User talk:Senor Cuete

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Explain BS[edit]

The theory that Mayan Calendar 20 signs are derived from ancient Middle Eastern 22 signs is significantly documented at the link. Be more specific in your opinion or stay out of it, anyone can say "BS". (talk) 02:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Anyone can come up with any bizarre theory that he wants about anything. So what? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Entries must be verifiable and cite reliable sources. There are standards for reliable sources and they are that they should be primary or secondary sources. Fringe research like the page you cited is not allowed. Also not allowed is original research. The articles about the Maya calendar and the Long Count are about the real thing, based on real research and citing reliable sources. Unfortunately the the study of the people of Mesoamerica and their calendars is extremely polluted with complete crap, from the Mormons claiming that the Mesoamericans are the lost tribes if Israel to the new-agers like Callemans, and Arguelles making up their own revisionist versions of their pseudomayan calendars, etc. etc. Go to and search for mayan 2012 and look how much utter balderdash you will find. So much complete nonsense is out there that you could write a whole book about it. If you want to write a Wikipedia article about all of the BS hoaxes that's out there about the Maya, go ahead but it doesn't belong in an article about the real thing. Senor Cuete (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Removal of original research[edit]

I don't understand why you removed my comment on comparing the Long Count with the Julian and Gregorian calendars. What I said about the calendar repeat interval of 29 x 52 = 1508 years is true.

So what? 52 what * 29 what? This is original research - not allowed on Wikipedia. To be in a Wikipedia article, edits must be verifiable and cite reliable sources, defined as primary or secondary sources. See the above discussion, particularly my comment about wild theories. When some eminent scholar of the Maya publishes a paper in a peer-reviewed scientific journal saying that the Maya were aware of this and that there is some inscription using these numbers it will be in the article. Just because it's true means nothing. Senor Cuete (talk) 01:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Senor cuete

"Just because it's true means nothing!!!" That's the most astonishing comment I've ever seen. What I said is not original research. It's math. Or, more properly, arithmetic! You might try doing the arithmetic yourself. And as for the likelihood that the Mayans were unaware of this, given their 52-year cycles, not to mention their extremely careful observations of equinoxes and solstices, all I can say is that if no scholar has ever noticed this, Mayan scholarship must be in a very poor state indeed. Say it ain't so! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serioso95 (talkcontribs) 01:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

It aint so. Wikipedia discourages personal attacks but since we're getting personal here YOU should learn to read. You should carefully read the Maya calendar article and also the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar article. The article doesn't say they had a 52 year cycle. It says that they had a cycle of 18,980 days or 51.9641 tropical years. Building alignments and other evidence indicate that they knew about the tropical year and solstices but it was of almost no importance to them. If there's any evidence that they knew about equinoxes, I haven't seen it. What was important to them was zenithal passage days - a number of observatories were built to observe them. There is no evidence that they had any cycle of 29 Calendar Rounds. The Dresden codex is an astronomical almanac that goes far into the past. It can be used to calculate the cycles of the Moon, heliacal risings of Venus, cycles of Jupiter, etc. but doesn't make much if anything of the tropical year. They are the "Maya" not "Mayans". You should also read about the criteria for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. Your own observations are not allowed. These are original research. Mayan scholarship is not in a very poor state - it's doing great in spite of being besieged with ridiculous claims by people who don't know what they are talking about, like you. Senor Cuete (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Senor Cuete
Also I forgot: according to MY C compiler, double x = (18980.0 * 29.0) / 365.2422; is 1507.00001259438. Close to 1507, NOT 1508 years, so which one of us should learn to do arithmetic? I have no doubt that the ancient Maya knew this but without a citation from a reliable source that shows examples from temple inscriptions or the Dresden codex, it can't be in the article. Senor Cuete (talk) 15:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Senor Cuete

52 x 29 x 0.24219 = 365.222 which differs only slightly from 365.24219, the experimentally-determined length of the solar year.

My source for the 52-year cycle is "The Mayan Calendar Made Easy" by Sandy Huff (1984), page 4, which states "They also had an eternally repeating concept of time, termed the 'Calendar Round'. It utilized a 52-year cycle composed of two different calendars. These calendar 'wheels', the Tonalamatl of 260 days, and the Haab of 365 days, only came back to the same starting 'cogs', or days, every 18,980 days, or 52 years."

