Talk:2012

A STRONGER ANTI-HYSTERIA STATEMENT

I believe it would be wise to adjust the opening paragraph to add the line, "There is currently no scientific evidence that any apocalyptic events will occur in 2012". The current statement leaves it open to doubt, and being as this page is one of the top results in a Google search for 2012 I think it would be irresponsible to allow the opportunity to educate some of our less-knowledgeable and less-patient readers to go unutilized. -74.76.55.235 (talk) 23:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

2012 in other calendars

2012 in the "Arvisura" (legend collection of the sumeer-scytha-hungarian ancient chronicles, "Arvisura" is cca "Truthful Speech") is 6053. "medvetoros év" ("year of bear's thorax"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.21.20.30 (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I found a good information site on this and other 2012 stuff at http://2012theendoftheworld.org Mikeleigh27 (talk) 19:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Spotlight on the UK

Many of the 'Year Pages' on Wikipedia have an introduction, describing the main events, and also stating whether it is a common year and the day of the week the year begins. Therefore, please do NOT delete the factual information regarding the United Kingdom. Also, terms such as HRH and Her Majesty have been used in accordance with British Tradition with refering to the Monarch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrvyvrmnt6789 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Eastern Orthodox Easter Date

I can't seem to figure out how to edit the page. Eastern Orthodox Christians use the Julian rather than the Gregorian calendar to calculate the date of Easter (Pascha) and it differs in 2012, being on April 15 rather than April 12. The Eastern Orthodox Church is the second largest of all Christian churches and so this date should be added if we are also to include the date of the Western Easter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilion301 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

7 reasons the world will end in 2012

7 reasons the world will end in 2012, basically what they have is seven proven facts that the world might end in 2012, should these facts be noted in the article? Androo123 (talk) 19:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hard to tell in this medium whether you're being serious, or sarcastic. Either way, the answer would be no. --cjllw ʘ TALK 05:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

No. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Net neutrality (talk • contribs) 19:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I would say no, the website is a forum/blog, and does not cite sources and is not reliable. Besides, be might already have some of the information here and in seperate articles (eg. metaphysical predictions), but other than that it does not deserve any more than a brief mention. This is a significant claim, which means we will need a significant and reliable source other than this one for something like this. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 20:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If you search at amazon.com for books about 2012, you will find A LOT of books predicting an apocalypse in 2012, and VERY FEW of them are mentioned in the "metaphysical predictions" section. http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=2012 --Zanthius (talk) 17:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL. This page about "7 reasons the world will end" is awesome... but not encyclopedic at all, with no reference and making obviously unrelated claims (the world will end in a human-created black hole or because of a super-volcano?) By the way, the LHC won't create a black hole : it is weaker than the cosmic radiations hitting our planet every single day. Thanks anyway for the good laught.Kromsson (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Not that I don't believe you, but it says that it might be a possibility in the wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider#Micro_black_holes --Zanthius (talk) 22:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, intersting discussion... But still, the first experiments will begin sooner than 2012, so there is no link to the other doomsday prediction. (and I let you know about this, my country will be at the frontline in case of human-created black hole.) Kromsson (talk) 23:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course the Large Hadron Collider isn't what is going to cause the apocalypse. Computers connected on the Internet like neurons in a brain. The awakening of the global brain, that is what the new world of the Maya calendar is all about. --Zanthius (talk) 00:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, not all scientists are so sure that are black holes from LHC so harmless: http://www.scientificblogging.com/big_science_gambles/interview_professor_otto_rossler_takes_on_the_lhc --Popski (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

bewerken

Why do all the section edit links say "bewerken" instead of "edit"? — DeFender1031 08:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Please check your language preferences.... Could be a subtle vandal at the system level, but I don't think so. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The end of the internet

http://www.infowars.com/?p=2640 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.182.132.199 (talk) 00:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Reliable? I think not. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

1 2 3, maybe? The first states confirmation. 69.182.132.199 (talk) 06:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Alex Jones? Looks like a conspiracy theory to me. We don't want one of these on the article. Isn't there anything slightly more reliable? Cosmic Latte (talk) 06:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm: http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/No-The-Internet-Doesnt-End-In-2012-95227 69.182.132.199 (talk) 11:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to be a super genius in order to understand that huge companies wants to make more money, and that they can gain more money in a controlled internet where their websites are cooperating to get all the visitors while shutting out the rest.

