify the source of the formulae! So the search was on for a pdf of Rohr.
And this is what I found doing a search with ixquick. Revision of Chapter 5 of Sundials by René R.J. Rohr, New York 1996 declining inclined dials which notes and corrects seven errors in the 1965 edition, and the Dover reprint. As the diagrams are not included and I can't find my Dover copy I can only suggest that this may have been what you were looking for. I am unclear whether the suggested errors have been corrected or whether Armyan Fennerwick, has reworked the text from first principles.
Carl Sabanski Sundial Primer is good on formula- he doesn't attempt a Reclining Declining either.

There is a little more thinking to do. Clem. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Someone said that it's better to copy text that I'm replying to, instead of editing in the original message)

Clem--

You wrote:

[quote]

Reclining/declining dials are important as they reveal the 'general planar sundial' (snyder p6, Example 2). All other dials with a north facing (style/gnomon) are just special cases of this dial.

[/quote]

Quite so. Reclining-Declining dials are the general planar, polar-gnomon sundial.

[quote]

BSS glossary gives the formulae in section 4.

[/quote]

Yes, at the Glossary page, you just click on Equations, at the top of the page.

[quote] Mayall & Mayall describes a construction technique for Reclining-Declining dials on page 122. Nowhere in their book are any formulae given. [/quote]

Then it must be different in different editions. It seems to me that there was a Mayall & Mayall edition that said that graphical construction is inconvenient for Reclining-Declining, and that it's better to just use the formulas.

[quote] So whatever the formulae are that we are blithely attributing to Mayall& Mayall- are not theirs. [/quote]

I assumed that the formulas in note (b) were Mayall & Mayall, because that's what that article section said. You see that the Reclining-Declining section needs known, cited sources. I think we really agree on that.

But, if it says that those formulas are from Mayall & Mayall, then I bet they are, because, as I said above, it seems to me that there was a Mayall & Mayall edition with Reclining-Declining formulas.

[quote]

I have looked at the BSS Glossary- and a lot of the formulae are of the form SD= arctan() etc so it is likely that a 'arc' has been dropped by accident-

[/quote]

Well yes, it could be said that way. Maybe it should have said Hrd1 = arctan...

But, more likely, i said tan Hrd1 = ...

But, yes, it was mis-copied, and that was left out.

...And the definitions of R and D were left out. And the formulas for the gnomon's dial-orientation were left out.

...and maybe more, too, was left out.

As I was saying, and as I'm sure you agree, the Reclining-Declining section, if it has formulas (and whether it should have formulas is a big "If"), should have only formulas from a known, cited source.

And it seems to me that that source should be a classic old source. If Mayall & Mayall published Reclining-Declining formulas, then I suggest that those are the ones that the Reclining-Declining section should feature.

...if the section is to have formulas...a matter that will be pursued in June.

Yes, you're right, the section's formulas' origin is a mystery. And the mystery deepens if the note (b) formulas aren't from Mayall & Mayall...but they probably are, because, as I said, it seems to me that Mayall & Mayall did publish formulas in at least one edition.

Here's how I'd rank, for desirability, the various options:

1. Not present formulas in the article 2. Use Mayall & Mayall's formulas 3. Use another known, cited source for formulas

In May I'll be pushing for #3, but preferably #2. I'll save #1 for June.

Returning to the topic of the importance of Reclining-Declining dials, it seems to me that there's no need for separate formulas for vertical declining dials, because, as you said, all planar polar-gnomon dials are special cases of Reclining-Declining dials.

(I say "polar-gnomon" even though some use a nodus, because there's still a line connecting the junction of the hour lines with the nodus. That can be regarded as a linear pole-pointing style, even there's no physical linear style there.)

Of course Vertical-Declining dials are widely-used, because of the convenience of mounting planar sundials on building-walls.

But I rent, and I can't put a sundial on my outdoor wall. Anyway, it could be argued that a sundial should be positioned and oriented to optimize easy and convenient reading for neighbors and passers-by. That's achieved by a dial whose dial-face is facing iin the direction from which it will be visible to the most people.

...and of course the sundial whose dial-face is oriented whatever way you want, in general, a Reclining-Declining dial.

For that reason, I've decided that my front-yard sundial will be a Reclining-Declining dial.

A Cube-Dial would be better, with its 5 or 6 Reclining-Declining dials, at least one of which is readable from any particular direction, in some part of the day...but a Cube-Dial is a bigger building-project.

For building-simplicity, my Reclining-Declining dial will be ground-sitting instead of pedestal-mounted.

Maybe later I'll build a Cube-Dial, on a pole-mount. As I mentioned in an earlier message, I'd decline it so that it wouldn't have east and west faces, and I'd tip it southward so that its north-most face would get some winter sunlight. But maybe, additionally, for artistic purposes, for it to look more general and random, I'd mount it so that none of its faces are vertical.

--MichaelOssipoff (talk) 11:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)Michael[reply]

Clem is short for Clement, isn't it? We usually hear that as a rural American name. I've never heard of it in Britain.