Any repeating solar phenomenon can be used to measure the actual length of the solar year: Equinox, solstice or sun at the zenith. I would be astonished to learn that ANY long term observers did not know that the length of the solar year is slightly longer than 365 days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serioso95 (talkcontribs) 23:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I never heard that book. It's not well-known source and I never heard of the author. Also "Tonalamatl" is the name in Nahuatl, language of the Aztecs, not Mayan. This factual error is a big strike against it as a reliable source. I'll look for it. I could tell you where the information is that the Maya knew the length of the solar year but the point is this: They didn't care about it. Although it's in a very few astronomical inscriptions they chose not to include it in their calendar. It's actually quite difficult to measure the length of the solar year using the solstices. Solstice is literally when the sun stands still. For about five days at the solstice the Sun's declination appears to stay the same. Amateur astronomers try to guess the solstice by observing the rising and setting azimuths during the year and choose two dates when these are similar and interpolate in between them. This can give you a rough estimate of the time of the solstice. Even today there is no definitive way to observe the solstice exactly. Remember that this article is an article about the Maya CALENDAR, not Mayan ASTRONOMY. The maya were good at astronomy, that is calculating tables of the cycles of all of the visible planets and the sun but they didn't incorporate it into their calendar. Unfortunately there is no Mayan astronomy article and there should be. Sadly the Catholics burned all of the Maya books and one of the handful left is the Dresden codex - an incredible astronomical almanac. One must wonder what Diego de Landa burned. Senor Cuete (talk) 02:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Well, I can understand what you said: "It's actually quite difficult to measure the length of the solar year using the solstices. Solstice is literally when the sun stands still. For about five days at the solstice the Sun's declination appears to stay the same. Amateur astronomers try to guess the solstice by observing the rising and setting azimuths during the year and choose two dates when these are similar and interpolate in between them. This can give you a rough estimate of the time of the solstice. Even today there is no definitive way to observe the solstice exactly. Remember that this article is an article about the Maya CALENDAR, not Mayan ASTRONOMY."

Fine. But over the course of N years any 365-day calendar is off by about N/4 days from the true (Julian) value. In 52 years, that's about 13 days. No civilization that keeps records can be unaware of this discrepancy. And I cannot imagine any civilization ignoring the difference. So (I assume) the Maya were aware of the difference: It's impossible to believe that any advanced civilization with long-term record keeping did NOT know there was a problem. And so, I also assume, they were aware that in 29 x 52 x 365 days, there would be a kind of repeat, particularly given your assertion that they could not measure any solar event with an accuracy of less than a few days. My assertion is that the 29 x 52 x 365 day repeat is accurate to within a few hours. This is arithmetic. If it is not reflected in the common literature on the Mayan calendar, it should be. Or else there is a serious failure in scholarship -- not necessarily yours.Serioso95 (talk) 04:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I say again, the Maya didn't have a 52 year long cycle, not the way you understand years to be tropical years. The Calendar Round is a cycle of 18980 days, 51.9641 tropical years. I didn't say that they were "unaware of this discrepancy" did I? "No civilization that keeps records can be unaware of this discrepancy" I said that they were aware of it but chose not to include it in their calendar. "It's impossible to believe that any advanced civilization with long-term record keeping did NOT know there was a problem." Your cultural bias that all calendars are attempts to measure time in tropical years makes you think it's a problem, but it wasn't for them. I didn't say that "they could not measure any solar event with an accuracy of less than a few days". I said that it's difficult to measure the tropical year by observing the solstice. You asume that all calendars are based on the solar year. The maya calendar is not. The Maya were great astronomers and they had tables of the various cycles of the visible heavenly bodies including the Sun but didn't have a solar calendar. Senor Cuete (talk) 13:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Senor Cuete
Another point: If the book you are reading really says the 260 day cycle was the "Tonalamatl" then it's wrong. The 260 cycle was the "Tonalpohualli" to the Aztecs. Senor Cuete (talk) 14:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Senor Cuete
That book is self-published - a real red flag as far as being considered a reliable source goes. Senor Cuete (talk) 15:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)Senor Cuete

You say the Maya "didn't have a solar calendar." This is silly. Why did they add 5 days to 360? This is obviously an attempt to sync their calendar with the solar year, however inaccurately. You say "I assume all calendars are based on the solar year." Yes, I do, because the Maya clearly made a (small) attempt to make a short-term synchronization. This is not a "cultural bias," it's rather obvious: Why else did they add 5 days? Sorry, but this argument (for me) is simply silly, barely worthy of a reply, but I am reluctant to let it go unanswered.

