Talk:Starchild skull/Archive 1

starchild skull

How is it possible, if this Wikipedia page is claiming to be based on scientific research, that no discussion of the totally anomalous bone structure in the skull is conveniently glossed over? Not to mention the definition of Homo sapiens in terms of both cranial capacity and bone marrow tissue. Of course, intentionally keeping any links to the actual Starchild Project page off this site allows you to completely avoid the basic arguments you fail to address while keeping your audience in the dark about the abundant scientific evidence which seems to contradict your assertions. So who are you that you are so heavily invested in refuting part of the evidence and hiding from the rest? Is that supposed to make people think you're smart or authoritative? Where precisely is there any evidence of anything known to be in the primate with the same or even similar bone tissue? I could go on about the many details which are already on the starchild web site and written up in various books and papers, but isn't it a forgone conclusion that the folks micromanaging this web iste to avoid and disinform the dialogue will immediately take this and anything else off the web as soon as possible to preserve their claims to objectivity?

While the page does acknowledge that the extra-terrestrial theories of origin are unusual, it does not detail the more common explanation for the unique nature of the skull. This has a good overview of the more common explanation and the reason to object to more extreme interpretations.. Is there any particular reason for not including this information? --Davril2020 20:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't look like anyone's tried including it. I'd encourage you to do so. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Added a critique of the idea. --Davril2020 13:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Answer:The morphology and radiology have been reviewed by medical specialists, and all agreed that they have never seen anything like it: commonly occurring deformities have been consideredc and ruked out - ANON comment

I moved your comment to the bottom of the page. If you read the links you will find the owners of the skull are selective about who they send it to (that is, they will not send it to someone who is not already enthusiastic about their suggestion). --Davril2020 20:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

In addition I have reverted your changes. Your facts clearly contradict the documented evidence. If you have sources that meet WP:NOR please cite them. --Davril2020 20:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

How is it possible, if this Wikipedia page is claiming to be based on scientific research, that no discussion of the totally anomalous bone structure in the skull is conveniently glossed over? Not to mention the definition of Homo sapiens in terms of both cranial capacity and bone marrow tissue. Of course, intentionally keeping any links to the actual Starchild Project page off this site allows you to completely avoid the basic arguments you fail to address while keeping your audience in the dark about the abundant scientific evidence which seems to contradict your assertions. So who are you that you are so heavily invested in refuting part of the evidence and hiding from the rest? Is that supposed to make people think you're smart or authoritative? Where precisely is there any evidence of anything known to be in the primate with the same or even similar bone tissue? I could go on about the many details which are already on the starchild web site and written up in various books and papers, but isn't it a forgone conclusion that the folks micromanaging this web iste to avoid and disinform the dialogue will immediately take this and anything else off the web as soon as possible to preserve their claims to objectivity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.244.94 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 1 November 2009

Changes Needed?

I've altered the article a bit to make clear the low level of support for a non-human origin. I've added a critical review of Starchild and removed the list of scientists (argument from authority). Anyone else feel it requires expansion? --Davril2020 18:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Is there a picture of the skull we could put on here to demonstrate its unusual physiology? -J.U. Therguy Answer: Go to www.starchildproject.com; there are lots of photos on the site.

I've added a site on the page which supports the theory that the Starchild was not of alien origin, instead it had brachycephaly and exorbitism. Love bug 06:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the Star Child is a good example of so-called "experts" trying to fit squared pegs into round holes. Lloyd Pye has read up on all of the supposed deformities out there and pointed out that not only is there nothing like these deformities in recorded history, but if someone's skull was this deformed when it has to perform vital functions such as eating and breathing, they wouldn't make it past Day 1...especially over 900 years ago. The most plausible and realistic answer is that the DNA that this thing contains is indeed of another origin...at least in part. 192.249.47.11 16:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

We know its mother is human, we know its father is human, and actual experts in their fields who don't have vested interest in the skull being valuable to boot and who aren't gullible have said what it is. It is a fully human skull; anyone who thinks that the DNA is not of human origin being plausible or reasonable has no idea what they're talking about. Read Occam's Razor. Seriously. We know what this skull is; we've figured it out scientifically. That's what scientific testing is for. Titanium Dragon 20:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

Are there any reliable sources on this item? I suspect BS. Jefffire 17:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

What would you define as a reliable source? This is a very, very minor part of pseudoscientific debate, so it hasn't historically attracted much interest. If you look through the links there are some critical links available, but most people don't waste their time on it. --Davril2020 20:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I mean for statements such like the skull is substantialy stronger than human bone. Jefffire 12:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Deletion

Basically this article look like a load of factually dubious unverified statements, speculation, and links to kook sites. I don't think there is anything here to be saved. Jefffire 13:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do save it. I heard a small bit about this on the radio and they said it was "unusual" but didnt say what was unusual about it. So I came to wikipedia to get more info. Though I dont believe it is the skull of an ET, at least now I know about the unusual size and the absence of nose. So in that regard at least the article was helpful to me.

