User talk:Joe Kress

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

/Archive 2004/03/23–2006/10/08

Contents 1 Hipparchus and Meton 2 Need an opinion on these changes 3 Parilia and Easter 4 bottomfeeder? 5 Good catch, thanks! 6 Inter caetera 7 Hebrew Calendar 8 User talk:Darthvader1 9 By the way... 10 Unblock 11 Babylonian calendar 12 Of course the motion of the Earth affects travel time 13 Egyptian calendar 14 TAI and TT in Delta T 15 early medieval zeros 16 International Atomic Time 17 Gore & Globe 18 February name and references 19 Thanxies!!!! 20 Your interest in calendar reform. 21 Calendars 22 Comparison of World Calendar with Gregorian Calendar 23 Thank you "Royal Observatory, Greenwich" 24 Do you have details about Pravan Veda 25 End of consular dating 26 Sry 27 Prime Meridian 28 Treaty_of_Tordesillas 29 Hebrew calendar 30 IBMPC 31 Leap Year 32 Decades 33 Your deletion 34 NATO 'fower' (4) 35 Aztec calendar

[edit] Hipparchus and Meton

The final version about Hipparchus and Meton as written by you is perfectly true. But you should consider one point. Meton took the 19 year cycle from Babylon, where astronomical calculations of high precision were being made. Hence it is inconceivable that the users of this 19 year cycle used a value of year which was most inaccurate in the history of mankind ( 6940 / 19 ). 6940 is a mere rounding off. We do not have records of actual year-length used by Babylonians (esp Chaldeans ) and Meton, and therefore one may accept the rounded value 6940/19. There are innumerable evidences which suggest that lunisolar year was used by Egyptians (near or before 3000 BCE,when they shifted to solar year),Babylonians,Greeks,Indians,etc. Vedanga Jyotisha of India is said to originate around 1400 BCE (H T Colebrooke),which is clearly based upon lunisolar year. Hence, the common origin of lunisolar year must be put in or before 4th millenium BCE, perhaps in North Africa. Users of lunisolar years needed accurate measurements of concurrences of Sun and Moon, and of intercalary months. Moreover, there are evidences suggesting a knowledge of precession of stars in Egypt(reorientation of structures according to reigning stars which shift over centuries). Vedanga Jyotish(of Lagadha) and Brihatsamhita (550 AD,Varah Mihira) suggest that Indians also knew that equinoxes move over time. Hence, it is not proper to assert that Hipparchus discovered precession. He may be the first recorded person to scientifically ascertain the value of precession though experimentation : that is his real contribution ; but he did not discover precession. But the value of his tropical year as given in Almagest is nearer to Metonic year than to tropical year. Hence I think Ptolemy is not wholly reliable in this respect. The ancients were perhaps more accurate than we imagine. I will not retouch your article,because you will not allow it, but please consider the points raised by me.I am an expert of Surya Siddhanta and other Indian systems, and related topics, esp of practical methods of computations which no commentator exactly knows : it has remained a trade secret of almanac makers of India. Published versions are crude, originally written for teaching students. - vinayjhaa@gmail.com

[edit] Need an opinion on these changes

Hi Joe, small difference of opinion about the precise definition of Anno Domini. Can you take a look at these edits in Anno Domini and Common Era and the followup on User_talk:Gerry_Ashton#Your_edits_to_Anno_Domini_and_Common_Era? The Catholic Encyclopedia agrees with my understanding; Gerry Ashton believes the definition is in dispute. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 00:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, the discussion has been moved to Talk:Anno_Domini#Epoch_is_nativity_or_conception.3F. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 00:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parilia and Easter

Good detective work, but is that a quote from Bede or from Jones? I assume it's from Bede, the cite for it should also indicate the point in the original Opera de Temporibus. --Chris Bennett 15:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my cryptic citation has mislead you. That is not a quote but my version of a conclusion by Jones from a remark by Prosper in 444 who complained about "circuses and bedlam" during Founder's Day. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Bede. It occurs within Jones' long preface to Bede's work entitled "Development of the Latin ecclesiastical calendar" on pages 1-122 of the book. I took some liberty with Jones, because he did not mention Lent. Instead he concluded that Founder's Day could not be allowed within "Holy Week", presumably the last week of Lent, from Palm Sunday to Holy Saturday. Jones also notes that the Roman church may have reluctantly agreed that Easter could be as late as April 22 or 23 if they could not avoid pressure from Alexandria to accept its Easter because that would be a minimal intrusion into "Holy Week", which makes no sense because a two day intrusion would place Founder's Day on Good Friday! – Joe Kress 02:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. That makes it sound like an inference and a not particularly certain one at that. I have Jones' book on order through ILL, thanks for the cite.