Just a quick one: Sure Clement is a very old name, rarely used in the UK. One exception was Clement Freud , it seems to have crossed the Atlantic fairly early on, and kept going in rural New England. Most of the time I sign using the French spelling Clément- which is equally uncommon. I have documented my crew on the web site- if anyone is sad enough to want to know.Rutter Genealogy More interesting is how after 1709 Rutter appears in America- as a misunderstanding by customs officers.

To clarify- Dover edition of Mayall and Mayall has the most useful pages of Sundial formula available (the ones I scanned for you) p234- 244 but it does not include a formula for reclining/incling dials. It has vertical declining, and direct south and north reclining, east and west reclining then moves onto the armillary.

Reflecting on their method- p 240 they illustrate the method with a calculation done with 5 figure logarithms and it strikes me that they would be exceeding the limit of accuracy of five-figure logs if they applied them to th R/D formulae. Early in my career, that is pre-calculator we had to teach the use of logs using a mechanical adding machine- cogs and a handle, we showed the use of a slide rule to the top sets. M&M came from that era. The other thing we taught was geometric construction- using compasses and straight lines and never an eraser! I have forgotten how to teach it totally but it is all in euclid and M&M. to me it was horrendous- but a damn sight easier than seven figure logs.

Off wiki (by email) if you want and practical help with your dial- glad to help. I have a vertical decliner outside my window. Painted on ply-wood- this is just nailed to the wall with 3 masonry nails- but could be later mounted in any sort of frame. It is good to keep the business end separate from the mounting as it allows for later corrections!-- Clem Rutter (talk) 09:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This hurried reply will probably be just preliminary, addressing a few main points.

If there isn't a Mayall edition with Reclining-Declining formulas, then maybe Mayall for Vertical-Declining, and something else for Reclining-Declining. You could use Reclining-Declining formulas from Brandmaier, for instance, though I didn't notice where he gives formulas for the dial-orientation of the gnomon.

Calculations used to be a lot more work, before electronic calculators, but navigators, using log-trig tables and log tables, were able to calculate very accurate positions.

Nothing wrong with geometric constructions either. But maybe that would be more work nowadays.

There are a few practical sundial building matters that I've always meant to ask about. Methods for securing the gnomon perpendicular to the dial-face (All I know now is that they sometimes or often use mortise & tenon, or bolts from underneath.

Details for building sundials of stone, concrete, terra-cotta, etc.

I've never built a durable outdoor sundial, but I intend to.

More later, Mike--MichaelOssipoff (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)MichaelOssipoff[reply]

Mortise & Tenon, or a groove for the whole gnomon, sounds particularly tricky for stone, with its added risk of breaking the stone.

With stone, it seems that it would be desirable to do only the simplest and least amount of carving, to minimize the risk of breaking it. Just make the gnomon's bottom reliably flat and perpendicular to the gnomon's sides, and glue it to the dial-face with some strong, waterproof glue?

For an outdoor cube-dial, I'd probably choose wood, for its light weight, given the fact that it will be mounted high-up. But I hope that paint or transparent surface-finish on the wood would fully protect it against Florida's heavy summer rain.

Mike--MichaelOssipoff (talk) 22:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)MichaelOssipoff[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Article: Sundial. Topic Section: Reclining-Decllining.". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 3 May 2015.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 02:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In an attempt to keep the entire discussion on one page I have retrieved the submission you made, and I am copying it below. I am of the opinion that the request fails to meet WP:RFM/G#PRIOR, to keep the discussion in one place I have blockquoted my response. (All this is a terrible waste of my time and yours). You will be happy to know that I got the NASS CD of back issues of Compenmdium yesterday. It is certainly worth buying yourself a copy, or persuading your public library to buy one- the reading time is horrendous- there are 84 issues with multiple exciting articles. It took me a whole evening to read and evaluate just one article. More later.. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 11:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Description of the issue:
I'm a new editor, and so, if I violate protocol or rules here, it isn't intentional. I hope that you'll notify me if I do.
As I state, here, the information required, some of it will duplicate my answers to the above form.
1. Editors involved:
MichaelOssipoff ClemRutter
2. Articles or pages:
The Reclining-Declining section of the Sundial article
3. Previous discussion:
A basically 1-sided discussion has been going on for some time (as can be seen at Sundial-talk, and at my own talk-page.
Much discussion of this can be found in the most recent part of the Sundial-talk page. This dispute is the most recent topic there (at the time of this writing).
3. Previous attempts at resolution of this dispute:
I've offered a set of various compromises. I've asked Clem questions about the origin of the formulas that he keeps re-posting in Reclining-Declining, whenever I delete them. I've (in vain) reminded Clem that he should state a reason when doing a revert.
My most recent compromise-offer was my offer of a month, before Clem is expected to do something about his un-sourced, un-tested formulas in Reclining-Declining. Clem explicitly rejected that compromise-offer, saying that _maybe_ he'll _begin_ to look at references for the formulas in 6 weeks.
That open-ended non-offer can't be called a counter-offer.
I've been asking that Clem do or allow at least one of the below-listed things. Obviously, some of these alternatives amount to compromises on my part.
1. State the origin of the formulas (supply a citation to a reputable, reliable source)
2. Replace the formulas with another set of formulas, from a reputable reliable source, and cite that source.
3. Show an example (even just one example) in which Clem's formulas in Reclining-Declining give a correct answer.
4. Delete the formulas until Clem has time to do one of the 3 above-listed alternatives.
To these, I add one additional compromise that I'd accept:
5. Add these words directly above the beginning of Clem's set of Reclining-Declining formulas:
"The formulas that follow in this section--these formulas for Reclining-Declining sundials--are of unknown origin. So far as is known, no one at Wikipedia has tried the formulas out, to find out if there's an example in which they give a correct answer.
"In other words, being un-sourced, without valid citation, these formulas don't meet wikipedia's usual standards for reliability, verifiability and citation."
[end of proposed wording}
If Clem really insists on leaving his un-sourced, un-tested formulas in the article, then will he at least allow the above-suggested warning to be placed above them? Or does he think that the reader doesn't have a right to know that his formulas are un-sourced, un-cited, and un-tested--and of unknown origin?
Clem says that he's very busy. It's my understanding that some of what he's been busy with consists of other wikipedia work. That's quite understandable. But I don't feel that un-sourced and un-tested formulas should be presented to readers just because Clem doesn't consider this article a high priority, and chooses to not allocate his time to it.
What can we not reach an agreement on? Any of the first 4 of my above-listed proposals, most of which are compromise proposals.
I emphasize that I now offer alternative compromise #5 as a compromise-proposal.
I hope that you can help us resolve this dispute, regarding the matter of whether Wikipedia's policies, principles, and guidelines regarding citation should be respected.
Thank you, Michael Ossipoff user MichaelOssipoff