The deletion attempt happened a while ago and the result was no consensus. The piece has improved a little since then so it will probably survive. --Davril2020 13:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

DOH! I should have looked at the date on that before I posted. Nevermind.

Study of DNA

The study of the DNA does NOT support the hypothesis that it is alien or alien-human; it in fact does the exact opposite, supporting the hypothesis that it is entirely human, as it has both X and Y chromosomes and belongs to haplotype C. The reason this has been suggested is the deformation (and wishful thinking), not genetic testing. Titanium Dragon 16:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It belongs to mtDNA haplogroup C, the Y-DNA haplogroup is unknown. Nagelfar 20:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• [1] (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont} 16:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I read that page. It doesn't support the allegation, and the actual RSs on the subject, the people who actually did the DNA testing, say that the skull is entirely human, has both the X and Y chromosomes, and even explained why "nothing was showing up". That page basically says "We suck at extracting and running DNA through gels" and/or "There isn't much DNA to extract and/or it is too broken up to run". Saying it supports it is comical, because it does the opposite. Titanium Dragon 21:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• "It is difficult to prove that the Starchild (SC) IS alien, but there is already significant evidence that it is NOT entirely human. No expert, no scientist, and no doctor has ever been able to prove that the SC is 100% human." .... the beauty of NPOV (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont} 21:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I just watched a program on the Starchild Skull; they suggested it was an alien because of the shape of the skull PRIOR to genetic studies, which contradicted that hypothesis. Titanium Dragon 04:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• lets add that in then? not sure, but if we do we gotta good a good citation on it using {{Cite episode}} unless we can find the TV episode in article form or something else? (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont · email} 13:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the inquisitors have arrived. Well, at least it's reassuring that some things never change. =P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.244.5.122 (talk) 07:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You're a year late and a dollar short.--Doug Weller (talk) 14:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Eh? Gingermint (talk) 06:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

At any rate, I think there is some information on the DNA tests missing. I'd like to see more research on this rather interesting object (and a better written article) Gingermint (talk) 06:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

two starchild skulls?

This site claims DNA was tested on the two starchild skulls, scanning the article I didn't see a mention of more than one. 207.202.227.125 18:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The other "starchild skull" was the normal human skull found with the starchild skull. Titanium Dragon 10:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Archaeology Rating

Rated as low for achaeology, due to lack of peer-reviewed published references. By the way, is the face of this skull the model for the Indiana Jones crystal skull? Pustelnik (talk) 13:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism and misleading information

I have undone the vandalism by user "99.14.22.153" for self-explanitory reasons. I have also undone the revision by user "Dougweller". My reasoning is thus: "However, useful lengths of nuclear DNA for further testing could not be recovered." This does not equate to Dougweller's claim that "the mother and father were human". The mother was clearly human. However, the father's DNA was inconclusive. Therefore, the father could have been human or something else entirely.

Jedimasterkyp (talk) 19:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

We don't need to know about the DNA, all we need to know is that both X and Y chromosomes were found. I've added a quote and reference for that now. dougweller (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

My recent edit on X Y chromosomes

I just edited this article a few minutes ago. Evidently I wasn't logged in, and edited as IP 81.105.226.158 -- sorry about that. dougweller (talk) 20:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Have reworded a bit regarding that as far as anyone can tell the father was human too: there is nothing to falsify the most parsimonious assumption (both parents human) while there is data to verify that the mother was human.