In any case I wonder if this remark shouldn't really be n the article on Easter rather than the Julian calendar?

--Chris Bennett 20:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

If this reason is not accepted, then we have no explanation for Rome's vociferous rejection of Easter after April 21, at the same time that they willingly changed the vernal equinox from March 25 to March 21 (c. AD 340). Nevertheless, you are correct that it properly belongs in Easter. — Joe Kress 23:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] bottomfeeder?

Joe, Why do you want (Talk:Easter) any new discussion topics added to the bottom of a page? That means that the old cruft stays on top and we always have to page through it to get to the current issues. A Bad Idea IMNSHO. Tom Peters 10:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I presume your complaint was triggered by my placement of the archival notice at the top of the page. Nevertheless, you are fighting a losing battle. The vast majority of Wikipedia editors add new discussion to the bottom of the page as Myzou did on Talk:Easter, and you also answered at the bottom, just like I did. Editors can and do put their comments anywhere on the talk page, including the middle, which neither a top nor bottom posting request will stop.

I never page through the talk page to get to current issues. Whenever I see a page that I watch on My watchlist, I always click on "hist" to the right of the name of the talk page—I never click on the talk page itself. On the history I select the last post that I viewed in the left column of radio buttons. I then select "Compare selected versions". This allows me to view new discussions at the top, bottom, or middle of the talk page without having to scroll through any old discussion. This is especially appropriate for very active talk pages, when even fifty new edits scattered throughout the page in one day is not that unusual.

When applied to articles, this allows me to catch vandalism like that recently on computus. To revert such vandalsim, do not correct each change individually. Instead, select the last good version on Page history, then select Edit this page, then Save page without making any changes to it. This reverts the vandalism without missing even minor changes that the vandal made. — Joe Kress 23:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good catch, thanks!

Took me a minute to see what you changed. I'm not sure what happened there; I guess something got mangled because he was vandalizing the page so frequently. You're right...time to archive. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 23:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inter caetera

Thanks, Joe, for the corrections to Inter caetera. I'm going to NPOV it a bit, but hopefully, not change the substance. Thanks again! NorCalHistory 01:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It appears that the incipit of the Sept. 1493 Bull is Dudum siquidem (see, e. g., [1] and [2]). If you agree, I'll be glad to make the change in the text.NorCalHistory 19:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hebrew Calendar

Just thought you should know -- the limits table looks great under FireFox, but have a look at it under IE 6.0. Microsoft seems to really screw it up. I don't know what the solution is for this. Karlhahn 22:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert. I have read that Internet Explorer does not implement all of the rules of Cascading Style Sheets in the manner prescribed by the World Wide Web Consortium. In this case, they either do not recognize a "border-style" of "hidden" or do not let "hidden" supersede "solid". If the first, then an undesirable fix would be to repeat my single type in all neighboring cells. If the second, then more style rules would fix it. I did indeed conduct my testing in FireFox. After your alert, I checked it in IE7 and found the same problem that you found in IE6. — Joe Kress 03:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that IE5,6,7 do not recognize "hidden", so I had to substitute "none". Although "hidden" supersedes "solid", "solid" supersedes "none", which requires the borders of virtually all cells to be specified. — Joe Kress 12:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Darthvader1

Hi, Joe! The silly thing is, as far as I can tell I only reverted him once, with a clear explanation in the edit summary and another explanation on his talk page. That one wasn't even a close call; he was trying to insert a diatribe about 9/11 and subsequent events into the 2001 article. No matter how you look at it, the September 11 entry on the 2001 page is for things that happened on that date -- and the TSA was not formed on that date. I can't say for sure that I haven't reverted him since then, although if I have, I didn't feel it necessary to send him a warning about it. I did, however, revert this tonight, but this was after his note to me caused me to review his recent edits. BTW, has the TSA actually deployed those backscatter X-ray units? I've only flown a few times this year; I haven't seen them. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 04:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

An EPIC Spotlight on Surveillance dated June 2005 indicated that the machines were being used at 16 or more airports. The TSA was requesting funds to install them nationwide. Today's news says that the previous usage was only by drug enforcement agents—by Christmas the Phoenix airport will begin using the machine for those passengers who fail the initial screening, who even then can opt out and choose a pat down. Several more airports will begin using the machines in early 2007. The TSA description is here. The complete TSA list of allowed and prohibited items, including liquids, is here. — Joe Kress 07:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I just realized that those liquid restrictions will affect me. I'm flying on Tuesday, and it looks like I'm going to have to check my bag; my smallest contact lens solution bottles are 120 ml. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 17:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] By the way...