You also mis-read what I said about the 52-year cycle. This is the same 52 x 365 = 18,980 day period referenced in the main article. What I find remarkable is that after 29 x 52 x 365 days, the Maya calendar is again in nearly perfect sync with what you choose to call the solar calendar. You may not find that remarkable: I do.Serioso95 (talk) 01:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

You can find whatever you want to be remarkable. You can be telepathic and read the mind of the ancient Maya and know what their motivation was in designing their calendar if you want. When some reliable source writes that what you say is correct and cites some Mayan inscription that agrees with your amazing factoid it can't be in the article. Please review the criteria for inclusion in an article, particularly what it says about original research. The Maya did know about the length of the tropical year and they could calculate it with much greater accuracy than your method but they didn't base their calendar on it. Their method could be in a future Mayan astronomy article. Senor Cuete (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Era change[edit]

In your edit to Julian day your edit summary suggest you were reverting my unwarranted change in era notation. But in fact my edit was a reversion of the editor, who in fact is the one who made the unwarranted change. I presume you just forgot to examine the article history to see that the "BC" notation is the long-standing notation for this article. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

You are correct. I don't seem to have gotten a notice on my watchlist about it. I prefer the BC convention anyway. Senor Cuete (talk) 23:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Talk Cave[edit]

I would suggest that you remove your last post on Talk:cave regarding sockpuppetry as it isn't about the article. You might take a look here for more information - and perhaps take your concerns re socks to a more appropriate venue. Vsmith (talk) 14:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Julian Day conversion to Gregorian Date still unclear[edit]

I am gratful for finding your code in the talk page of Julian Day. Here is my corrections, but THIS CODE IS INCORRECT.

void jDToProlepticGregorianDate(double jDNum, int &month, double &day, int &year) {

  int j, g, dg, c, dc, b, db, a, da, y, m;
  double J, d, T;
  J = jDNum + 0.5;
  j = J + 32044;
  g = j / 146097;
  dg = j % 146097;
  c = (dg / 36524 + 1) * 3 / 4;
  dc = dg - c * 36524;
  b = dc /1461;
  db = dc % 1461;
  a = (db / 365 + 1) * 3 / 4;
  da = db - a * 365;
  y = g * 400 + c * 100 + b * 4 + a
  m = (da * 5 + 308) / 153 - 2;
  d = da - (m + 4) * 153 / 5 + 122; //Won't correctly calculate the fraction of a day
  T = jDNum - (int)jDNum;  //fractional part of the Julian day number
  T -= 0.5;  //because the Julian day starts at noon
  if(x < 0.0)
    T += 1;
  d += T;   //add fraction of day
  year = y - 4800 + (m + 2) / 12;
  month = (m + 2) % 12 + 1; 
  day = d + 1; //Will be the correct day number if d is calculated as an int


You will notice that the '*' are replaced by '&' and the '*' inside the code are gone. There is only one problem. IT DOSE NOT WORK! Upon implementing this code in my Borland Turbo C++ IDE, I started with 2456498 which is 24Jul2013, but the results were day = -29, month = 12, and year = -4804. Please clarify. Michael Flower (talk) 19:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

On my Mac, using XCode using Julian date 2456498.0, I get month = 7, day = 24.5, year = 2013. I have no idea what you're talking about when you say that "the '*' are replaced by '&' and the '*' inside the code are gone". What you posted has '*' and '&'. It's important to note that this algorithm is for converting to the PROLEPTIC Gregorian calendar. In the PROLEPTIC Gregorian calendar, all dates before Gregorian calendar reform in 1582 are corrected as if the ten missing days never happened and Gregorian leap years were always used. This revisionist system of dating is almost never used but it is used by many mayanists for converting Maya calendar dates. This is how they convert Long Count to August 11 -3113 instead of September 6. I got the algorithm for this conversion from the Wikipedia article about the Julian Day. It might be worthwhile to look at it. Just to be sure we are on the same page, here is the C code, cut and pasted from my source code: void jDToProlepticGregorianDate(double jDNum, int *month, double *day, int *year) {