The real interesting thing here, I think, is not some "alien hybrid" stuff, but the following:

• survival to several years of age - contrary to some claims, this is possible (Journal of Archaeological Science, International Journal of Osteoarchaology etc have papers galore documenting that people with severely deformed skulls and so on survived til several years of age). Regardless, such survival requires care and that requires certain social mores - we can safely assume that such a child would not have survived long in ancient Sparta.
• burial with a female who was no closer relative than a half-sister (same father, different mother) and probably more distantly related. This, too, would not what one would find in just any society. How a society deals with "misshapen freaks" allows to infer a lot about the social structure in general.
• Unusual bone structure, not recorded by medical science to date. Quite possibly because nobody has ever cared to look - the technology is not around for more than a few decades, and fiddling around with human crania hasn't been en vogue since World War 2. Regardless, it might have medical significance even today: in diseases which cause similar deformities, many of the most severe consequences are caused by the aberrant development of the cranium. The odd bone of the "Starchild" suggests a physiological component to the aberrant bone development in addition to the obvious ontological component of the aberrant skull development, and even if this is genetical (as it is likely to be the case), medication and/or diet is liable to influence how debilitating the eventual outcome is. (It is also of interest to developmental and evolutionary biology)

But all this is speculation, founded as it may be, and will have to await the publishing of a scholarly article to be fit for inclusion. It might pay though to keep your eyes peeled for this y'all. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, you succeeded in making the topic of this article sound fascinating, as opposed to just silly. I'll be keeping a lookout for any published material that deals with the points you raise; unfortunately, I have a feeling that this might be a case where the wacky fringe theories (alien-on-girl sex? really?) keep scholars from closely examining the subject. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 16:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the contents of the article do not support the skull mtDNA being human. This may be unintentional. The mtDNA finding for the accompanying skelaton contained homolgies to known human haplotypes but as far as the article says the mtDNA of the star child skull did not. Perhaps it did, but it is not mentioned.

Jerry —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerrywickey (talk • contribs) 22:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The lab's report strongly supports that the mtDNA is human, and belongs to a known haplogroup. I gave a more detailed response elsewhere on this talk page and changed the article to be more clear. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 00:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Birth

How would a child with a skull so large be born without some form of cesarean? 168.156.40.253 (talk) 22:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

In the usual way. (PS: The talk page is not a forum, WP:TALK) Thanks, Verbal chat 22:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Lloyd Pye

Hi. Could some of the regular editors of this article take a look at Lloyd Pye? It contains information seemingly at odds with this article. Thanks, ClovisPt (talk) 04:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Illogical Sentence

"His mother was human and, according to preliminary tests, his father too."

Basic animal biology says that the parents of animal created through sexual reproduction must be of the same species...because that's the definition of "species". If two animals can reproduce together, they are by definition the same species. So if the mother of this thing was human, then the father must be human. You can't have a human mother and a koala bear father. JDS2005 (talk) 14:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Not strictly true. In the vast majority of cases, a mother and a father will be of the same species. And you are right that this fact is part of the overall definition of species. There is, however, such thing as a hybrid with parents from different but very closely related species. A mule, for instance, is the offspring of a horse and a donkey. In general, hybrids will be sterile, so it's more accurate to say that having consistently fertile offspring means that the parents are by definition the same species.

Anyway, if you read the article more closely, the sentence you mention is in response to the claim by believers in the paranormal that the child was half human and half space alien. So it does make sense to mention that the evidence points toward both parents having been human, since the whole reason this skull is notable at all is because of the claims that have been made to the contrary. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 17:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The possibility of infertile hybrids only exists between two extremely close species...for example, if there were still some other extant hominid (like neanderthals or something). There is no way that any "space alien" could impregnate a human, unless that "space alien" were really just a human (or closely related hominid) from another planet.

Of course, I suppose one could argue that human DNA could be combined with "space alien" DNA to create a hybrid...although the terms "mother" and "father" cease to have any real meaning in that case... JDS2005 (talk) 02:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Not the skull of a child

Recent studies of the dentition (crazing and wear) and of the cranial plates indicate that this is not the skull of a child, but of an adult. 72.181.167.105 (talk) 00:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)leschwartz

If you have a reliable source for this information, it sounds like something that would be a valuable addition to the article. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 01:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Unclear Text

I am choosing not to try and correct the (perceived by me) error here as the overall article/discussion is so fluid and contentious. I do however bring it to the attention of "senior" editors in the hope that when the dust settles all the sentences will make sense. The sentence in question (for me) is:

Further DNA testing at Trace Genetics, which unlike BOLD specializes in extracting DNA from ancient samples, in 2003 recovered mitochondrial DNA though it was not the child of the skull found with it.

We understand that "DNA was not the child" . . . perhaps "was not from the child" starts to make sense. But then the longer phrase "was not from the child of the skull" veers into insensibility once again. There is an overall vagueness (clearly revealed here) about which skull is being discussed at various points in the entry. Several close readings also seem to be required to clear up that the "adult skull" and "starchild skull" are not mother and offspring, as well, which would be important.