Not that I believe that stupidity and egoism will be victorious in 2012. I think there are stronger forces generating enlightenment.--Zanthius (talk) 02:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I found a website you might want to take a look at on this subject. http://ipower.ning.com/netneutrality2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.87.230 (talk) 13:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

End of Internet in 2012? That...is...absolutely...NONSENSE! So are those darn sayings about the end of Earth! Neither Internet's end nor Earth's end will happen!Don-Don (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Anybody who can't see that our global society is within a macroshift now, is a complete idiot. Take a look at the emerging technologies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_emerging_technologies , or this page about accelerating change: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_change --62.63.34.231 (talk) 11:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Restored Mesoamerican LC calendar text

I restored the original text at the December 21 entry here (description of correlation of this date to the Mesoam/Maya Long Count calendar), which had recently been much abbreviated. Given the ever-increasing tide of apocalyptic, New Age and pop-culture mythology and flim-flammery building up around this correlation, I think it's relevant and useful to describe as precisely as possible the actual—as opposed to the invented—significance of the date in the Long Count calendar system. The LC is after all the ultimate inspiration for all of this breathless, popular yet misguided speculation. Also, since it relies upon a particular correlation (out of many that have been proffered in the past), we need to specify what that correlation is. Likewise, the particular Western calendar system being used needs to be noted, since you get quite a different outcome if the correlation is based on, say, the Julian calendar. --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Patrik Geryl Suggestion

I suggest adding a note to this text:

# Patrik Geryl predicts a pole reversal. This has happened many times in the past. Geryl is predicting that the North Pole and South Pole will reverse and cause the Earth to start rotating in the opposite direction. He does not explain from where the required energy will come. The Earth functions as a gigantic gyroscope. The energy required to rotate the poles would be immense.[14]

There is no scientific indication that physical rotation of Earth would be affected by a pole reversal. The earth would continue to rotate in the same direction, and would only "appear" to rotate in the opposite direction relative to the compass. The sun would still rise in the direction you are accustomed to, but we might start calling that direction "West" instead of "East". (or more likely just adjust our compasses) Gwiffon (talk) 19:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC) Poles do not allways reverse most of the time they just correct to north and south creating cycler ice age of every 26000 years. Planetary flip depends on polarity of black mass at center of galaxy if it matchs the planets does not flip it just gets cold unit the moon creates a wobble in the axis which give us warming and or four seasons. The mysterious energy your looking for is magnetics, caused by large masses of hot spiining iron at the cores.

Solar Max

In 2012 is a solar maximum or solar max. During solar max sunspots appear. sunspotsare associated with solar flares and coronal mass ejection. which can disrupt radio communications, cause blackout or even worst, can lead to the demise of the ozone layer or even death from raditaion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.127.43.33 (talk • contribs) 00:42, August 26, 2008

Misspellings

Under Metaphysical predictions, "Several author have published" --Bhaelochon (talk) 14:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Now fixed, thanks.--cjllw ʘ TALK 14:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The World Won't End in 2012

I found a great source of claims that deny the end of the world, transformation in 2012: Explained - Why It Shouldn't Be Feared, but since this is a blog, it isn't a great encyclopedic source. Similar to the page "7 reasons why the world will have to end in 2012" or whatever it was called. The only thing we would have to worry about in this blog's and my opinion would be a possible pole reversal. CMac11814 (talk) 19:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: Somehow it says "NOT FOUND" —Preceding unsigned comment added by CMac11814 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Charles Manson Scheduled for Parole hearing in 2012

Charles Manson Denied Parole 11 Times

Tuesday May 29, 2007

For the 11th time since 1978 when he first became eligible, cult leader Charles Manson was denied parole by the California Board of Paroles. The board voted to deny Manson parole for five more years, making the convicted killer next eligible for release in 2012. Manson, now 72 years old, did not bother to attend the parole hearing. He has said in the past that he considers himself a "prisoner of the political system" who will never be released.

