I found the article during my research for Paleoamericans. This is an article from a very interesting book - The Alphabet - about the evolution of human languages. This book was published in 1988 by Dr. C.Siamakis. It contains vast catalogs of sources and references. This book is used for over 10 years as a scientific reference in several universities in Greece and US and many scientific papers. So I decided to publish a very interesting theory contained in this book about Aztecs and Mayas. There are several scientific articles about the origins of native Americans so the theory in this article is very simple and obvious to explain the aztecs 260-days calendar. I believe that wikipedia - to which I am donator for years - is an open knowledge source for all so I decided to include a simple link in this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.85.80.205 (talk) 18:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, Wikipedia is not open to wild unsubstantiated fringe theories, hence my labeling the article as WP:FRINGE and not a WP:RELIABLESOURCE. Yes there is a plethora of wild speculation about the reason for the 260 day calendar but wild speculation is not appropriate for an Encyclopedia. The truth is that nobody knows where the 260 day cycle came from. Also that article is poor, self contradictory and does not cite any primary or secondary sources. You should discuss this on the Aztec calendar talk page and see if any other contributors agree with you. Senor Cuete (talk) 23:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I read the article at nature.com. Yes, it's established scientific fact that native Americans migrated from Asia, 12,000 years or more ago, but connecting this with the 260 day calendar is not realistic for a lot of reasons. When main-stream scholarship accepts Dr. Siamakis' theories it can be in the article. Senor Cuete (talk) 23:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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". 159.253.145.150 (talk) 02:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 Amazon.com 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[reply]

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[reply]

"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 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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[reply]

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[reply]

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 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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 70.110.24.193, 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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

Deleted - "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." -The great and powerful OZ. Senor Cuete (talk) 00:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in responding. The best source for JDN, Gregorian, and Julian date conversions (including mathematical proofs) can be found at http://web.archive.org/web/20140910060704/http:/mysite.verizon.net/aesir_research/date/date0.htm

--Peter Baum (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Two of these are yours and I discussed this before making edits, unlike you. Senor Cuete (talk) 20:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Criticisms of Fourmilab's converter: Fourmilab's converter says the start date of the Maya calendar is 0.0.0.0.0.This is wrong. It's 13.0.0.0.0 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).0.0.0.0 4 Ahau 8 Kumku. Fourmilab's converter converts this to 0.0.1.0.0 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I found a converter that appears to do the conversions correctly and uses the Julian/Gregorian calendar:

http://research.famsi.org/date_mayaLC.php

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Here is Wikipedia's style guide regarding the use of hyphens: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

WP:HYPHEN, sub-subsection 3, point 4, says "A hyphen is not used after a standard -ly adverb (a newly available home, a wholly owned subsidiary)". Please read, understand, and follow the MoS. Or, you can just leave hyphens alone and let other editors handle them. Chris the speller ^yack 15:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tlaltecuhtli, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reliable source. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Denisarona. Your recent edit to the page 1178 appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Denisarona (talk) 06:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The edit you reverted on the 1178 article DID NOT ADD INCORRECT INFORMATION. It corrected the glaring grammatically and factually incorrect statements that attribute events in the past to the present. I will make a detailed explanation of my reasons for this on the talk page of the template. Senor Cuete (talk) 14:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I and other editors have told you, it is necessary to follow the information as detailed in WP:DAYS. Regards Denisarona (talk) 06:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Days is terrible and in the discussion various editors point out that the use of the present tense for this violates all kinds of guidelines. Then one bully editor declares that his side has achieved victory and this can no longer be discussed. This is so wrong. I'll be out of the country for a while and when I get back I'll discuss this further. Senor Cuete (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DAYS is terrible is a matter of opinion. The use of the Historic Present does not violate guidelines. You might like to refer to the Oxford English Dictionary for the definition of the Historic Present and note that it is within guidelines. Regards Denisarona (talk) 07:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Balderdash! The Oxford English Dictionary doesn't have guidelines for Wikipedia. Senor Cuete (talk) 13:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that they had. They do have guidelines for the use of the Historic Present and useful explanation for its use. Denisarona (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I moved this article because I created a template Rulers of Palenque, I found this version of his name in latest sources like:

• Martin, Simon; Nikolai Grube (2008). Chronicle of the Maya Kings and Queens: Deciphering the Dynasties of the Ancient Maya (2nd ed.). London and New York: Thames & Hudson. p. 168. ISBN 9780500287262. OCLC 191753193.
• Skidmore, Joel (2010). The Rulers of Palenque (PDF) (Fifth ed.). Mesoweb Publications. p. 74. Retrieved 12 October 2015.