Disagree. WP:RFM/G#PRIOR Can I point you to the long conversation I have had with Michael on his talk page where I am attempting to keep the discussion contained. Have a look also at the conversations with User:DOwenWilliams on my talk page, and the conversation he has had with Michael in the Talk:Sundial#« Cadran bifilaire », Why ? and much that follows. None of this suggests that every other method has been explored, which is a precondition for this procedure- it does suggest a degree of impatience, and a request from Michael for two editors to enter into a considerable amount of WP:OR. If the Mediation Committee does wish to get involved so early in the process I am sure that DOwenWilliams and myself will be willing to assist in every way- but in my case after the UK General Election when I will be less occupied in RL.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 10:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

This part of my reply evidently didn't post yet:

This discussion belongs at the media-request's talk-page.

I've made every effort to offer compromises, and try to get you to answer, regarding your justification for your un-sourced formulas and your reverts, and your answers to my reasons for deleting your un-sourced formulas. No success. So mediation is obviously needed.

You're saying that you reject mediation and won't participate in it. So now it's just a matter of what comes next, when mediation fails (because one participant rejects it).

--MichaelOssipoff (talk) 12:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)MichaelOssipoff[reply]

Transferred text-keep it in one place

To quote and reply to some of Clem's statements:

[quote] I have declined:

Disagree. WP:RFM/G#PRIOR Can I point you to the long conversation I have had with Michael on his talk page where I am attempting to keep the discussion contained.

[/quote]
A look at that discussion will show that I offered about 5 compromises to Clem, and he rejected or ignored all of them.
Clem's solution, and the only alternative that he accepts, is to leave his un-sourced formulas in the article until he eventually gets around to looking at what to do. ...which he said might be in about 6 weeks.
Clem didn't address my objection to that violation of wikpedia's rules, policies, guidelines and principles regarding citation.
Yes there's been lots of discussion, most of it 1-sided, by me. There's been no negotiation on Clem's part, no mention of or answer to any of my compromise proposals--except when he explicitly rejected my offer of a month without doing anything about the un-sourced formulas (an offer that I withdrew when it was rejected at that time, and which is no longer in my list of offers).
[quote] Have a look also at the conversations with User:DOwenWilliams on my talk page [/quote]
At no time, and in no way was DOwenWilliams a party in this matter, though he did butt in with comments. For example, at Clem's user-talk page, DOwenWilliams engaged in namecalling, and objected to my deletion of Clem's formulas--without explaining or supporting his objection in any way.
[quote] , and the conversation he has had with Michael in the Talk:Sundial#« Cadran bifilaire », Why ? [/quote]
That has nothing to do with the present dispute. At the Cadran bifilaire topic, someone, maybe DOwenWilliams, asked why a link was to Cadran bifilair, instead of to Cadran Solaire. I answered the question, pointing out that Cadran solaire merely means Sundial, and that, in the Bifilar section, it was appropriate to link to Cadran bifilaire, which means Bifilar Sundial. That was the brief conversaion, and it had nothing to do with the present dispute.