If you missed Talk:1 BC#Requested move, check it out. I had to restrain myself from posting some really nasty comments that would have probably caused someone to send me an {{agf1}} warning. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 04:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I was aware of that discussion but felt no need to participate because you and others handled the situtation nicely. — Joe Kress 07:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock

• I've contacted the blocking administrator for comment; in the meantime, please bear with us, and thanks for your patience. Luna Santin 23:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

According to Special:ipblocklist, an entire range of IP addresses was blocked by Essjay at 22:34 on 24 December 2006 for one week (I hope Essjay is not on vacation). See User talk:Essjay#67.150.0.0/16. My IP address is within the range 67.150.*.* but is dynamic (it is now 67.150.59.105). That range was previously blocked by other administrators earlier in the year for only a few hours at a time, so it never affected me before. It is possible that my ISP, ArcZip, has been assigned that range (its headquarters are in Utah). Consult WhatIsMyIPAddress to determine your IP address. — Joe Kress 03:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I've now determined that my IP address will change to some other value within the range 67.150.*.* simply by disconnecting and reconnecting the dialup connection to my ISP, ArcZip. My computer does not need to be restarted or powered off. Your IP address can also be determined by Start | Run | cmd | ipconfig, but only if you are currently connected to your ISP. If you are not connected, no IP address will be displayed. — Joe Kress 04:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): There has been some very intense abuse originating from this IP range, recently -- you had nothing to do with that, but unfortunately the IP addresses in here are very dynamic, so the only options are "block nothing" and "block everything." I've worked out a trial soft-blocking, provided that I'll be taking care of the damage that this unblock will probably cause. There's no perfect solution, here, but I didn't feel that sitting by and watching so many users blocked for things they had no part in would be appropriate. You should be able to edit, at this moment, but please do be wary of such blocks in the future -- I can't make any absolute promises, except that I'll do my best. Thank you for your time and patience. Best regards. Request handled by: Luna Santin 10:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Babylonian calendar

Your assumption that Babylonians had always used the 19-year cycle is false. The cycle was introduced probably in the V century BC. So do you imply that before that time there was no Babylonian calendar? Of course, there was, and Babylonians had to rely solely on the vernal equinox as a point of reference to fix the beginning of the new year in their calendar. This can be seen from the VI BC tablets. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bravehearted (talk • contribs) 12:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Copied to and answered on Talk:Babylonian calendar. — Joe Kress 00:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Of course the motion of the Earth affects travel time

Jupiter is not where we see it now. If the Earth didn't move, Jupiter would be at yet a DIFFERENT spot than where we see it now.SBHarris 09:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Egyptian calendar

Hi there Joe. When you get a chance would you kindly look over these recent additions to the a/n article, made by an anon who has some form for introducing rather idiosyncratic original research into calendrics-related articles. I suspect these additions include more of the same, spliced together perhaps with some less-comprehensible restatements of what was already documented. Unfortunately I don't have the background on egyptian calendrics to confirm one way or the other. Cheers, --cjllw | TALK 01:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The additions have some nuggets of truth intertwined with personal optinion. As one editor said, his additions are bizarre. Some of his latest additions appear to be direct copies of other articles. I'm not sure whether to revert it or include some of his changes. Obviously he has de-wikified the article. — Joe Kress 07:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks Joe. It seems another editor has since decided to wholesale revert those additions, which on balance I think is appropriate. If there was anything worth saving, it would at the very least need a concerted rewrite to be comprehensible.--cjllw | TALK 04:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TAI and TT in Delta T

You reverted some corrections that I made to Delta T regarding the relationship between TAI and TT. Why? What was wrong with my text? The former (and current) article text is wrong. TT is by definition perfectly uniform, and TAI is a realisation of it. 195.224.75.71 14:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] early medieval zeros

Joe Kress, I would ask you (after your contribution of 17-1-2007) to take cognizance of the new contributions of JPD and of me to the discussion at Talk:Number concerning the early medieval zeros at Wiki items [Dionysius Exiguus] and [Number] and to react to these contributions. But I would ask you and JPD and other ones to react to the discussion concerning Wiki item [Dionysius Exiguus], specially to my proposals to improve this Wiki item, at Talk:Dionysius_Exiguus (the only right place for this discussion after all), at which I would like to continue this discussion. Jan Z 12:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] International Atomic Time

Hi Joe. Have you seen my comment at the top of the TAI discussion page? I'm not prone to make the change myself, and I'm wondering if you are game. Steven L Allen 17:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gore & Globe

Hi, I replied to an old comment of yours, on Talk:Longitude#Mile conversion. Andy Mabbett 00:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] February name and references

Hello. I put a note and references about the month name of february in the gregorian calendar article. I had bad luck: the most relevant link reference, that what relates "february", "fever" and "influenza" was broken hours after I put it on the article.