former version I have seen in older sources from 70s-90s. I want to add sources when I get to this article, for now I'm working on others from Palenque dynasty. Feel free to revert my changes. Regards Mały koleżka (talk) 09:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - you removed the Wikivoyage link from Tulum citing it as promotional in nature, but Wikivoyage is a Wikimedia project. Much like Commons, sister project links are typically added to articles when the subject is covered on multiple wikis. Currently there are thousands of Wikivoyage (and Wikiquote, Wikispecies, Commons...) links across Wikipedia, and those sister projects also link back to the corresponding article on Wikipedia. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are all sorts of wikis but this doesn't mean that they can be used as references for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and links are required to be encyclopedic. The official criteria for reliable sources specifically prohibit links to wikis like the one you added as "promotional". Wikipedia is not used as advertising. Senor Cuete (talk) 15:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, this was not advertising, it is a sister project link to another Wikimedia project - Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects encourages adding a Wikivoyage link to any article when the interwiki link contains useful information ("Wikipedia encourages links from Wikipedia articles to pages on sister projects when such links are likely to be useful to our readers, and interlingual crosslinking to articles on foreign-language editions of Wikipedia whenever such links are possible."). -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of hotels with costs of lodging ARE advertising. Senor Cuete (talk) 01:08, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent rant on the talkpage is nothing but a paragraph long personal attack. It contains no arguments except for ad hominems and no sources. You have been extremely an unpleasant and nasty in this whole exchange and has not observed a single of our basic policies. Really you should be blocked for it. I admit that my initial interpretation of the facts was wrong, because I didnt realize that it was only the current cycles that had abnormal lengths, but thought that this was a general undecidedness between 13 or 20. But several experts, none of whom are fringe, have now explained to me what is the current mainstream view among Mayanists, namely that the Maya did not observe the standard length of cycles for the present cycle, but instead added a short 13 cycle to the subsequent 20 cycle. You were right that Sharer and Traxler were incorrect in considering the number 13 to be the standard number of bak'tuns in a piktun, but I was right in noting that one piktun (the most significant one) having 13 bak'tuns. This is what the article currently says and it is backed up by several sources. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maunus: You have some personal problem that is effecting your judgement. You are always right and you always have to win. You resent anyone that knows more about anything than you do. You take all disputes personally. If you were rational you would welcome the contributions of other experts that know more about something than you because this improves the articles. It's not about you, it's about improving Wikipedia. You're a bully. Yes, dealing with bullies is unpleasant. Take a deep breath and look into the mirror. Senor Cuete (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would have been very happy to consider you argument already in September IF YOU HAD PROVIDED A SINGLE SOURCE IN SUPPORT OF IT. I have never claimed to be an expert in Maya calendrics, I have taken classes on the topic, but I am not an expert and the fact is it doesnt interest me much. It is very possible that you are an expert in Maya calendrics, But Wikipedia requires sources for claims and you havent provided any - you have used your own OR to try to convince us that Sharer and Traxler were wrong, and that Stuart is a fool and that Van Stone says something other than what he clearly says. You have asked me and everyone else to simply take your word for your claims against the words of the experts I have cited. Instead of explaining why I was wrong you used personal insults - and I had to find the correct answers by writing experts myself. And yes I take it personal when people use personal attacks instead of arguments and sources.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And about calling me "a bully": You tried inserting material into an article, the material contradicted the given source and you did not provide an alternative source. You were reverted, and asked for arguments and to build consensus. That is not bullying that is following policy. You immediately called me a bully after reverting you. I asked for sources and noted the article (which I did not write!) already had a source which is widely regarded and respected as the major source on classic Maya culture and history. You said the source was wrong and provided no evidence for the claim. I looked for more sources, they also clearly mentioned the fact that a 13 Baktun piktun exists. And hence I was even less inclined to accept your claims. You still provided no arguments, but began attacking me. I started an RfC, found more sources and corresponded with two experts, and modified my claim in accordance with their advise and rewrote the article. You then wrote an entire paragraph of personal attacks, accusations of bad faith. YOU ARE THE BULLY. And you are an intellectually dishonest one who unable to mount an argument for your position resorts to lashing out. So no, I am not letting you bully your bald claims into the article, but I am entirely willing to consider arguments and sources and to correct my perspective accordingly.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Senor Cuete, for participating in the editing of the Gordon Wasson article. This was removed first by 92.233.116.110 on April 29, then by 87.239.254.119 on May 7, and again by 92.233.116.110 this morning. I am going to try again to re-insert the information about Wasson's link to MK-Ultra Subproject 58, providing additional reliable secondary source information as well as the primary source information, and I appreciate your support. JerryRussell (talk) 16:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am skeptical of this claim but the IP editor's reason for deleting it is that it's not sourced. Material that cites a reliable source can stay. Senor Cuete (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Poza Rica, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Huastec. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brass, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cartridge. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:47, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John C. H. Grabill, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the .
