Talk:Evidence against a recent creation/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

PS, I know that while I whine about your endless typos, this is shaping up to be a really good article. And, ironically, your typos prove that this is original work. Funny, that. Knock youself out, dude. humanbe in 02:38, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

Yes, it really is shaping up. I do some edits from time to time as well. It seems quite comprehensive. Good going Ice.--Bobbing for apples 05:04, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

Contents

[edit] Merge into here...

..., perchance, Lower limit on the age of the universe? VirileSterileyawn! 18:33, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps... maybe it was a red link? Or, maybe, someone intends to make it larger? Although, I agree, conceptually the two ideas are, well, the same in the end. humanUser talk:Human 18:34, 24 October 2007 (EDT)


[edit] Organization

Is there any reason for the order of arguments (date added, effectiveness at damning creationism, etc.)? If not, I feel like there should be. ThunderkatzHo! 21:03, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

If you must have O R D E R then just alphabetise 'em? Susanspeak your mind 21:38, 25 October 2007 (EDT)
How about in order of increasing or decreasing minimum age proved by the method? That ought to be confusing enough to do... humanUser talk:Human 13:41, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
If it needs order I'd go for that. Perhaps in sections - arguments demonstrating the earth is at least 10,000 years old, at least 100,000, at least 1,000,000. But it might be a lot more messy to do.--Bobbing for apples 13:46, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
How about we start by bolding the age proved in each section (ie, "over 700,000 years"), then start moving sections around? And add a short intro explaining how they are organized? Then maybe drop the headers one level and group them as you suggest? humanUser talk:Human 14:05, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
That's cool. It would enable us to tell at a glance if there were natural sections as well. We'll need to be consistent with the use of "over" and "at least". In theory all of them would go in a section "over 10,000 years for example.--Bobbing for apples 14:09, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
Haha, true. Should we go oldest first? Since the "oldest" ones are sort of "best"? humanUser talk:Human 14:19, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
But when you look at the articles, most of them are not written in a format which falls easily into this framework. :-( --Bobbing for apples 14:13, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

<-- I did a quick scan and most seemed to be - one or two will have to be edited? Or we add a "conclusion" line to each one in bold? humanUser talk:Human 14:19, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

Well, I guess if the number isn't there we should go and find it. Because if we're saying it shows the earth (or in some cases the universe) is over 6,000 years old then we should say what is the minimum age identified by the method.--Bobbing for apples 14:23, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
Draw a timeline graphic with points mrked for each minimum. (someone hoo can uplad graphics) Susansay something then! 14:17, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
Nice idea, but I'd say we'd need to look at after we have the numbers clear. Might be difficult to get the scale on as well. Some numbers in thousands - others in many millions.--Bobbing for apples 14:27, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
The timeline graphic is a good idea, but wouldn't it be best to order the entries by scientific discipline? One section for atronomy, one for geology, one for biology, etc. - to the extent that's possible? --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 14:29, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
That's a good idea too! humanUser talk:Human 14:48, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
Yes, it is. But I like the idea of increasing age. First mini article shows the earth is at least x thousands of years old. Next at least tens of thousands. Next hundreds of thousands etc etc. It just feels like a nice way to build the case.--Bobbing for apples 15:19, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
I personally don't like the idea of ordering by age. I like the idea of just presenting a block of the best and almost best evidence at the beginning and then having the weaker ones, interspersed with a few good arguments, at the end. But whatever, it does not really matter. - Icewedge 19:39, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

[edit] more

Here's an idea. First, the TOC is not very useful since it is so long I ignore it. So we need a better "guide" tot his article. People have suggested "by discipline", by "minimum age of earth", and by "strength of argument". I'm not sure how best to rearrange the sections, but we could NOTOC it and make a navigational aid or three to put at the top - that is, make one that lists the sections by discipline, one that is some sort of (logarithmic) timeline for them, and one that groups them by how compelling their arguments are. The first two could be done by anyone who can read English and has a computer. As far as the "importance" one, it's more of a judgment call, and requires some serious thought. Since it's Icewedge's idea, and largely his article, I suggest he should be the one to figure that out, and that should be the order they are presented in the article. Then there is no need for a nav box for "argument strength", just maybe 3 or 4 "super headers" grouping them. After that, I don't mind trying to cobble together a way to navigate them by discipline or by minimum age each section proves. I want to get this done so we can cover story this article. Thoughts? humanUser talk:Human 16:08, 7 February 2008 (EST)