[quote] and much that follows. None of this suggests that every other method has been explored [/quote]
As I said, I've offered a number of compromises, and Clem rejected or ignored every one of them. Clem refused to answer the justifications that I gave for deleting his formulas. Clem refused to justify his re-posting of un-sourced formulas.
Clem is only willing to do one thing: Leave his entirely un-sourced formulas in the article, without stating their origin (He doesn't know their origin), without even trying them out to find out if they give a right answer. ...and without any justifiation or explanation of that questionable position.
[quote] , which is a precondition for this procedure- it does suggest a degree of impatience [/quote]
On the contrary, I offered Clem a month, during which he could delay doing anything about the un-sourced formulas. Far from being impatient, I was being remarkably co-operative and conciliatory.
I also offered the various other compromises that I listed at the mediation-request page, and, repeatedly, at the Sundial-talk page, and in the discussion at my user-talk page.
Shall I list them again here?:
1. Tell the origin of the formulas, as a citation in the article 2. Replace them with formulas from a known, cited source 3. Show an example in which the formulas give a right answer 4. Delete the formulas till you (Clem) get around to doing something about them 5. Allow me to add, to the formulas, a warning to readers that their source is unknown
Note that alternatives #4 and #5 wouldn't require any significant amount of Clem's time.
[quote] , and a request from Michael for two editors to enter into a considerable amount of WP:OR. [/quote]
Nonsense.
1. I never requested anything of DOwenWilliams. Well, the only thing that I asked of him was that he butt-out of the discussion at Sundial-talk, where he started a conversation.
2. I don't ask Clem for OR.
My above-listed compromises ask for a citation, or different formulas from a known source, or quick and easy deletion of the formulas (or just don't revert my deletion of them), or allowing me to add a notification to readers that his formulas are of unknown origin.
Yes, one of my compromise proposals would allow him to just try the formulas out, to find out if there's an example in which they give a right answer. That could be called OR, but it's only one, out of five, compromises that I offer.

[quote] If the Mediation Committee does wish to get involved so early in the process I am sure that DOwenWilliams and myself will be willing to assist in every way [/quote]
I didn't name DOwenWilliams as a participant in the dispute. The dispute has nothing to do with DOwenWilliams. Of course DOwenWilliams, or anyone, is welcome to express arguments and opinions (if they support their opinions and statements). I'm not excluding DOwenWilliams from the discussion. I'm just not naming him as a participant. Clem keeps re-posting the un-sourced formulas when I delete them. I claim that un-sourced formulas have no place in the article, and violate wikipedia's policies, principles, guidelines and rules.

[quote] - but in my case after the UK General Election when I will be less occupied in RL [/quote]
If Clem doesn't have time to do anything about his un-sourced formulas, then he's welcome to delete them until he has time to source, test, or replace them (with formulas whose source he can cite). Or he can allow me to delete them, or he can allow me to add a warning to the user, that the formulas are of unknown origin.
I'm not asking for Clem to spend any time in the article if he doesn't want to. Several of my compromise offers don't require any time on Clem's part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClemRutter (talk • contribs) 12:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Useless fight about useless formulas
[edit]

When I was about ten years old, I made a sundial in my parents' back yard. It worked quite well. Having more than two brain cells, I used empirical experiment to position the hour lines. I didn't need any formulas. Nor does anyone else.
I strongly suspect that most, if not all, of the reclining-declining dials that have been made since M&M published their formulas have actually been laid out empirically. Nobody has been stupid enough to use the formulas. They serve no useful purpose whatsoever. Nor, of course, do alternatives such as the ones Clem has been advocating.
If Michael and Clem want to fight a duel, that's their business, but they should leave Wikipedia out of it. The reclining-declining dial section in the Sundial article should be replaced with a few sentences about the empirical method, which can also be used, of course, for other types of dial. A large part of the article could, and in my view should, be condensed down to a few hundred bytes.
DOwenWilliams (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

DOwenWilliams is entirely correct when he points out that there's no need for formulas in the Sundial article. The article would be better without them.
Formulas, consisting of a cookbook impersonating a technical textbook, serve only to discourage people, convincing them that sundials are too technical a subject.
DOwenWilliams said:
[quote] If Michael and Clem want to fight a duel, that's their business, but they should leave Wikipedia out of it. [/quote]
Well, Wikipedia has definite, explicit guidelines, policies, rules and principles regarding citation. In fact, that could be regarded as Wikipedia's most important guideline for its articles. That matter is very much Wikipedia's business, and Wikipedia needn't be left out of it.
I tried to resolve the matter in individual 2-party discussion, and offered a variety of compromise-proposals. But, when that doesn't work, it becomes a matter for mediation. Wikipedia can't be left out of a matter involving egregious violation of Wikipedia's rules, policies, guidelines and principles.
[quote] The reclining-declining dial section in the Sundial article should be replaced with a few sentences about the empirical method, which can also be used, of course, for other types of dial. [/quote]
Correct.
[quote] A large part of the article could, and in my view should, be condensed down to a few hundred bytes. [/quote]
Quite so.
And Nort-Reclining and South-Reclining could just be completely and clearly explained in terms of equivalent latitude, without any formulas.