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Theroadislong (talk) 19:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For your excellent work on John C. H. Grabill Theroadislong (talk) 19:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I reverted a contravention of WP:ENGVAR by an anon editor. I cannot understand why you have twice reverted my restoration of the original spelling which has been there since 2007. Perhaps my edit summary was misleading? Please see the talk page (Talk:Winter solstice). Dbfirs 14:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, the American English spelling "center" was there for years. The British English spelling was there for a day as "centre" PLEASE READ WP:ENGVAR. It's not OK under the rules of Wikipedia to change the version of English in articles. Senor Cuete (talk) 23:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have mis-read the situation. Please look at the page history and revert your reversion per WP:ENGVAR. An anon IP placed the American spelling there briefly, and I reverted the change according to policy. It's the British spelling that was there for nine years. Dbfirs 23:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the spelling error you pointed out at Talk:Castle Bravo. Do you see other problems? (AND PLEASE STOP SHOUTING, though I'll assume that was just to draw attention to the comment, even though I instead found it by checking the difference.) RJFJR (talk) 14:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copying the whole text in question into the article's talk page is a HORRIBLE idea. It's very hard to follow and comment as you point out by saying that you found my comment only by looking at the history. What were you thinking? Don't refer to yourself as "we". Senor Cuete (talk) 02:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It occurred to me later that I could have created a subpage for the possible changes, but that approach doesn't seem like a great alternative. We refers to me, you and all the other editors. RJFJR (talk) 14:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The right thing to do would have been to edit the article. And don't presume to speak for me or any other editors. It's patronizing. Senor Cuete (talk) 14:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did edit the article and you reverted it with the summary "WTF?" and my spelling error. Because of one spelling error you reverted several edits rather than fixing one spelling error. I was bold an tried to improve the subheadings, you reverted, now BRD says we have to discuss. Since you objected to all my changes I needed some way to discuss it so I listed the proposed changes. I apologize if you thought I sounded patronizing; I was intending to ask for editors to work with me. RJFJR (talk) 17:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that was some kind of vocabulary error - no such thing as "deutronium". Senor Cuete (talk) 19:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Señor Cuete you probably will laugh at me - I am absolutely not very tech savvy, I saw the format on other biographical pages, looked at how it was inserted into the text and simply copied it, by replacing the dates/details/names relevant to the particular page. I had noticed that editors to pages that I had originally started did precisely that. On the subject of J. H. C. Grabill, I have just now written to the Archivist of the Deadwood SD historical archives with the request to check and see if Grabill possibly might have been photographed among the group photos of local organizations such as the International Order of Odd Fellows, the Masonic Lodge or Chamber of Commerce. It is a long shot for sure, but certainly worth a try. I am in California and thus too distant from the Black Hills region to do it in person, although have been in these parts numerous times over the years. If I may ask you the favor to let me know the full contents of the death certificate you have (place of burial, names of parents, name of informant, funeral home, attending doctor) could give me clues where to start exploring more on the subject. I know that I could simply order a copy myself, but that likely takes weeks and thus would greatly appreciate any help. Thks, Von Bern — Preceding unsigned comment added by Von Bern (talk • contribs) 16:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't have the death certificate at hand so I won't be able to get it for a while. Yes, it seems like the birth date must be wrong. Somewhere I read that he was from Ohio and that his mother's name was Catherine Keys. Yes, Grabill has baffled researchers. Now that more and more newspapers are online it should get easier. An exception to this is that Chicago newspapers don't have much about him. It seems that after his studio in Chicago failed, he dropped out of sight. A few years ago I was going to ride my bicycle around the Black Hills and I stopped to visit the library in Sturgis where I asked about what material they had on Grabill. That's where I got the death certificate. Senor Cuete (talk) 17:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Señor Cuete - I have been busy these past couple of days and thanks to your input I got the right cues to search a bit more. I think I have been able to identify the origin of J H C Grabill. I really would like to communicate with you personally and directly about this and furnish you the scans of the documentation that I found. If possible, and it would be greatly appreciated, would you mind to communicate with me at englisberg at gmail dot com ? I found the transcript of the death record, was able to identify the man that died in 1934 which i believe is not the photographer. I positively identified that J H C Grabill did indeed have a natural son, born in 1887 in Lead SD - Ralph Gillespie Grabill - who lived in Denver CO, then for a while in Beverly Hills CA and returned back to Denver by the latter 1930s. The middle name of course was the clue to his true identity. I think I also found the true family of J H C Grabill, his father's name was David and he was born in Virginia - his mother's name was Catherine with matches what you had stated. Grabill was born in 1850 in Ohio, I have him in the 1850 and 1860 census, the earlier one his is billed as "Babe [meaning infant] Grabill, male, age "0" - so he was less than 1 year old when the census was taken. I'd like to furnish to you these documents and you can decide what to do with it as I feel that this is your article. I look forward to communicate with you - my name is Daniel Guggisberg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Von Bern (talk • contribs) 05:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership of articles is strictly forbidden - as it should be. If you found a better birth date you should put it in the article. Because you found a different birth date, this doesn't prove that the man who died in Peoria, Illinois wasn't the photographer. Since J. C. H. Grabill is such a unique name and because it's close to his last known location in Chicago, it's probably the same Grabill on the death certificate. I'll try to get the death certificate this week. Also I'll contact you vie e-mail. Senor Cuete (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's diverse IPs, can't easily block them. But I did (re)protect the article. DMacks (talk) 14:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm no fan of Oxford commas, in this case [5] I felt that a comma would better distinguish between the first two clauses, which discussed Fontenelle Dam, and the last, which concerned Teton Dam. Ive been accused of underusing commas, so if it looks funny to me there might be something there. Acroterion (talk) 13:52, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some style guides want them and some don't. In the United States they are used less than in Britain. They are not always used with all "and"s. They are more common in comma-delimited lists, i.e. blah, blah, and blah. I worked for a publisher and some authors insisted on using them and others wouldn't. Should articles use whatever contributors type, or should they be consistent? Senor Cuete (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think iIt's one of Wikipedia's eternal mysteries. Acroterion (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cuete: I previously suggested that two of the illustrations of the article "Jade use in Mesoamerica" should be removed. Although it is my considered opinion that these are fakes, my main point is this: Wiki articles should not be illustrated with objects without known provenance and whose authenticity has not been established, since dubious illustrations damage the reliability and reputation of the encyclopedia. I hope we can agree on that.Retal (talk) 08:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. The provenance of these images would be useful. However your opinion that they are fake is original research or NPOV. Senor Cuete (talk) 13:16, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since you agree, I have removed the two unprovenanced, dubious objects and used better ones instead.Retal (talk) 20:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's the deal with the unexplained reversion of my edit? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What it said was incorrect. For example, the valley wasn't created by the eruption - it was already there. It was partially filled with ash during the eruption. I didn't think that your edit improved the article. Senor Cuete (talk) 00:44, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No need to revert everything without so much as a note in the edit summary, including the addition of sources unrelated to the issue you're reverting. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:54, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you reverted my edit to Castle Bravo. Please see my message on Talk:Castle Bravo for a comment on why I disagree with your revert. --Gerrit ^CUTEDH 21:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Johnny Winter. 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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
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. Laser brain (talk) 18:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are mistaken. I reverted the other editor twice and asked him to discuss the issue on the article talk page. I had already created a discussion there. Senor Cuete (talk) 18:09, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not mistaken, sorry. This is a standard warning about edit warring so you can't claim you didn't know about our policies if we have to report you. Edit warring can be any series of reverts, even if you technically don't break the 3RR rule. --Laser brain (talk) 18:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are mistaken. I reverted his edits twice and I had already started a discussion on the talk page. When you are reverted you are expected not to add the content back until it's discussed on the talk page - as you did. Also your style of typing a space after the colons is unusual - like the other editor? "try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement" - like you didn't do? Senor Cuete (talk) 18:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I wanted to let you know that this statement is a serious breach of Wikipedia policy and Ojorojo and I request that you retract it immediately. Please review WP:ASPERSIONS for some background, but accusing other editors of serious misbehavior (sockpuppetry, in this case) without evidence is unacceptable. Just because Ojorojo and I agree on certain points does not mean we are sockpuppets. If you refuse to retract the statement, I will post about it on the admin noticeboard where you may face sanctions. --Laser brain (talk) 13:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What a hypocrite whiner you are. I reverted your edit and started a discussion on the talk page. You accused me of edit warring. You repeatedly posted personal attacks in behalf of you and your sock puppet. Now you're tell me I need to learn how to behave on Wikipedia. No I won't retract it. Instead I'm reviewing the procedure on how to file a sock puppet investigation. Senor Cuete (talk) 15:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I don't see a SPI filing (with evidence) or a retraction shortly, I'll be posting to the administrative noticeboard. --Laser brain (talk) 16:04, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have it your way. I'll be at home tomorrow and I'll file the SPI. Senor Cuete (talk) 22:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Laser brain (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Senor Cuete, I have removed your unsubstantiated accusations at Talk:Johnny_Winter#Unauthorized/gray_market_compilations. The purpose of talk page discussions is to engage in a civil manner with other editors and discuss different viewpoints, with the hopes to reach a consensus. For a longtime editor like yourself, you must conduct your editing behaviour in a better manner. When more experienced editors have explained their viewpoint(s) to you in detail, the correct thing to do is to read their viewpoint(s) carefully, and focus your response on their comments only. Refusal to get the point after the consensus has emerged is not an option. Resorting to unsubstantiated accusations, as explained to you above, is never acceptable and subject to immediate sanction.