I reviewed the broken link; apparently, it is due to the web site host is being rearranged. As soon as the supporting article becomes available on line, I wish to restore the full original note with the new link.

To see the private discussion about "february", "fever" and "influenza", please visit the Gerry Ashton's talk page (the other member that drops my original note). Yours.Ricardo Cancho Niemietz 08:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The link was repaired and I restored the note and the reference again. I also cite Censorinus as a source and redirect the influenza link to flu season, which is more relevant to the case. Did you know that the winter flu kills about 36,000 people at year only in the US? Think about flu and ancient romans then...Ricardo Cancho Niemietz 09:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanxies!!!!

Thanks for the year thing, I'm writing a short story about Wu Mei coming to the harem of the Emperor and I thought it be cool to say the Year of the Dog instead of a Western year, so thank-you for finding that for me. God Bless! --Working for Him 21:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your interest in calendar reform.

Hello Mr. Kress:

What inspires your interest in calendar reform? I would be interested to learn about your research in this area.

Please take a moment to examine (but do not edit) my biography. I see you have taken considerable time to revise my additions throughout wikipedia. I wish you knew more about me, my research, and my present health condition. Yes, I am new to the wikipedia environment, but would appreciate a kinder interaction (I am accustomed to publishing in peer-reviewed journals).

Incidentally, may I kindly suggest that you eliminate the tautological definition of calendar reform in your opening line: "Calendar reform is any reform of a calendar".

Thank you.

-Dr. Markel

Semper Fi

Paul Markel 06:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paul Markel (talk • contribs) 06:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Calendars

Hi, just a short note to say thanks for your tireless work on the calendar articles. I have translated some of them or used them as a model on bg.wikipedia, from 2004 on, and have them on my watch list -- and I see that you're constantly improving them. Thanks and keep up the good work! --5ko 11:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison of World Calendar with Gregorian Calendar

I draw your attention to the new article Comparison of world calendar and gregorian calendar, which could be contrued as violating WP:NPOV or just not being notable enough to justify its existence as a separate article. It has been created by the same author who added the Calrendar Reform templete you deleted. Karl 09:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that article. Although I have not read it completely, I doubt that it violates NPOV judging by the title. My initial thought is that it should merge with World Calendar, which I presume is monitored by the current World Calendar representative, TWCAdirector. He can remove any incorrect, redundant, or excessive material. — Joe Kress 01:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. My only concern is that the table is very long and could be replaced by a more compact representation of the same information. I added something towards this in the Calendar Wikia version of the page [3]. Karl 14:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you "Royal Observatory, Greenwich"

Thanks for correcting my sloppy spelling and grammer. Much appreciated Horology

[edit] Do you have details about Pravan Veda

I tried creating this page but, some how it got removed even when I had provided proper citations for the same. Kindly respond at my talk page. Can you share me your resources about Mayan BalanceRestored 11:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] End of consular dating

I have added some text based on your input and that of Dojarca about this topic. Take a look and adjust as you see fit --Chris Bennett 21:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sry

My rv caused it to appear again; sorry for trouble. Tony 05:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prime Meridian

That vandalism was just subtle enough that I wasn't completely sure it was vandalism, so I didn't reverse it. I figured that if it was wrong, someone with greater knowledge of the subject would come along and correct it. That's the most harmful kind of vandalism on WP, though, the kind where it sounds just plausible enough that people are reluctant to reverse it. -- Zsero 20:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I just happen to be studying the deflection of the vertical at the Royal Observatory, so I am aware that astronomical instruments are aligned to the local plumb line via a spirit level. Saying that "areas" are aligned to it is not wrong, just awkward and not strictly related to the article. Because of my continuing study, I now know that the paragraph itself is somewhat erroneous, even though I wrote much of it myself. The problem I now have is how to reword it. — Joe Kress 21:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Treaty_of_Tordesillas

See Talk:Treaty_of_Tordesillas#Map_Image_issues... Let's discuss further there if needed, but I believe your revert was unwarranted. ++Lar: t/c 16:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hebrew calendar