--MichaelOssipoff (talk) 14:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)MichaelOssipoff

Your alternative OR-notice is better than nothing, but not enough.
[edit]

It implies that the formulas of unknown origin are ok to be there, as long as they're obliquely, cryptically, notated in an official manner.
people don't know what "Original Research" means. It has the sound of a positive connotation.
Anyway, that notation isn't a strong enough warning to the reader. My wording was a clear, direct and un-coded warning to the reader: "These formulas are of unknown origin."
That says a lot more than "Original Research?"
And your banner at the top says that the formulas "may be un-supported. No. It isn't that they may be unsupported. It's that they are unsupported, and of unknown origin.
In summary:
Your "Original Research?" tells the reader nothing, because s/he probably thinks that original research sounds impressive and positive.
Your notation-banner at the top hugely understates your problem, when it says that the formulas may be un-supported. ...when it's fully established and undeniable that they are un-supported and of unknown origin.
In short, that change isn't acceptable.
The wikipedia page about OR says:
"Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source."
Let me re-quote a part of the above quote for you:
"...and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source."
You were in violation of that policy when you reverted my deletion of your unknown-origin formulas. Therefore, those formulas shouldn't be in the article. I don't mean in 6 weeks from now--I mean as of the time when I deleted them and you wrongfully re-posted them.
And note that it isn't that your formulas could be challenged. It's that they've just been challenged, and now remain challenged
So, Clem, it's definite that you refuse to participate in mediation? I just want to be sure about that.
--MichaelOssipoff (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)--MichaelOssipoff (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)MichaelOssipoff (edit conflict)

(I accidentally deleted a paragraph, forgetting that it's better to copy your message where I answer it below, instead of editing in your message. So my reply will be below, in a separate message--MichaelOssipoff)

Could you please use a little time learning wikipedia markup <blockquote></blockquote> is the standard way to do quotes. If you set the Insert drop down list to Wikimarkup under the editor, you will find a lot of useful tags.

You keep making many suggestions- but if you are serious about them then create a sandbox. Sundial/sandbox where you can demonstrate what you mean. If it is sensible, let another editor transfer it to the main page. It would also allow you to sort out your references- jusitfying any delete or addition.

It helps if you don't change you own posts two hours after you have made them [2] allowing other editors to compose their considered reply.

It helps if you understand that other editors may take several days drafting, checking and refining an edit before they post it.

It helps if you de-personalise editing. I have seen my name mentioned on other pages followed by a POV you will later regret. I could say I am flattered to have been given credit for a set of formula adopted by two learned societies- but sarcasm and irony don help. I found that the posts you made on Dave Williams page ill-judged.

Have you experimented with {{efn}}s yet? I have read back through the dialogue we had 14th February.

Please do not try to fix deals or impose deadlines answering the threats just wastes time.

Would you like to confirm that you don't have a copy of Waugh, that you don't actually have a copy of Mayall in front of you- and if you do have a copy of Rohr, it is the flawed Dover reprint of edition 1- not the German version.

Did you read Revision of Chapter 5 of Sundials by René R.J. Rohr, New York 1996 declining inclined dials which I think is a better reference to illustrate the warning that Rohrs formulae are inaccurate, or were wrongly printed.

Could you say whether you have read equations 20 to 34 of Snyder 2013, which has been offered as the crucial reference. Yes the maths is all there-but the vector calculations are a bit heavy and if you have found an alternative it is certainly worth considering. Though rock solid, your difficulty with the maths may mean we should keep looking for an addition reference to supplement it. I do think we need to check all the equations for BSS compliance, I do think that we need to be less flowery in all those sections- and there is almost enough material in Reclining /Declining dials to float general planar dials into a separate article.

Looking back at Synder-P14 References- all except one (Meeus) are on the NASS disc so with time I can I can evaluate them.

Real life has intervened so I must close- -- Clem Rutter (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC) Sorry can read the latest (edit conflict)post at the moment -- Clem Rutter (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Clem says:

Could you please use a little time learning wikipedia markup

Certainly it would be useful to check out. Thanks for the suggestion.

Looks better already.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Clem says:

(angle-bracket)nowiki(angle-bracket) (angle-bracket)blockquote(angle-bracket)is the standard way to do quotes.

I've used the (angle-bracket)blockquote(angle-bracket) quoting system before. I just didn't know what the system is, here.
But what's with this "nowiki"? Is it really necessary to lengthen the quoting-work that much? In this reply, I'll find out what happens if I leave the "nowiki" out.

If you set the Insert drop down list to Wikimarkup under the editor,

Well, I'll soon find out whether the meaning of that instruction will be evident when I try it.

you will find a lot of useful tags.

Yes, good suggestion.

I use the no wikitag whan I want to leave an example on the page so it just prints what I type. If I want to discuss <blockquote></blockquote> I have to wrap that in the <nowiki></nowiki> tags- or it goes a ahead and does a block quote. If you look at the source code of the last sentence- I had to wrap the <nowiki></nowiki> in a set of <nowiki></nowiki> or you wouldn't see them. There are also some useful templates such as {{tick}} and {{cross}}. To discuss them- I type {{t|tick}}, to use them {{tick}} and it displays Y. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

You keep making many suggestions- but if you are serious about them then create a sandbox. Sundial/sandbox where you can demonstrate what you mean. If it is sensible, let another editor transfer it to the main page.

No doubt the sandbox is very useful, for getting consensus regarding the addition of a proposed section, or the form that a modification should take.
I'm not proposing the addition of a new section. I'm merely proposing getting rid of an egregious violation of wikipedia policy, rules, guidelines and principles. A sandbox is for getting consensus on how the new, or newly-modified, section should look. I don't care how you fix it, as long as you fix it. It isn't my job to sandbox an alternative for you. It's for you to compose your section, when you modify it to comply with wikipedia policy. I merely point out that, as it is now, your formulas are in violation of wikipedia policy, and must go (and not 6 weeks from now).

