==Comalcalco Brick discussion (moved from your front page)== 
 Senor Cuete, 

 Originally I wrote this for the discussion page on the 2012 Phenomenon, but it seems more appropriate to write you directly first. 

 RE: "Comalcalco brick is a hoax." 

 What evidence do you have that the brick is a "hoax." Are you suggesting that the Mexican officials made mention of the brick as a publicity stunt? To what end, as INAH officials have consistently downplayed any suggestion that the ancient Maya gave any special significance to the end of the 13th baktun? 

 You write, Erik Boot "blew it." Again, why such strong language? According to the Gronemeyer and MacLeod that you yourself cite, Boot "tentatively" translated the date as 13.0.0.0.0. And where did you get your information that he planned to recant his translation? Personal knowledge? Wikipedia isn't the place for it. 

 Look carefully at how Gronemeyer and MacLeod describe Marc Zender's translation: "However, Marc Zender (w.c., 17th Jul 2010) has shown that the ak’ab element in its month name ARGUES against it being the head variant of K’ank’in ... He ALTERNATIVELY suggests Xul and Suutz’ and proposes a date 9.16.18.5.0, 4 Ajaw 3 Xul." The emphasized words in all caps are mine. You'll note that the wording is respectful and unlike your comments, do not reflect stone-cold certainty. 

 With 2012 being such an explosive and controversial subject, I respectfully suggest as that you temper your language and leave out the hyperbole. Obviously you have strong feelings about this subject. I read your initial posting of your most recent response and see you toned down the language, but there is much remaining that is not only inflammatory, it mischaracterizes the issue or represents your opinion stated as fact. 

 Please note that I am not advocating mention of the Comalcalco brick in this Wikipedia article. The publicity about it appears to have originated from a Mark Stevenson article for the Associated Press, and I have already gone on the record saying that newspaper articles can be unreliable. I assume that Stevenson learned about the brick from the INAH notice of the Palenque Roundtable, which mentioned the brick in passing. According to Stevenson, "Arturo Mendez, a spokesman for the institute, said the fragment of inscription had been discovered years ago and has been subject to thorough study." I somewhat doubt that, and as Mendez is not an archaeologist but a PR representative, I cannot accept him as a legitimate source. As I write this the Palenque Round Table is underway, and I'm certain that the brick will be discussed. Erik Boot is supposed to be there, so he will have the opportunity to revise his translation or defend it in front of his peers. He shouldn't have to defend himself on Wikipedia. Saludos.