--Beofluff (talk) 01:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

inappropriate picture

I deleted the progeria picture because I think it was not appropriate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.80.117.15 (talk) 07:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Care to explain why you feel it is inappropriate? Thanks, Verbal chat 07:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

"Recent DNA testing on the skull indicates a human origin."

I think we either need a citation here, or the sentence removed entirely.

I am new here and am editing the above remark left by someone else simply because I do not know where to add my own comment.

It appears there were two attempts at DNA testing. The first was merely finding x y chromosomes with out specifying if the chromosomes were actually sequenced. Later comments suggest it was not actually sequenced. With out actually sequencing the chromosomes there is no way to ascertain with any degree of certainty that this skull was or was not human. Any number of known species have x and y chromosomes. It doesn't even mention the number of chromosomes found.

The second is the actual sequencing the mtDNA and found it to be unique. The skeleton accompanying the skull in question had identifiable sequence homology to known human haplogroups. The skull's mtDNA was not related to the skeleton accompanying it and evidently either did not match any known human haplogroup or it was not mentioned.

If the star child skull's mtDNA matches a known human haplogroup, we have a very good indication it is human. If it does not, the question is still open.

The question is not so simple as -- if we cant prove its alien then it must be human.

The mtDNA sources, citations and specifics need to be mentioned if a fair and informative article is intended.

Jerry Wickey —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerrywickey (talk • contribs) 19:03, 26 August 2009

I just fixed the link to the Novella article given as a source, and read the paper it cites from Trace Genetics which is archived here.

Regarding the BOLD lab finding X and Y chromosomes: I did not find the original source for their results, so I cannot make any definitive statements because I do not know what methods they used or what exactly it was that they found. If they had only done a karyotyping, then it would be hypothetically plausible to say that the mere observed presence of X and Y chromosomes did not guarantee that they were human. However, there is no reason to believe that extraterrestrials would have the XY sex-determination system, or that their chromosomes would be the same sizes and have the same Giemsa bands as human chromosomes and thus be subject to misidentification on a karyotype. The lack of information on how many chromosomes that you pointed out, however, makes it more likely that the BOLD lab did not use karyotyping at all, but rather a Southern blot or similar procedure involving DNA amplification by polymerase chain reaction. While this does not involve sequencing the entire chromosome from start to finish (a far more onerous and expensive task), it does require that the sample's DNA match up with the human DNA primers used to start the reaction in the first place. If the sample's DNA does not match up with the primer DNA, the primers will not anneal and the amplification will be a complete failure. So if PCR was indeed employed, and had any success at all, that is very strong evidence that those chromosomes were indeed human.

As for the mtDNA, the Trace Genetics paper reports very clear results. Some of the attempts to amplify the mtDNA were unsuccessful, but that is not at all surprising. Even with the correct primers and very fresh DNA samples, amplifications sometimes fail - it's happened to me, and it's a real pain in the butt, but it's not really uncommon. When the amplifications were successful, the restriction fragment length polymorphism results were repeatedly indicative of haplotype C.

Even without this strong evidence, of course, the question would not be an open one in the sense of an ongoing mystery which could conceivably go either way pending future study. The burden of evidence is on those making the claim, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and even seriously considering such extremely extraordinary claims requires a significant amount of preliminary evidence. The question will only be open when the proponents of the extraterrestrial hypothesis present enough evidence to merit serious scientific consideration in the first place. Until that time, the question is no more open than the question of Russell's teapot. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 23:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Further alleged abnormalities

The "Royal Holloway Scientific Institute" doesn't appear to, in fact, exist, and the Royal Holloway Institute is The Royal Holloway Institute for Environmental Research", which, ignoring that this is hardly environmental research, does not actually appear to have a scanning electron microscope, though you're welcome to prove me wrong.

In short, this section seems to be a complete, but non-notable hoax, and lacks reliable sourcing sufficient to discuss it. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 204 FCs served} 17:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a good call, I'm a bit embarassed I didn't catch it. :-) Dougweller (talk) 18:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry too much: these articles where the notablity is based on rather out-there claims are hard to get right. However, if it fails basic fact-checking that badly - stated organisation doesn't exist, similarly named ones seem highly unlikely - then it's probably best to leave it out unless a mainstream source discusses it in more detail. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 204 FCs served} 23:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes it's acceptable to include dubious information in the context a report of what someone claims, so that may be applicable in this case. I think that's only called for if these "additional anomalies" are central to the issue, which it doesn't appear that they are as no one else has mentioned them. Neutrality would require mentioning the holes in the claim, but the prohibition against original research might preclude mentioning any of the holes an editor here notices... So all in all, I think it's too minor of a point and too complicated to present accurately to be worth it. I agree with removing it. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 00:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Well said, sir! Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 204 FCs served} 01:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Fibers