Absolutely wrong. NThe sandbox is a most useful tool. I have re-reverted you revert to the stable version. First I have copied the version you like so much into a new sand box so you can illustrate what you mean.

Y I use two levels of sandbox- one on my User page where I make radical changes (convention says no other editor will touch that)- when it is ready for comment I copy that sandbox onto Article/sandbox and notify others on the talk page- inviting them for comment and making changes. When we have some form of concensus I transfer it to main page - and it becomes the article.

Often, I need to change the structure of an article- moving sections/ splitting- even taking sections an making new articles, here the template {{main}} is useful. I rarely zap text completely- and that is because it is off focus or WP:UNDUE. You can imagine the terror it would inspire in other authors if this wasn't done in a sandbox but happened live. Basically what you are doing is making it impossible for anyone to edit sundials, as bits keep disappearing. Do it in a sandbox- and shout 'what do you think on the talk page when it is ready'.

It would also allow you to sort out your references

Ok, maybe that would be helpful if it were I who were putting up something requiring references.

There seems to be a slight sticking point here. The requirement is to provide a reference so the fact can be verified- not to provide some verbatim text. Either of the two references given provide that. I am happy with the notability of the source- but agree that the format of the maths in the reference is a bit a heavy and could be difficult for a non-specialist to equate- I would be happier if I had read the articles referred to in the references bibliography list.

If you remove a piece of referenced text it really is incumbent on you to provide a reference for your action. We zap vandalism: but we don't attempt to remove text that was inserted in April 2014 after full discussion, User_talk:ClemRutter#Reclining-Declining_Sundials.

- jusitfying any delete or addition.

I've read wikipedia policy-pages about justififation of deletions, additions, and edits in general. They can be justified at the article talk-page, and I was doing that for a long time. I didn't justify my most recent addition at Sundial-talk, because I know that you don't read it. But yes, it's certainly good practice to justify any modifications at the article-talk page. Have you been doing that? :^)

It helps if you don't change you own posts two hours after you have made them

I'll try not to. I'll try to get them right the first time. But there've been times when I posted something that really needed changing.

It helps if you understand that other editors may take several days drafting, checking and refining an edit before they post it.

Fair enough!
I'll wait a few days (half a week?) for that reason. That will, additionally, give me opportunity to find out if anything is happening with the mediation.
Does the mediation-committee have to disregard a request, and not comment or offer solutions, if one party refuses to participate?
The half-week (3 days and 12 hours) starts at the minute when this reply posts. Making threats.

You are making an assumption (AGF) that when someone says it can't be done immediately that they are prevaricating. I identify that the only way I can get a reference is to send money by post to n volunteer ( an university lecturer with a full time job who I don't know). Its Mon 8.00 am. I need a stamp- thats a walk to the supermarket when I can leave the house- it will be 14hrs before that can happen. I put stamp on envelope- the mail is collected once a day at 5.00 pm.(Tues) The mail service- next day delivery cuts in at midnight- and will get the letter to destination by 8.00pm following day (worst case scenario)(Thurs) when he has time the said lecturer will cut the CD-RoM, package it and mail. If in the UK and he did it the next day, I would get that it following Wednesday Morning. Now in this case the CDRom was mailed from Manchester, Conneticut- so flew the Atlantic.

The disc is fantastic. You really need to order one yourself- but the reading time is horrendous. NASSVol 13-3 (p24) has a really relevant article by Herbert Ramp but you need also to read the correction in NASS 13/4 38. Real referencing is time consuming. Now here comes the real killer, is there an on-line version? That can involve much Googling and often results in a zero result. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

It helps if you de-personalise editing.

I don't personalize editing. My complaint, so far, is about content, not about conduct. (...but don't push your luck)
I haven't criticized you, or called you any names.

I have seen my name mentioned on other pages followed by a POV you will later regret.

What, are you a fortune-teller? ...to tell me what I'll regret?

Many skills- turning water into wine, and lead into gold---Smile-- Clem Rutter (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC).

Yes your name has been mentioned. What, would you rather that I replace it with "an individual who shall remain nameless"?
Sorry, but naming you is sometimes a necessary part of describing what has happened in the events involved in this contents-dispute. Have you met the template {{ping}}- {{ping|User:ClemRutter}}this puts a notification on my talk page- I rare use it but it is useful to keep a discussion on one page, so other users can follow the new thread. Whats all this stuff about dispute? You are a new editor who is still feeling his way- I have been around a lot longer and am spending hours responding and giving you tips. You are not making it easy at times- please learn about {{efn}}, allow me to email you with scans of texts that I cannot post here because of copyright restrictions and start using the sandbox!-- Clem Rutter (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

credit for a set of formulas
[edit]

Spilt the section- as I was losing myself

I could say I am flattered to have been given credit for a set of formulas

Yes, they become yours when you post them. ...like when you re-posted them when I deleted them. You thereby adopted them and became their adoptive father.

...a whole set of formulas adopted by two learned societies

Nonsense. If even one learned society had adopted that set of formulas, then you'd be able to give a reference-citation. You don't know where the formulas came from. Their origin is unknown.