   int j, g, dg, c, dc, b, db, a, da, y, m;
   double J, d, T;
   J = jDNum + 0.5; //This shifts the epoch back by one half day, to start it at 00:00UTC, instead of 12:00 UTC.
   j = J + 32044; //This shifts the epoch back to astronomical year -4800 instead of the start of the Christian era in year AD 1 of the proleptic Gregorian calendar.
   g = j / 146097;
   dg = j % 146097;
   c = (dg / 36524 + 1) * 3 / 4;
   dc = dg - c * 36524;
   b = dc /1461;
   db = dc % 1461;
   a = (db / 365 + 1) * 3 / 4;
   da = db - a * 365;
   y = g * 400 + c * 100 + b * 4 + a; //this is the integer number of full years elapsed since March 1, 4801 BC at 00:00 UTC
   m = (da * 5 + 308) / 153 - 2; //this is the integer number of full months elapsed since the last March 1 at 00:00 UTC
   d = da - (m + 4) * 153 / 5 + 122;  //This won't calculate the correct fraction of a day as noted in the algorithm. Day will be the correct whole day number.
   T = jDNum - (int)jDNum;;  //fractional part of the Julian day number
   T -= 0.5;  //because the Julian day starts at noon
   if(T < 0.0)
       T += 1;
   d += T;   //add fraction of a Julian day
   *year = y - 4800 + (m + 2) / 12;
   *month = (m + 2) % 12 + 1;
   *day = d + 1;

}/*void jDToProlepticGregorianDate(double jDNum, int *month, double *day, int *year)*/

Generally you should not use the proleptic Gregorian calendar and you can find Julian day to date and vise versa algorithms in and astronomical algorithms book. I recommend Astronomical Algorithms by Jean Meeus. Also isn't Borland C++ pretty ancient? Senor Cuete (talk) 20:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Now that I study this farther, I think that your problem is the way you messed with the '&' and '*' chars. There are two ways to send variables to a C function. They are call by value and call by reference. In call by value, a copy of the variable is passed to the function. In call by reference a pointer to a variable is passed to the function. This second method allows you to alter the value of a variable in the calling environment. The function prototype expects a Julian date, and a POINTER to the month, day and year. It uses the copy of the JD and alters the value of the month, day and year in the calling environment using pointers. Try this:

Include the function prototype in your .c file:

void jDToProlepticGregorianDate(double jDNum, int *month, double *day, int *year)

create the variables:

int month, year; double day;

call the function like this:

jDToProlepticGregorianDate(2456498.0, &month, &day, &year);

The '&' char tells the program that you are passing pointers to month, day and year.

Set a break point in your code to stop the execution after the function call and look at the values of month, day and year. They should be correct. I tested the !@#$% out of this function to be sure it's correct. Senor Cuete (talk) 20:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Senor Cuete

That function prototype you used with the ampersands shouldn't even compile. You can save yourself a lot of trouble by setting your compiler to be strict, for example requiring prototypes. Senor Cuete (talk) 23:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Senor Cuete

You wrote: "Here is my corrections..." you obviously "corrected" it so it won't work. Senor Cuete (talk) 15:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Senor Cuete

October 2013[edit]

Hi. I see you have never been blocked. I am keen to help you keep it that way. I would therefore counsel you to discontinue edit-warring against consensus at Bikini Atoll and Castle Bravo. Also, nationalistic personal attacks like this one are blockworthy in and of themselves. They will additionally tend to make you come across as clueless, given that WP:ALUM has nothing to do with nationalism but merely mandates that chemistry-related articles follow certain spelling rules. I want to be clear that I am not personally offering to block you if you continue with your aberrant behaviour, but please do take this as a final warning in relation to your edit-warring and combative editing. Thanks. --John (talk) 17:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

To use your own English: BALDERDASH, what CODSWALLOP. You are a worse offender than I am when it comes to edit warring. You have reverted many more times than I have, violating the three revert rule much worse than I. You have engaged in many more person attacks than I have. Your claims of editorial consensus are a delusion. WAAAAA! What a big baby you are - grow up. The purpose of discussion pages is to improve Wikipedia and sometimes these discussions are acrimonious. Senor Cuete (talk) 18:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