The starchildproject.com site alleges that unusual fibers have been found inside of the bone. I'm not sure what the scientific view on these alleged unusual fibers is, but perhaps the issue should be mentioned in the article. --95.34.3.54 (talk) 23:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Not every single claim made by a fringe source, without any sort of external corroboration, needs to be specifically addressed. If there is any information about these alleged fibers from a more reliable source, it might be worthy of inclusion. Otherwise, there might be somewhere where such claims can be acknowledged briefly, though going into detail is not called for. "Proponents of a non-terrestrial origin claim that there are additional unusual features of the skull such as ____, _____, and ____, but these claims have never been externally validated." would suffice. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 01:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

One of nine list items in a list displayed on the home page of starchildproject.com is "Is it a deformity?" Another list item is, then, "Fibers inside the bone". I don't have full understanding of what's being said about the skull, but apart from unusual skull shape, it seems fibers inside the bone, and a second issue of some red 'residue' inside the bone, is what's being alleged by the fringe sources.

I agree that brief mention of the claims of the proponents of non-terrestrial origin is enough. Such mention should perhaps include 'fibers' and 'red residue'. The example sentence you show looks good to me. --95.34.3.54 (talk) 02:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Although I do not think that this is the skull of some sort of human/alien hybrid, I do think there is a degree of lopsidedness and even a hint of scoffing in this article. I'd like to stick to the facts and not just the comfortable ones. Gingermint (talk) 06:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

DNA Results

It clearly says on the official Starchild Skull website the mother was proven to be human. The results for the father remain inconclusive. That is a scientific fact. It stands there at the moment. To say that both parents are confirmed human is extremely misleading, especially when you are referencing from a skeptics website where they can wallow in whatever belief systems they may have. Regardless of the subtle opinions/beliefs that may lie behind editors the facts do not confirm that both parents were human.

Period.

There is no need to over complicate this particular point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.171.208 (talk) 00:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The "official" website itself outright admits that the skull has human X chromosome DNA and human Y chromosome DNA. It then engages in some rather extensive special pleading to insist that this doesn't mean that such DNA actually came from human parents, but that doesn't change the actual scientific facts. He alleges that it still could come from a non-human source, but even ignoring the biological implausibilities in such a claim, there is no genetic evidence of any sort presented to demonstrate that it actually does. This article rightfully acknowledges the wild, unsupported speculations surrounding the skull, but also rightfully does not present them as supported fact. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 04:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not you are aware of this Icarus. This entire article roots entirely from a belief system that says something like 'the alien origin of this skull is not possible'. Like yourself. The article is telling the reader in good faith it was confirmed human, it is more than likely a deformity, then there is a small section at the end saying basically despite this UFO researchers are interested in the skull. It's subtle and extremely misleading to the casual observer. Let's both drop belief systems and take a neutral stand point here. A truly neutral standpoint. Without tailoring your answer toward any 'rational' belief system you may proudly have:

- Mitochondrial DNA - Confirmed mother.

- Nuclear DNA - Could not be retrieved. Father not confirmed.

- The bone is about twice as light, twice as strong as human bone.

- It is impossible for human eyes to exist in the skull.

- A human brain can not exist in the skull.

- None of the deformity explanations have been confirmed.

If you're not aware of just some of these facts maybe you shouldn't be monitoring this particular page. Thank you.

P.S I'm fully aware it's a non-starter and this page will never be changed but the facts should be presented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.171.208 (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to mention again (as in the previous discussion section here) that two other topics are presented as fairly central in the Starchild skull case: fibers and red residue inside the bone. --95.34.3.54 (talk) 02:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Please add a sectioning which makes a clear reference to the argument on the first footnote. The skeptical website is a good reference but I do not see where it states that the two parents are human, as is the purpose of the footnote. 96.54.160.222 (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no website on the internet that confirms both parents were human. None. Zilch. Zero. Why? The answer is very simple; both parents have not been confirmed human. It's as simple as that if you look at the raw unspun facts. Therefore, the first reference is a lie and shame on any editor who reads this and washes their hands of it. Icarus, for example. Not very good editing, putting beliefs and personal opinions before facts. Good job Wiki! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.211.239.110 (talk) 23:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)