I mentioned above the edits on my talk page - for clarity and because it is fascinating is the section User_talk:ClemRutter#Reclining-Declining Sundials

Reclining-Declining Sundials
[edit]

Dear ClemRutter,
Sorry for the many edits and re-edits to the Reclining-Declining Sundials paragraph.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundial#Reclining-declining_dials
But I think that I've now got the right formulas now for the gnomon angles at last. Where do I get them ? I derived them - not by any fancy means like rotation matrices or quaternions; but rather through good old-fashioned 3-D Euclidean geometry. By this I mean that I constructed physical models of the reclining-declining dial geometry using cardboard sheets for planes and strips of wire for optical paths and pertinent geometry lines/angles. I chose to do it this way as :
1) The results are far more concrete and convincing when this method is employed. This is particularly true in the reclining-declining dial case as there are many different formulas published for its hour angle and its gnomon angles.
2) The people who build these dials will generally come from a trades background. This means that they would generally have begun apprenticeships at 16 - 17 and their math level will be up to UK GCSE/O-level or French Brevet standard -- i.e. Euclidean geometry, basic trigonometry and basic algebra. My method is followable by people at this standard.
In due course I plan to submit a paper on this method - as well as the relevant diagrams (using Google SketchUp) for the vital geometrical relationships - to the North American Sundial Society.
The $s_{o}$ orientation switch integer for generalizing the hour angle formula over all dial declinations is the only 'novelty' added to the existing nomenclature. I find it handy when programming.
If you have any points to make on the actual formulas presented in Wiki by me or want to offer alternatives for discussion, please feel free.
Tamjk (talk) 10:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I am enjoying the links personally but having difficulty in seeing how all this can be justified under WP:NOR. I would be inclined to keep the published sources (right or wrong) and include the improvements (unpublished corrections wrapped in a {{efn}} template that links to the {{notelist}} footnote. Rest assured I accept your maths as being superior.

What I was about to do was to change all the notation which I got from Waugh, Mayall & Mayall to the agreed symbols used by and recommended by the BSS- but that is also on hold while I sort out a useable python library.

It is interesting that fr:Cadran incliné-déclinant doesnt exist but all other types fr:Cadran déclinant have separate page- I haven't analysed which notation convention they are using- but I suspect that even there they are excluded most readers by using Greek letters which are not taught at brévet/ GCSE level.

Many thoughts - much to do -- Clem Rutter (talk) 11:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, there's no original research here. Simply the same results via a more traditional and more workmanlike method. The hour angle formula is the same (bar using reclination angle instead of inclination) as those presented by Snyder and others :
http://dls-website.com/documents/SundialDesignConsiderations.pdf
The gnomon angle formulas are the same as those presented in the BSS Formulae webpage, at least the dial-plate angle (the "style height" in BSS parlance) once you allow for their defining inclination w.r.t. the rear horizontal rather than the front (i.e. sun side) horizontal.
http://www.sundialsoc.org.uk/Glossary/equations/equations-new.php
Unfortunately they have the substyle-noon angle wrong - but so did all of us originally.
Tamjk (talk) 16:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Okay. I've now completed changing the Greek nomenclature to Roman. Tamjk (talk) 14:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

As you see, a year ago we were discussing this- and the problem we were having was converting from the notation used in many articles to the one we use on wiki to be internally consistent.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Moving on
[edit]

I found that the posts you made on Dave Williams page ill-judged.

1. You're changing the subject. Etiquite isn't the topic here. 2. There's no benefit in raking up previous hostilities. 3. I thought that the hostilities that you're referring to were at Sundial-talk.

Have you experimented with {{efn}}s yet?

I will at such time as I post something that needs a footnote.

Wikisoftware has many undocumented features- understanding them allows you to be far more subtle and productive in your editing.

Please do not try to fix deals

Nonsense. Negotiation, compromises, agreements, are the dispute-resolution method recommended by wikipedia, as opposed to administrative solutions. Administrative solutions should be a last-resort, which is why I tried to reach a compromise-agreement. But you rejected or ignored every compromise that I offered.
You left me no choice but to try mediation.
And evidently now you refuse to participate in mediation, which will probably mean that mediation has failed, just as compromise-discussion, before that, also failed. ...and for the same reason.

Trust people a little more. Dave and myself have been spending more time on helping you that actually fixing the article. I started this answer 3 hours ago- that is productive time lost. I have would be far happier actually researching the the many many articles on my watchlist- and now particularly this one. I would like to have a conversation where I can refer you to an potential- and get your input about its validity- or even if you could suggest some sources to me and ask my opinion on their content.

Slow down. I am still working through the backlog tasks on the talk page to-do list.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

or impose deadlines

Sorry, I was just trying to be fair. I wanted you to know the situation.

Would you like to confirm that you don't have a copy of Waugh

I don't have a copy of Waugh. If I quote him, then certainly I should have a copy.

, that you don't actually have a copy of Mayall in front of you

I don't have a copy of Mayall & Mayall. However, just from the mis-copied version in "note (b)", I found that Mayall & Mayall's Reclining-Declining formulas give right answers. ...if not mis-copied.