That an interesting idea. I will try playing around with a new contents table and see if I can come up with anything any one likes. - Icewedge 12:11, 8 February 2008 (EST)
Ok, what about a sidebar like this? - Icewedge 16:42, 10 February 2008 (EST)
This is Icewedge's article? That's funny, I rarely see him edit... --Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 17:40, 10 February 2008 (EST)
Check the fossil record. He doesn't "own" it, he just wrote almost all of it. humanUser talk:Human 18:54, 10 February 2008 (EST)
Hmmm, looks interesting. It could be narrower, right? And would list all the sections? I'd say, let's try it and see how it looks. humanUser talk:Human 19:00, 10 February 2008 (EST)
Looks good, Mr. Wedge! Do you mind if I try to squeeze it a bit narrower? And, I guess, one of us should pipe all those links to get rid of the visible "#" signs. But it's a great way to TOC this article. I take it that the sections themselves are physically arranged from stronger to weaker? humanUser talk:Human 19:42, 19 February 2008 (EST)
There just alphabetized, more or less. - Icewedge 19:58, 19 February 2008 (EST)

[edit] No

What a bunch of BS. I laugh at this.

Thanks :) I am glad you derived entertainment from our article! - Icewedge 23:27, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
In Sovet Russia, BS laughs at you!! Uchiha 23:53, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
Still it's nice to be appreciated. Sad the editor didn't stay to debate though.--Bobbing for apples 12:13, 27 October 2007 (EDT)
If he's like most Young Earth Believers, this is probably the entire argument he would put forth in the debate: GOD DID IT Zmidponk 18:56, 23 December 2007 (EST)

[edit] cover story

(Please do not archive this section)

  • Thunderkatz nominated it. 20:08, 29 January 2008 (EST)
  • I agree, as it is very high quality and well referenced. Might need some internal structure though. humanUser talk:Human 20:08, 29 January 2008 (EST)
    • I promoted it, due to the improvement in navigation/TOC. humanUser talk:Human 22:45, 19 February 2008 (EST)

[edit] Hot-rodding continents

I can't help it, because of the ad-hoc YEC argument that things went faster in the old days (to account for such problems as the speed of light), I suddenly had this image of the continents speeding apart to get where they are in time to fit the Bible - India speeding across the Indian Ocean to collide with the Asian continent, the fender bender pushing up the Himalayas and everyone in India getting a collective case of whiplash.They'd have to sue god for that one. PoorEd 12:29, 23 February 2008 (EST)

Hehe, which god? I bet some YECer saw a sped-up animation of tectonics and thought it was in real time... humanUser talk:Human 14:56, 23 February 2008 (EST)
Maybe Shiva? 15:11, 23 February 2008 (EST)

[edit] YEC view

What would be really interesting is for each section to have the YEC rebuttal of it. Anyone up to that? Ajkgordon 11:46, 19 March 2008 (EDT) I don't mean the "it says so in Genesis" argument. I mean the creation science argument specifically arguing against each point. Ajkgordon 11:48, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

You mean the creation pseudoscience argument. Rational Edwelcome to the bizarro world 12:07, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
How about doing it as a subpage, or parallel article? I don't really want to see this long, good article full of YEC garbage, although I wouldn't at all mind seeing a parallel list (heavily linked to the main article, of course). humanUser talk:Human 12:22, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
No, no, quite right. The current article shouldn't be ruined. A new article with two columns - left would be the content from this page, right would be the YEC answer. Ajkgordon 13:50, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
OK, sure. "Evidence against a recent creation: YEC responses" (this way it is listed next to ours in cats, etc.)? And who is going to write it? Andy? Or one of his goons? humanUser talk:Human 14:03, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
Andy? LOL, NO! PJR would be an obvious choice but he wouldn't, would he? Perhaps someone from here who knows enough about the YEC arguments; enough to know how to write it from a YEC view as if he believed it. Any volunteers? Ajkgordon 06:40, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
Shouldn't be too hard. You just need to accept that there was a wordlwide flood that covered all the mountains, killed everything and rearranged everything, the speed of light and radioactive decay rates used to be unimaginably higher, and god is capable of doing anything she wants for the rest. Rational Edwelcome to the bizarro world 13:28, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
Perhaps we could just search for each term at AIG and CreationWiki and quote what they have to say? humanUser talk:Human 13:30, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
The problem I see is that some of those arguments tend to be titanically verbose. This is, of course, no accident--one of the main tactics employed by Creation Scientists is verbal obfuscation. By burying the reader in impressive-sounding but ultimately meaningless jargon, they hope to conceal the fact that, at core, there's not very much to the idea they're promoting.
It's that calculated contempt for their audience that makes me shake my head in wonderment when I hear YEC advocates railing against "elitism." They're the biggest elitists around--their entire strategy is predicated on the notion that their audience is too stupid or poorly-educated to differentiate between valid science and impressive-sounding gibberish. --Phentari 12:14, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