  • I have no opinion on who is more of an edit warrior, but I do know that your personal attacks, Senor Cuete, have gone far enough. You said, "Wikipedia has a problem with British chauvinist editors that use their accounts only for violating WP:ENGVAR" (diff cited above). Well, that's not only unlikely (see this edit count--140,000 edits just to violate ENGVAR and he never got caught?) but also an unwarranted personal attack. Differences of opinion are fine, but this is not. If I had seen the above "big baby" nonsense after warning you for the chauvinist stuff, I would have blocked you already. Please consider this a warning--the next breach of decorum will deserve a block. Drmies (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

You are mis-interpreting my statement that "Wikipedia has a problem with British chauvinist editors that use their accounts only for violating WP:ENGVAR". Nowhere do I accuse User:John of this. This is merely the expression of an opinion. In this dispute User:John engaged in an edit war in two articles: Bikini atoll and Castle bravo. He only lowered himself to discuss this on the talk page of the Castle bravo article after he was reverted four times. Furthermore he made the following personal attacks against me:

I am not sure if it is a reading problem or a comprehension problem, or something else
Please go and read the two so you know what you are talking about before you embarrass yourself further
A little hard of reading, are we?
you don't seem to know that much about the topic
I partially apologise for tarring you with the same brush as User:Senor Cuete who has been the worst offender in this silly business.
I strongly oppose any change in the long-standing policy for reasons that your behaviour and that of Senor Cuete make obvious.
They will additionally tend to make you come across as clueless

Yet looking at his talk page I see that you haven't threatened him with a block as you did me. Do you care to comment? Senor Cuete (talk) 21:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

More personal attacks from USER:John:
you don't seem to know that much about the topic
you have to know which spelling is which. I'm not confident that either of you do
you don't actually know one spelling from the other.
Also to tarl neustetter:
All that is required is reading the material rather than reverting it. Are you able to do that?
"All Animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others." George Orwell - Animal farm


The sound file is part of a project being done by students at Tec de Monterrey. The file is labeled as such in Commons [1] I noted "Spanish" on the pronunciation because the speaker is not a Nahuatl speaker, but rather is providing the pronunciation of Spanish speakers of the place name. In a number of place names derived from indigenous languages in Wikipedia, APA is provided for the Nahuatl pronunciation and the Hispanicized version. So I tried to note that the sound file is NOT the pronunciation of a native Nahuatl speaker but yet of someone who is from Mexico (City). If you can think of a better way to label this, please let me know. We are working on more sound files. If you know any native Nahuatl speakers in the Mexico City area who would like to work with us for a session or two to provide the "indigenous" pronunciation (for lack of better term). We are doing this because we have access to a sound studio and a student working in sound engineering.Thelmadatter (talk) 15:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

November 2013[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Castle Bravo. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. VQuakr (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

No YOU are engaged in a edit war. Reverting an edit and asking an editor to discuss his edit on the article's talk page is the polite way to resolve a dispute. If you read the discussion of this reference as a un-verifiable you would see that I discussed the edit before making it and user:john agreed with me and removed the other citation to the film (which you didn't revert). Yes, wikipedia is not a democracy two to one is not a consensus. Still your suggestion that I write to the network is preposterous and confirms that the source can't be verified. Senor Cuete (talk) 17:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Your last four edits on that page are reverts, and your definition of "can't be verified" is not in line with policy. VQuakr (talk) 19:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Two of these are yours and I discussed this before making edits, unlike you. Senor Cuete (talk) 20:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Mayan Calendar[edit]

Moved from my user page:

Thank you for your thoughtful review of my attempted edit to your Mayan Calendar article. I accept all of your criticisms and fully agree with your decision to revert that edit. The only way in which I do not regret having temporarily messed up your work is in that I have benefited from your instruction.