Now, part of your negative feelings appears to have derived from being called out on your language ability; I can understand that, as English is not my first language. But this reflection was not unsubstantiated; your comments and responses in Talk:Johnny_Winter, from the perspective of a disinterested editor, for a lack of better words, were mostly incoherent and failed to address any points raised by these other editors, while continuing to repeat the same words. If you would like to return to that discussion, please re-read the comments by these other three editors again, and ask for clarification on parts that you may be unsure about. Please do not make another revert at the article. Regards, Alex Shih (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No you are wrong and apparently didn't read the talk page. ojorojo reverted completely well-sourced material without an explanation. I reverted this and started a discussion on the talk page asking him to discuss this. He reverted this WITHOUT DISCUSSING IT. Then I reverted him to force him to discuss it He re-added it a third time - engaging in a edit war. At this point another editor reverted his edit and he was forced to discuss it. Then lazerbrain got into it, using EXACTLY THE SAME WORDS to insult me with personal attacks. This was why I think that ojorojo is a sock puppet for lazerbrain. I AM a native speaker of English and I am EXTREMELY literate. If someone doesn't understand what is going on here it is you - admittedly challenged in English. If you really were an expert on the rules of Wikipedia you would know that editing someone elses's posts on a talk page is strictly forbidden. Senor Cuete (talk) 22:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also READ THE TALK PAGE again and you will see that a consensus has not been reached, or if it has, it's that ojorojo's edits were unacceptable and that the text he removed will stay. Senor Cuete (talk) 22:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I have blocked your account for one week based on the persistent disruptive editing behaviour. To appeal this block, you may follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. Another administrator will review your case. In the meanwhile, you may want to re-read Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_others'_comments. Alex Shih (talk) 02:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it necessary for you to be so unpleasant? Please stop adding personal commentary at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bespoke, and please start signing your posts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia strongly discourages personal attacks. Senor Cuete (talk) 14:56, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for restoring the edit once you found it. Since we moved Template:Lang to use Module:Lang, it errors if you use an illegitimate language code:

{{lang|xxx|Foo}} → [Foo] Error: {{Lang}}: unrecognized language code: xxx (help)

And it automatically adds articles to the right hidden category — you can see Category:Articles containing Classical Nahuatl-language text at the bottom of Aztec calendar if you have hidden categories enabled, for example. The only bug it has there now is that if the category doesn't already exist, it shows as a category redlink instead of a hidden category. It even correctly identifies language groups, so {{lang}} will add Category:Articles with text from the Germanic languages collective, for example, rather than Category:Articles containing Germanic-language text, like it used to.

Either way, you shouldn't need to worry too much illegitimate codes anymore, thankfully :) — OwenBlacker (talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 22:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not crazy about this "feature". My browser renders the text tagged with this template in a different font - typically leaning forward like italic text. I don't see how this will improve some articles. Senor Cuete (talk) 23:57, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re. my twice reverted edit to Caving:

You do not understand the problem.

Original text: "Many caving skills overlap with those involved in canyoning, mine and urban exploration."

Revision: "Many caving skills overlap with those involved in canyoning, and mine and urban exploration."

My comment: "This is a clear grammar issue. Alternatives are: "canyon, mine and urban exploration", or "canyoning, mine exploration and urban exploration"; the original wording is simply wrong."

Your comment: "No, NOT grammar, punctuation. lists are punctuated as , , , , and."

I don't think you actually read my comment. I suggest you read my proffered alternatives again, carefully.

I admit I don't understand the distinction you are drawing between grammar and punctuation.

I know how to punctuate a list. The problem is that the word "exploration" has been dropped from "mine exploration", and the "and" now functions to link the two forms of exploration. The list is therefore only two items long: "canyoning", and "mine and urban exploration".

Look: "Many caving skills overlap with those involved in canyoning." Correct.

"Many caving skills overlap with those involved in mine." Incorrect, because "mine" here is just an adjective without a predicate.

"Many caving skills overlap with those involved in urban exploration." Correct.

"Many caving skills overlap with those involved in mine and urban exploration." Correct.

"Johnny likes apples, bananas, and ham sandwiches." O

"Johnny likes apples, banana and ham sandwiches." X

"Johnny likes apples, and banana and ham sandwiches." O

"We have coffee, decaf, green tea, and black tea." O

"We have coffee, decaf, green and black tea." X

"We have coffee, decaf, and green and black tea." O

Listen, if you understand what I'm driving at, great. If you don't, consider the possibility that I do, and that maybe this isn't a case of you helpfully controlling the overzealous editing of someone who knows less than you.

I'm going to fix it a third time. Please don't revert it. I know what I'm doing. If you can't accept the revision on aesthetic grounds, you may prefer "canyon, mine, and urban exploration", which neatly solves the problem, at the risk of some editor insisting that "canyon exploration" is not equivalent to "canyoning"; I generally try to avoid moves of this kind, because I have no domain-specific expertise. I just correct grammar, about which I do have domain expertise. But you may feel comfortable doing so.

Regulov (talk) 01:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Get a grip Regulov. Leitmotiv already agreed with you (sort of). You are over-reacting to this very trivial matter. Senor Cuete (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"(sort of)" Regulov (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

I don't see anything relevant to me. I think that this was sent to me in error. Senor Cuete (talk) 19:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Senor Cuete, I just wanted to drop a line to say a couple things. I was looking over the discussion that you were having on Tlaltecuhtli with a student editor. I appreciate that you were pointing out policies to them to help make them a more effective editor. However, I think you were doing so in a demoralizing way that did not assume good faith. Please correct them when they go afoul of policies but maintain civility when doing so. The student editor in question has a genuine desire to improve the article that they are working on and is making some good progress. Remember that we all have an obligation to treat other editors with respect. Thanks, Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:47, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your program sux. Wikipedia was fine without it. It was your program that cast poor Clara into the cruel world of Wikipedia editing. She is obviously an excellent researcher and did very well. Simple declarative English doesn’t include nuance. You can’t tell what someone’s motives or feelings are by reading it, unless you are telepathic, which you apparently are. I was not uncivil. One should refrain from describing himself as "we" when expressing his opinion. "We" don’t always agree. Respect can’t be demanded, only earned. Wikipedia strongly discourages personal attacks. One would be better off to mind his own business. Nobody died and appointed you as the Pope of Wikipedia. You’re not my mommy. See WP:Singular they. Senor Cuete (talk) 14:45, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that a user who has been editing for several years would know by now that civility is a core tenet of this site. I am happy to remind you of this pillar, and will gladly do so as needed in the future :) Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By several years I guess that you mean more than ten. A huge problem with Wikipedia is a small number of senior editors who have promoted themselves to elite status, for example as administrators. Most of these Wikipedia mafiosi apparently are shut-ins that have no life outside of Wikipedia. They work together to beat up on anyone that disagrees with one of them, even if it means a crappy article. They think that they should tell everyone what to do. It looks to me that you are aspiring to achieve this great goal. Feeling that you have to control everyone else is a personality disorder. Another thing: you use you real identity on one of your user pages. This is a bad idea. I don't do this because I don't have my ego involved in this. All I want is good articles. I don't profit from this. Beware of Hubris. Senor Cuete (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Senor Cuete, I have blocked your account indefinitely due to the long-term pattern of grossly inappropriate personal attacks (like the one directly above) against several different editors across different pages, despite of being asked to stop on multiple occasions. You can appeal this block by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks, or alternatively, ask for someone (including myself) to post a block review at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Alex Shih (talk) 19:14, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]