- and if you do have a copy of Rohr, it is the flawed Dover reprint of edition 1- not the German version.

I don't have a copy of Rohr. But I never anything regarding the matter of whether or not Rohr's books, or one of them, contains errors.

Did you read Revision of Chapter 5 of Sundials by René R.J. Rohr, New York 1996 declining inclined dials which I think is a better reference to illustrate the warning that Rohrs formulae are inaccurate, or were wrongly printed.

That may well be. I haven't seen it, and so I can't comment on that matter.

Click on the link. The error is taken into the BSS equations too. See April 2014 comments above. On the strength of that I think that some surgery is now justified

Could you say whether you have read equations 20 to 34 of Snyder 2013, which has been offered as the crucial reference.

I've read the references that were near the top of the Reclining-Declining article. Ref #42 and Ref #43.

And yes, that means that I read their equations.

Those equations don't resemble your formulas in Reclining-Declining. Those citations aren't valid citations for those formulas. They're fraudulent citations for those formulas. The more fraudulent citations you use, the less credibility your subsequent citations will have.

The maths is heavy but the justification is in there- I still am looking for something lighter.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the maths is all there-but the vector calculations are a bit heavy and if you have found an alternative it is certainly worth considering.

I'd suggest Mayall & Mayall. They're a well-established, popular, classic authoritative source. The person who posted the Reclining-Declining material that you kept re-posting when I was deleting it, seemed to think that Mayall & Mayall published Reclining-Declining formulas. It seems to me that an edition of Mayall & Mayall indeed does have Reclining-Declining formulas. In that edition, Mayall & Mayall said that formulas are more convenient than geometrical graphic techniquies.

But remember that I don't think the article should have formulas.

Though rock solid

It isn't clear what you're saying is rock solid. Brandmaier's derivations?

If you like them, then put them in the article (replacing your current ones). No one will ask you to verify his derivations. If you have a cited source, then I won't even ask you for an example in which the formulas give a right answer. (But you really have no business posting formulas without trying them out, to be sure that you're interpreting them correctly. (As an object-lesson, please note the badly mis-copied and mis-interpreted Mayall & Mayall formulas in note (b). Badly mis-copied and mis-interpreted by the person who copied them into note (b). )

But, as I said, I suggest using Mayall & Mayall instead.

Please read the response. Give me an email address and I will post you the scans. Mayall & Mayall never wrote one. Réne Rohr did, everyone including BSS copied his formula. When I wrote the paragraph you keep trying to reinstate I copied the BSS formulae. This has been proved to be wrong. I sent you the linkRevision of Chapter 5 of Sundials by René R.J. Rohr, New York 1996 declining inclined dials See the paragraph from April 2014. Tamjk (talk) 10:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC) tookj Brandmaiers article- and transcribed it into the BSS format that we use. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

, your difficulty with the maths

Can you quote a message in which I mentioned difficulty with Brandmaier's math? ...or the vector approach in general?

What I said was that I read your references, and they didn't contain formulas that resemble your formulas in Reclining-Declining. (As I said, they're your formulas now, because you posted them (after I deleted them).

Aside from that, the matter of whether or not I have difficult with Brandmaier's formulas isn't relevant to the topic. I expect that Mayall & Mayall would be more useful to most people, as you seem to imply as well.

Shall we talk about difficulty? You must have a lot of difficult with the use of your formulas in Reclining-Declining, because you haven't even tried them out, to find out if there's an example in which they give a right answer. And if that's the problem, then do you really think they belong in the article? But I might as well say that to the wall. I've mentioned it several times, with no reply--just a blaringly conspicuous silence.

That may mean we should keep looking for an addition reference to supplement it.

Fine, but you can't leave your unknown-origin formulas in the article while you leisurely look around for something to replace them with. If all you currently have is Brandmaier's formulas, then putting them in the article immediately would be better than leaving your current formulas.

And, if you have too much difficulty with Brandmaier's formulas to do that, then you could just delete the current formulas, and leave the article as I left it, with my deletion...which is exactly what DOwenWilliams suggests too.

Meanwhile, after the deletion (or Brandmaier-replacement), you can take your time looking for the Mayall & Mayall edition that has Reclining-Declining formulas, and use that.

Or you could just let me re-post the warning-to-the-reader that I posted before: "These formulas are of unknown origin..."

...Oh yes, that's right, you don't like negotation or compromise-offers.

I do think we need to check all the equations for BSS compliance

Yes, definitely. Starting with your formulas in Reclining-Declining.

I have now got the link I require to say the pre in 2014 the BSS formulae contained Rohr's error- I can now try to check printed copy to see if there is a updated version, which would solve all our problems.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back at Synder-P14 References- all except one (Meeus) are on the NASS disc so with time I can I can evaluate them.

Yes, but that doesn't mean you can leave the Reclining-Declining section in blatant violation of wikipedia's rules, policies, guidelines and priniples in the meantime.

P.s. Hobbies are part of real life.

--MichaelOssipoff (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)MichaelOssipoff[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Article: Sundial. Topic Section: Reclining-Decllining., to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

London dial

London dial is a new article- can you leave feedback on the talk page. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 13:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Most use a computer program or the BSS definitions.

[a]