[edit] references

Does anyone know why the second half or so all end in <li/>? I thought it was a bug in template:reflist, but it still happens after I switched to <references/>. humanUser talk:Human 12:45, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

I fixed it! There was an improperly closed "span" tag at footnote 15... humanUser talk:Human 19:53, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Thermoluminescence dating

Don't think this is good example. The article says that the method is only accurate on objects 300 to 10,000 years in age. YEC estimates Creation to be up to that age. Ajkgordon 10:40, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Good point. Rational Edfaith 10:43, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
Well, it's almost last, in the "youngest age" section. And it says it can go up to 230,000 years - just not accurately enough to be used for dating many things, I suppose. Just as radiocarbon dating is only good for up to about 50,000 years, I suppose. humanUser talk:Human 19:55, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

[edit] The sun's "photon travel time"

This is another possible one. The time it takes a photon to travel from the sun's fusion core to the photosphere where it escapes into space is estimated to take between 10,000 and 170,000 years. (Although it's not the same photon - the original photon is emitted, absorbed, re-admitted, re-absorbed and so so on until it eventually reaches the surface.) In other words, energy from the fusion reaction at the sun's centre takes at least as long to get to us as the upper limit YECers give for the age of the universe. Or, yet another way of looking at it, we would have been in the dark until today. I'm a bit hazy on the details so if any of you sciency types want to write something, I think it might make a good addition. Ajkgordon 05:30, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

Anyone? Or is it a crap idea? Ajkgordon 10:47, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
Not crap, but if it's not the same photon then it would be easy for a YECer to go "Aha! that's not the same thing at all, therefore Genesis is literally true," like a twat in their usual logical way. Do it if you like, but, um, don't expect everyone to understand it. Totnesmartin 11:04, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
You can calculate a "start time" and an "escape time" so, yes it is an excellent addition. SusanG  ContribsTalk 11:09, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
Right, so the correct explanation is energy in the form of EM radiation or photons. I'd love to write it but I don't have the edumacation. I might try it here and let somebody else scientificate it. Ajkgordon 11:27, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
It's like pushing the end of a spring: the other end will move, but after a period of time and the bit tat moves won't be the bit that was pushed. (?) SusanG  ContribsTalk 11:42, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

[edit] "Balance"

Not being an astrophysics wonk, is this legit? --Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 03:02, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

There's been a bunch of edits from the same BoN that all seem a bit dubious. He/she seems to be approaching the topic as if YECers could still believe in the Big Bang, but just not it being eons ago, similar to the varying-speed-of-light YEC argument. Overall, it seems to just confuse the article (even the phrasing is fuzzy - "This is answered from science" reads very awkward). It is an article called "Evidence against a recent creation," after all, and his/her edit summary talks about "adding balance." At the very least, his/her claims should be cited, right? --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 03:57, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
I've reverted 'em all - AGAINST is right Arcan. SusanG  ContribsTalk 04:22, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
(and it's a cover story) SusanG  ContribsTalk 04:23, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
Also, didn't matter form after the universe started expanding? NightFlareSpeak, mortal 04:44, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
Allegedly, but no-one actually saw it :) SusanG  ContribsTalk 04:47, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
God did. -The Almighty Tuna 05:14, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
Did She? SusanG  ContribsTalk 05:32, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
Yes, but then she found out that her role was actually to do housework and help her husband, so she stopped seeing it. -The Almighty Tuna 09:12, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
Actually Susan is our own wiki-wife and she does an amazing amount of RW housework. As for the rubbish posted by bunch of numbers - at the time of the big bang there were no planets, stars or galaxies. So claiming craters were caused by stuff exploding during the big bang is pure BS. The accepted age of the earth is about 4.5 bn years while for the universe it is almost 14 bn years. So things had plenty of time to quieten down. Jollyfish.gifGenghismarauding 09:39, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
Yeah, while one or two of BoNs posts were quasi-logical at least, the one where the bang caused craters on earth was just loony tunes. As Susan invited the BoN on their talk page to do, they could always start "evidence for a recent creation". Awesome book: The First Four Minutes - it's a popularization, relatively, of what the universe "might" have been like for the first 100 seconds or so. Pretty cool stuff. humanUser talk:Human 19:50, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

[edit] This article is a move star!

