User talk:CoyoteMan31

As no one else has extend you an official Wikipedia welcome yet, let me belatedly take care of that now: Welcome!

Hello, CoyoteMan31, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! -- Infrogmation 15:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Mesoamerica

Hi there CoyoteMan. Since you've evidently an interest in and aptitude for articles on Maya/Mesoamerican topics, I was wondering whether you'd be interested to participate in WikiProject Mesoamerica, intended to be a space for collaborating and discussing the coverage, content, development and organisation of articles related to Mesoamerican cultures- generally with a focus on the pre-Columbian, but not exclusively so. You'd be most welcome to look around the project pages and offer any comments or assistance you have time for. There's no 'minimum quota' for participation, it's rather a loosely structured organisation of some folks around here with a general interest and/or expertise in the area. All contribs and ideas are welcome, if you'd like to raise anything just note it on the project discussion board. Anyways, keep up the fine work you've been doing on Chichen Itza & other related articles; cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 09:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hola, CJLL Wright. My expertise is pretty much confined to Chichen Itza, and even then, to the post-Conquest era. Also, I am a writer, not an academic. That being said, if you think I can add value to your project, I will assist to the best of my limited abilities. Saludos! CoyoteMan31 17:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, CoyoteMan, no qualifications or specialisation required, just a willingness to help out, frequency doesn't matter either. Anything you can manage, really- we are actually pretty light on coverage of the post-conquest developments in Yucatan & Mesoamerica in general, so any additions in that direction would be excellent. There's a whole lot more that could and should be covered, and ample scope for improvement in both prose and content. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 09:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William H. Lewis

Thanks for the compliment about the Lewis article. I happened across him by chance in researching early college football All-Americans and was amazed that a man with such a fascinating life and career did not have a wikipedia article. Cbl62 (talk) 18:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2012 page FYI

Beam correction

Argüelles settled on the date of December 21 in his book The Mayan Factor: Path Beyond Technology,[42][43] in which he claimed on that date the Earth would pass through a great "beam" from the center of our galaxy, and that the Maya aligned their calendar in anticipation of that event.[44]

Jimini Cricket 18:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.247.77.234 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.247.77.234 (talk)

Please keep me out of your squabbles with the 2012 Phenom editors. CoyoteMan31 (talk) 19:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comalcalco Brick

Since we're "strongly suggesting" and "respectfully suggesting" I strongly suggest that in the future if you want to talk to me, you post it to my talk page, not my user page. Also I respectfully suggest that you register as a Wikipedia editor. Point taken. Yes, I did get too angry and I did delete what I wrote and replaced it with more temperate rhetoric but I left the assertion that Eric Boot blew it. He mis-read the Haab' glyph. I took one look at the glyph and knew it wasn't K'ank'in. Then he concluded based on zero evidence that because it was the same Calendar Round as 13.0.0.0.0 that it was somehow related. I just couldn't believe that a supposed expert in this field would make such foolish mistakes. It's appalling how poorly most academics in this field understand the Maya calendar - and this includes some of the preeminent experts in the field like Lounsbury, Schele and Freidel. This includes the suposed experts at INAH who's article makes just about every mistake you can about the Long Count from saying that there's a 13 bak'tun long cycle to using the Thompson correlation to using the proleptic Gregorian calendar and sensationalizing the completion of the thirteenth bak'tun. I will try in the future to be more temperate but if my intemperate post succeeded in acting as a preemptive strike to prevent even more balderdash from becoming part of the urban legend about the 13th bak'tun, I'm glad. Senor Cuete (talk) 20:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)Senor Cuete[reply]

Marc Smulders

Check the new thread on the talk page for the Long Count article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mesoamerican_Long_Count_calendar

entitled "Fundamental principles are missing!"

Senor Cuete (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Senor Cuete[reply]

2012

The current wording of the paragraph makes no claim that the majority or even a substantial minority of Maya disblieve in b'ak'tun 13; it merely reports what those particular individuals are saying. I don't see why their opinions are invalid. Serendi ^podous 23:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd like to think we only had one actual disagreement, and it's been resolved. :-) Serendi ^podous 12:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coyote, I don't understand your issue with the line about "simple astronomical observations". It's sourced and it's true, so what's the problem? Serendi ^podous 21:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]