Thanks for your helpful comments at the talk page. I have reinstated a part of the long paragraph, with attribution, and I am continuing work on it. I don't have such a great grasp of the astronomy, however, so I hope what I have in there regarding the "reference meridian" for the "molad interval" is correct - as best I understand it, the fixed times of the molad interval correspond to the actual times one would observe or predict the lunar conjunction at a longitude 4 degrees east of Jerusalem. If I understand correctly, this is significant either because it suggests from where the calendrical calculations were developed (ie, Babylon?) and/or from whom (the Greek astronomers?). Is that close? Kaisershatner 13:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IBMPC

Are you the same Joe Kress who used to contribute to the IBMPC FORUM on VNET? --Gerry Ashton (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably, because I was an IBM employee until 1994. However, that is so long ago that I don't remember specifically appending to IBMPC FORUM. My greatest activity was in CALENDAR FORUM. — Joe Kress (talk) 06:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Leap Year

Yes, the terms can be grouped either way, but there's one way that's more efficient and also demonstrates that only years that are multiples of 4 are potentially leap years. And leaving the parens out will, in most programming languages, group them the other way (and being higher precedence than or). So I don't really see the point of your edit, but since I don't want to prolong an edit war, I leave it to you to do something about (or not). Ysth (talk) 09:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to stop the ongoing edit war by noting that either grouping is correct. One editor even said that one of the two groupings was wrong. Efficiency and the order of preference is outside the scope of Wikipedia. I have restrained myself from deleting the Leap Year#Algorithm section even though it can be construed to be a how-to discussion, which is prohibited on Wikipedia. — Joe Kress (talk) 04:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for your thoughtful edits. Ysth (talk) 07:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Decades

Hello! You’ve written here [4]. Are you sure that decade (0s) may consist of nine years?! I suppose that it is nonsense and WP:CFORK (because it is possible for somebody to create parallel categories: Category:First decade of 1st century for years 1-10 and so on). If this was a convention, can you indicate the Wikipedian source of that idea? Thanks.--ChroniclerSPb (talk) 14:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

All Wikipedia conventions I've checked are consistent: Wikipedia:Timeline standards, Category:Decades, List of decades, WP:MOS#Longer periods, and MOS:DATE#Longer periods apparently are derived from calling modern decades the 1920s, the 1990s, and the like. I'm sure this discussion occured many times in the early history of Wikipedia, but I can't find it at the moment. This convention created the problem that the first decades BC and AD only have nine years each because there is no year 0. The alternative convention of identifying the aforementioned decades as 1921–1930 or 1991–2000 is rather awkward when speaking, even though it would have resulted in ten years in the first decades BC and AD. — Joe Kress (talk) 07:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

So, I observe that different users can apply the system they like more - for example: List of battles 1901-2000 (system 1-0) vs. List of wars 1900-1944 (system 0-9). The same problem exists in the Russian Wikipedia (categories which have interwikis vs. articles). In the Category:20th century one can see the table with lines from x1 to x0, but in the article 20th century#Decades and years – the table with lines from x0 to x9. In all wikipedias (except Russian) the article like 1990s refers to period 1990-1999, only in Russian Wikipedia it refers to the period 1991-2000 (see ru:1990-е). It’s a pity but there is no real consensus (only the first user’s will :-) ).--ChroniclerSPb (talk) 18:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your deletion

Your recent edit removed the template {{clarifyme}} from the page Roman numerals, even though the required changes have not been made. Please be careful not to remove any maintenance templates from articles before the issue is satisfactorily resolved. If you disagree with it or you are not sure if any more work needs to be done, discuss the issue on the relevant talk page and allow time for a consensus to be reached before you remove the notice. These notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of a page. -- Smjg (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I've just noticed that you did it again, and that your edit summary included "internal link to clarification". I'm not sure what you thought you were doing, as the section you've added a link to bears no relation to what the clarify request is about, i.e. what cards are being talked about. -- Smjg (talk) 21:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NATO 'fower' (4)

Hi. I'd be interested to read your opinion on my recent query about the NATO/ICAO fower. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 09:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aztec calendar

Hi there Joe. If you have the time, would appreciate you looking over this discussion at the Aztec calendar talkpg, concerning an ext link to an animated "aztec" calendar (found here, scroll down to the bottom to see it; there's also apparently a book associated with it). I have raised my concerns there re the accuracy of how these 'sources' portray the workings and interpretations of the aztec calendrical systems. I would respect any input you may have. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 07:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I have never studied the Aztec calendar, so I could not comment at the time you asked for my opinion. I have done some research since then, but I'm still not ready to comment. — Joe Kress (talk) 07:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

No worries, quite understand. If you do come across anything in your readings, that clarifies or even contradicts the line taken in that discussion, would be glad to hear of it; it's not my specialty subject area so I cld very well be overlooking something. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 12:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)