Browsing the most recent Google results for RationalWiki I found this. At least one person finds our article useful :) - Icewedge 21:29, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

Sweet! Can we embed utube videos? If so, we could have a link at the top to "eaarc/video: for those who prefer their words embedded in pretty pictures". Your work is famous now, that's very cool. humanUser talk:Human 21:42, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
I don't think that we can embed videos right now and I don't think that the video is that well made. It is nice to see that all our work has not gone unnoticed however :) - Icewedge 21:51, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
Awesome! Quick—everybody with a Youtube account watch and favorite it! --Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 11:53, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Edit Explanations, Part 1

All right. I’m going to make about a million billion edits to this here page, and because I don’t want to hijack the article or start any fights on my very first day, I’m going to make justifications for all of my non-grammatical edits.

“Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority estimates that the great barrier reef began over 600,000 years ago, and that the current growths of coral to be found at that location began around 20,000 years ago.”

The linked article does not say this. It says that the “earliest record of complete reef structures” we have today is 600,000 years ago, and it says that “Many of the places that support reefs today were part of the land during the last ice age, which ended about 20,000 years ago.” (Emphasis mine) That “20,000 years” statistic doesn’t help us much.

So, I have removed the 20,000 years statistic, I have rewritten the 600,000 year statistic to reflect the government article, and I have added a statistic from the same site that was ommitted from the previous article—namely, that “corals have existed on the Great Barrier Reef for as long as 25 million years.”

Sorry to bother you all. I will post explanations for other content revisions as I continue to edit this page, but I don’t anticipate there will be too much more in the way of content revision—I’m trying to focus on grammar.A Writer of Vaudevilles 18:38, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for telling us what you're up to.--Bobbing up 18:44, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
Yes, thank you Vaudeville. That was very considerate of you. Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 18:55, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
I deleted this sentence in “Geomagnetic Reversal: “The strength of the earth's magnetic field will decay until such an event occurs, where the polarity of the field flips and is then replenished in strength.” It doesn’t really have anything to do with the explanation of how Geomagnetic Reversal is relevant to recent creation theory.A Writer of Vaudevilles 21:02, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
  • Thanks for your copyediting work on this article AWoV, it needs it. I am a terrible writer. - Icewedge (*bleet*) 15:34, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Sphinx

Ok, I know it is not much, but water damage at the base of the sphinx suggests that it was built somewhere in the ballpark of 9000 years ago. It is reasoned that it was built when the area was swampy. One of the main reasons it has been preserved so well over the millennia is that for long periods of time, it's body was covered in sand. If someone can find some sources, would this be adequate? Or are you going for older?--Nate River 00:04, 11 January 2009 (EST)

If you have references for these ideas, and can integrate them in to this very-well-evolved article, feel free to try? ħumanUser talk:Human 00:14, 11 January 2009 (EST)
Gonna be a few days. It was on a documentary I saw, but I can't remember the name. C'est la vie.--Nate River 00:34, 11 January 2009 (EST)
Try here. fröhlich "gay" and "happy" 00:42, 11 January 2009 (EST)
Thanks, this is a great article.--Nate River 20:40, 11 January 2009 (EST)

[edit] Should be removed

I am sorry Nate River, but I don't really think that this section belongs in this article. For two reasons,

  • The age of the sphinx is hotly debated among geologists, and the conventional view is that it was built around 2500 BC. I am no expert but it seems that Schoch and West (1991) have attracted little outside support for their idea which has been refuted by other archaeologists:
    • "In this article, the authors show how weathering in an arid environment can produce the rounded profile, given the gradual change in lithology of the alternating hard and soft limestone strata. The authors show further that the channels are actually the pre-Pliocene karst features formed by underground water and exposed due to the excavation of the Sphinx ditch. They propose therefore that, for now, the Sphinx may still be regarded as of pharaonic origin. "[1]
  • Schoch and West (1991) conclude the age of the sphinx was 5000-10,000 B.C.E, the lower end date fits within the creationist age of the earth.

All and all I think it is rather weak evidence. The 5000-10,000 range gives creationists just a bit too much wiggle room (I have in the past only included evidence that gave a date of at least ~10K years for the age of the earth) and iffy dates should be avoided especially when the science is not clear and is in debate (by actual scientists of course).