I also agree with your observation that using a calendar converter is less prone to error. Perhaps you can obtain permission to incorporate one of your design as a graphic into your article. Google:"Mayan Julian calendar calculator" lists several converters. I like the format of this modified version of Fourmilab's Calendar Converter. Howard McCay (talk) 16:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Important point: It's not MY article although I did write a lot of it. My main focus has been to eliminate factual errors. If it was MINE I would make some major changes, like merging it with the Long Count article and eliminating some sections like the Maya concepts of time and the Calculating a full Long Count date section of the Long Count article. I would eliminate all of the references to the 584285 (Thompson) correlation because this is wrong and this debate should have been settled in 1950. I don't know what you are referring to when you say "one of your design as a graphic into your article". I use a commercial Maya calendar app for the Macintosh to do the conversions. You should discuss this on my talk page or on the talk page of the article, not here on my user page. I'll look at the converter to which you refer. Senor Cuete (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Criticisms of Fourmilab's converter: Fourmilab's converter says the start date of the Maya calendar is is wrong. It's in all known inscriptions. This date only corresponds to August 11 in the proleptic Gregorian calendar, a revisionist calendar that revises all dates to what they would have been if the Gregorian calendar had been in use before Julian calendar reform in 1582. This calendar is only used by Mayanists and nobody else, so dates converted to this calendar can't be used for other purposes like checking Mayan inscriptions against astronomy programs. This is because astronomers (and everyone else except mayanists) use the historically correct Julian calendar for pre-Gregorian dates and the proleptic Julian calendar for dates before that. For this reason converters that use the proleptic Gregorian calendar are (IMHO) worthless. Astronomical algorithms texts don't even acknowledge the existence of the proleptic Gregorian calendar. The note about BC dates is wrong. There is a year zero in astronomical dating but not in historical dating. The note says that this is a feature of the Gregorian calendar, which is wrong. The proleptic Gregorian calendar uses Historical, not astronomical dating. September 6th, -3113 Julian calendar should convert to 13(0). 4 Ahau 8 Kumku. Fourmilab's converter converts this to 9 Kumku 6 Kimi. This is wrong. It's just about impossible to find a converter that will do the conversions correctly, using the real western calendar. Senor Cuete (talk) 17:04, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
On further review, it looks like the converter does Julian date conversions right but it uses astronomical dating for proleptic Gregorian dates and historical dating for Julian dates. This is uh... interesting. Senor Cuete (talk) 23:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I found a converter that appears to do the conversions correctly and uses the Julian/Gregorian calendar:
FAMSI's site has a lot of interesting material worth looking at, like the rollouts of maya ceramics. It would be worthwhile to add a link to this converter. Senor Cuete (talk) 15:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


So we now have inconsistent spelling of this in the article. Bravo! Ericoides (talk) 15:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

If there are other instances of spelling it with a hyphen, they should be removed as well. Getting reverted is a fact of Wikipedia. It's not that bad. Senor Cuete (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
My point is that if you start reverting edits you'd better have a good reason for doing so, especially when "two-thirds" is the generally preferred spelling.[2],[3],[4] All you have achieved is to make the spelling inconsistent -- and, if not incorrect, then certainly unusual -- in the article, which is unhelpful. Regards, Ericoides (talk) 16:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Those article to which you link give either spelling as correct. The place to look for a standard would be in the Wikipedia style guide. The article is full of incorrect use of the hyphen. Senor Cuete (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Here is Wikipedia's style guide regarding the use of hyphens: I am going out and I don't have time to read it right now, but will when I return. Senor Cuete (talk) 16:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
No they don't. Two of them give two-thirds as correct, one gives two-thirds as preferred (it's listed first), but says two thirds is OK. So by any account, two-thirds is the preferred spelling. I am quite happy for you to change all of them to two thirds, but the original change you made introduced inconsistency into the spelling of that word (I'm sure other hyphens are incorrect too, but that's not the point). Ericoides (talk) 16:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia's guidelines discuss when to use hyphenation but don't describe this exact situation. I looked at various manuals of style as well and they say that when two words are combined to make an adverb of adjective they should be hyphenated but when they are combined to make a noun they shouldn't. Using this principle it would be: three-fourths noun but three fourths of a noun. There seems to be a trend in modern English (particularly American English) not to hyphenate fractions but the hyphenated form of fractions is still widely in use. So, if you feel strongly that it should be hyphenated then add a hyphen to the fractions. Senor Cuete (talk) 16:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into it, appreciated. I'd better steer clear of that article because you have undone so many hyphens that are there correctly that I might have a seizure if I were to start editing it... Que te la pases bien. Ericoides (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Pink salmon[edit]

You deletion here appears to be unwarranted. If you think you have a coherent case for your removal of this section then explain what it is on the article talk page. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I guess you haven't actually read read the article's talk page, where I posted my reason for deleting it IN ADVANCE. How crass. Senor Cuete (talk) 00:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for removing the text where you called me "Crass". This was an unwarranted personal attack. Let me reiterate: You should have read the talk page in question before you advised me to read it. Senor Cuete (talk) 02:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)