User talk:SteveMcCluskey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Hello, welcome to my talk page!

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.

Thank you!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I'm always excited to see new editors on history of science-related articles, especially (assuming your username is who you are) established scholars. Here is some of the boilerplate for new editors, some of which you might find useful:


Hello, SteveMcCluskey, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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 someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

You might also be interested in the History of Science WikiProject, which is an attempt to coordinate work on anything remotely related to the history of science. Its a good place to get feedback from like-minded editors. User:Maestlin in particular might share some of your interests. I hope you find editing Wikipedia to be a rewarding experience.--ragesoss 18:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

SB dates[edit]

Thanks for your note, details here. Rich Farmbrough 10:54 2 February 2010 (UTC).

GA reassessment[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Astronomy in medieval Islam has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments here . If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article.

The State Archives Of Assyria 18th century[edit]

Hi there Sir, What if i tell to someone (like you) that i have the original text book of The State Archives of Assyrian 18th Century,would you believe me? Do you believe in Ancient Gods from Egypt or (alien) Cosmic God (Orion) and their existence ? let's say the latest was last month December 3-11 ,2014. If i remember correctly from that date we had this scary sky Wrath from Gods as we knew it.Sorry for asking you these questions in this section, please sir i'm looking forward for your reply,it would be very much appreciated.Thank you and Happy New Year. fb:Kelly Lagasca Paladin a.k.a.UPDISC78 (talk)Hazel AlpakUPDISC78 (talk)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, SteveMcCluskey. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

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

"An original research" for you[edit]

Closed discussion on original research

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

@Q5968661: I don't see how this relates to our discussion at Talk:Lunisolar calendar.
As a technical aside, it would help the development of articles if you would login using your Username before making edits. In that way, you could be properly credited for your contributions and it would be clear who one is talking to when discussing improvements to articles. As it is, edits (which are apparently yours) have been appearing under a variety of IP addresses. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

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

@Q5968661: I presume you are aware that original research is not allowed in Wikipedia. That is one of the hardest things for academics to learn. We're used to the idea that an original discovery is a good thing; but on Wikipedia an original discovery is only acceptable if it has already been published in an independent, reliable source. Your links here to your own "original research" don't advance your case. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

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

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

@Q5968661: Without further context of what you plan to do with that simple calculation, I can't answer whether it's permitted on Wikipedia. Routine calculations are permitted on Wikipedia; however using calculations to demonstrate a point on which there is not agreement are not. For example, a calculation of a hypothetical table for the Julian and Gregorian calendars would not be acceptable without a discussion (including citation of reliable sources) showing that such a table accurately depicted the pattern that is found in the sources. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

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

For example

The epacts for the current Metonic cycle, which began in 2014, are:

Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Epact 29 10 21 2 13 24 5 16 27 8 19 * 11 22 3 14 25 6 17
Paschal Full Moon date 14A 3A 23M 11A 31M 18A 8A 28M 16A 5A 25M 13A 2A 22M 10A 30M 17A 7A 27M

(M = March, A = April)

This table can be extended for previous and following 19-year periods. A formula for paschal full moon date can be derived from the table and is valid from 1900 to 2199.

PFMd = 45 - (Y mod 19 × 11) mod 30
if Y mod 19 = 5 or 16, add 29
if Y mod 19 = 8 add 30
if the result is over 31, subtract 31 (and the month is April, instead of March)
For the example of 2013 (mod 19 = 18), PFMd = 45 - (18 × 11) mod 30 = 45 - 18 = 27M.

The formula can be changed as below

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

Do we need the sources for the procedure or not?

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

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

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

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

Day of March & April 22M 23M 24M 25M 26M 27M 28M Date of Easter Sunday
29M 30M 31M 1A 2A 3A 4A
5A 6A 7A 8A 9A 10A 11A
12A 13A 14A 15A 16A 17A 18A
19A 20A 21A 22A 23A 24A 25A
Dominical letter G A B C D E F 01 07 12 18
F G A B C D E 02 13 19 24
E F G A B C D 03 08 14 25
D E F G A B C 09 15 20 26
C D E F G A B 04 10 21 27
B C D E F G A 05 11 16 22
A B C D E F G 06 17 23 00
Centurial year 2000
Year - centurial year mod 28
For year 2017 (17, GN = 4): DL = A, corresponding Sundays = 26M 2A 9A 16A 23A, PFMd = 11A, so Easter Sunday = 16 April.
For year 1943 (15, GN = 6): DL = C, corresponding Sundays = 28M 4A 11A 18A 25A, PFMd = 18A, so Easter Sunday = 25 April.
For year 2100 (0, GN = 11): DL = C, corresponding Sundays = 28M 4A 11A 18A 25A, PFMd = 25M, so Easter Sunday = 28 March.

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

thanks for the help with Archaeocryptography[edit]

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

New Maya video trailer[edit]

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

Canada's Stonehenge[edit]

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

@Doug Weller: Thanks for bringing that one up; I've never heard of the site before and the book seems to be by an amateur. Of course, Alexander Thom was an amateur, but Freeman is no Alexander Thom. The site seems to relate to the family of Medicine Wheels, which have been studied for their astronomical functions. There is a short article on Medicine Wheels in Ruggles's Handbook but it doesn't mention this site or refer to this book.
Offhand, the article seems like a case of WP:BOOKSPAM or perhaps falls more appropriately under WP:ARTSPAM. If the latter, it might be open for deletion. An article on the purported astronomical site would be more appropriate than an article on the book. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:36, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
I'll ask at WP:FTN. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 20:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Done that. It's notable enough, found a a review in an archaeological magazine on it[1] (I presume you have access, if not, I've got a copy), so it would pass AfD. I also present to you the stub Majorville Cairn and Medicine Wheel site - if you can find time to improve it that would be great! Doug Weller talk 11:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: Thanks for the link to Yellowhorn's review in the Canadian Journal of Archaeology. He points out several details:
  • The Book is self-published.
  • The Author engages in "speculation that treads close to fiction".
  • "Too many passages pivot around conditional phrase structures, such as perhaps, presumably, seems to be, and might have been, that leave the impression of speculation where a conclusion ought to be."
I'll work some of that into the article on the book.--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)