Thoughts? Agree/disagree? -- Icewedge // talk 23:59, 31 December 1999 (EST)

Makes sense to me (to remove it), on the two major points: 9,000 years is not "EARC", and the ongoing debate over its age in the first place. ħumanUser talk:Human 15:30, 17 January 2009 (EST)
I can see your guys points and I agree that it is kinda iffy. I was unsure of it at first and asked if this would be ok to post. However, if you guys think it is not that beneficial, feel free to remove it. Maybe if the theory gets more mainstream support, we can repost this here. Maybe we can just move this to a separate article? I am just glad I didn't include the whole belief that it's construction had to do with the sun raising in Leo or whatever. I felt that was more crazy than anything the whole Atlantis conclusion.--Nate River 20:32, 17 January 2009 (EST)
New separate article could be very interesting and allow more room to flesh it out. Good idea. ħumanUser talk:Human 21:42, 17 January 2009 (EST)

[edit] Greg Neyman quote in lead

I'm not sure it really adds to the article - do we want the first thing people read on this fairly serious article to be a snarky line by an OECer? ħumanUser talk:Human 01:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The quote was just too good to pass up. I have moved it to a more snarky article. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 01:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I saw that. Much better place for it. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Should we re-order the sections...

according to the box on the right (by years?)? K61824Who is Terry Koeckritz anyways? 00:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

No. The "mismatch" is intentional - the sections are in order of "strength". The hand-made TOC is in order of, obviously, time. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
There actually ordered alphabetically, strength would be nice but its rather subjective. @k61824: they are not in that order as that order can be ambiguous. Icewedge 00:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Icewedge, I should have looked first ;) Nice to see you checking in! ħumanUser talk:Human 01:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Linguistics?

Since none of our list of evidence comes from Linguistics, shall we remove that from the opening section? K61824"6+18=24" 01:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Good catch, yes. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] distant starlight - problem with source object

The distant starlight problem is an issue , but what of the creation of suns. I was reading that is can take a long time for photons created inside the suns to make their way out. Does anyone know how long it 6takes a sun to begin emitting light ? There is also the delay for nucleosynthesis of heavier elements to occur for formation of planets. It takes a few supernovas. I dont see it adds much to the article really Hamster (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it takes thousands of years, but I may be way off. And, yeah, those other things also take a very, very long time. I do think the amount of time required to get from raw stars to "solar systems" with rocky, metallic planets via supernovas might be a good section if we can dig up a nice well-written academic source to get teh numbers. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
1)Surely the outside layers of the new star are hot enuff to emit photons before the really hot ones from the centre get there.
2)I don't think there's any consensus on how planetary systems form. Worth looking in to. yummy Toast&  honey(or marmalade) 00:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
It's the internal photons that heat up the surface, and it takes them ages to get emitted, absorbed, and re-emitted. As far as the planets, the key is that it takes a supernova to make the heavier elements (gas giants could form without them since they are really just stars that are too small to fuse hydrogen). ħumanUser talk:Human 00:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
thinking about this a bit. If God made the stars in a form where they are emitting light then he has made a scientifically old universe. He could then make the light in transit as a historical artifact and the starlight problem goes away. If he didnt then there would be a delay while gas clouds condensed, and stars formed, and supernova appeared and thats about 1 million years for a large star. Does the Bible state that the stars were visible on Earth, or just that God made them ?
There's a well-known creationist approach to this problem call the Omphalos Hypothesis, which dates from the early 19th century and basically states that god created the world with all evidence of antiquity. Creationists have long had to deal with any evidence of age in the universe, including tree rings and even whether Adam and Eve had navels (PJR thinks they didn't :) ) 20th century creationists extended the idea (I wouldn't really call it a hypothesis because it's not susceptible of being tested in any meaningful sense) in response to the starlight problem by stating exactly what you wondered. It's also called Last Thursdayism by Anti-Last Tuesdayists. Either way, it can be argued to imply a deceptive god creating illusions of things that never happened, as light from a supernova with whatever red shift would naturally lend itself to supporting the proposition that a star exploded in that region of space however many years ago. I personally don't know why creationists would bother with an idea that implies their god might be a liar with what they really ought to be wondering is if their god is a lie. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 17:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
It takes about 200,000 years for photons to journey from the core to the photosphere in our sun, even the lowest estimates are on the order of tens of thousands of years. Although that's with a smallish, middle aged star, so I don't know how well that compares to newly formed ones. It would be 2.3 seconds if it weren't for all those damn particles in the way. Once they escape it's a mere 8.3 minutes to reach earth. Jaxe (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Lat thursdayism is as sound as most other theologies but keeps the Good Fairy (creator of all things nice , may her wand always wave) very busy remaking everything each week. An unfortunate oversight :( A source I found says about 1 million years for a large (10+ solar masses) sun from start to nova so that seems consistant Hamster (talk) 18:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support