"He refused to cooperate, so the conclusion they drew from the reports is he still remains a danger to the public," said Patrick Sequeira, Los Angeles County deputy district attorney. "He was convicted of nine horrible murders. He has expressed no remorse or empathy for any of the victims."

Manson was originally given the death sentence, which was changed in 1977 to life in prison with the possibility of parole, after a 1972 ruling by the California Supreme Court that found the state's death penalty unconstitutional.

Manson was convicted for the August 1969 Tate-LaBianca murders in the Los Angeles area. Although Manson himself did not take part in the murders, he ordered his followers to carry them out to incite a race war that he believed was prophesied in the Beatles song "Helter Skelter."

Manson was also convicted of the murder of musician Gary Hinman and former stuntman Donald "Shorty" Shea at the Spahn movie ranch in Chatsworth, where the Manson Family lived. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohare4271 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Spelling Error

{{editsemiprotected}}

2012 is claimed by some with New age beliefs to be a great year of spiritual transformation (or alternatively an apocalypse). There is disagreement among believers as to whether 2012 will see an end of civilization, or humanity will be elevated to a higher level.

[changed 'diagreement' to 'disagreement'] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dredgman (talk • contribs) 15:14, September 17, 2008

Done. Thanks. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Track 9 "2012" at the Enigma Album from Ill Nino

shouldn't this be added ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.4.217.14 (talk) 03:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

April 1st 2012

The page list that on "April 1 - The United States Census of 1940 data is released to the public." Am I incorrect in thinking we already have this information? It seems to be listed Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Census,_1940

Am I missing something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psycospyder (talk • contribs) 22:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Whether it's notable enough for this article is another question (my feeling is "yes", but others seem to differ), but everything in this article should be listed in another article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no problems with it being listed here, but what exactly is being released that day? The link I posted above seems to be the information to be released. Hasn't this already happened? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psycospyder (talk • contribs) 01:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of that problem. The raw data from the census is released at that time. I have no idea if it's machine-readable, but the data from later censuses probably would be. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

New 2012 Movie

{{editsemiprotected}} New Film Seeking Closure is about 2012 and can be found on Imdb

movies website

(Beerguts (talk) 02:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC))

Once it's notable enough to have an article, feel free to re-submit. Skier Dude (talk) 07:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Religious Holidays - Hindu dates

30th Feb 2012 - Maha Shivaratri 15th March 2012 - Holi 6th May 2012 - Buddha Jayanti 9th Aug 2012 - Krishna Janmashtami 19th Sept 2012 - Ganesh Chathuri 5th Oct 2012 - Navratri (starts) 16th Oct 2012 - Navaratri (ends) 28th Oct - Diwali —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-singularity (talk • contribs) 19:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Also please note that dates for Winter and Summer solstice are not the same in the Southern Hemisphere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.102.239.195 (talk) 00:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

London Olympics

isn't the 2012 olympics in london on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcradick0 (talk • contribs) 11 December 2008

Indeed, and you will find it noted under "July" when it is scheduled to commence. --cjllw ʘ TALK 02:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

come on people!

Why dont they just say every posible,horible,unimaginable,hideous thing that could ever happen happens in 2012 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.217.124.3 (talk) 19:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The metaphysical speculations section is actually fairly low on actual content. Given that 12/21/12 is the end of a baktun, let's then add some explanation about why this has become a significant reference in our culture. Who is making predictions? Who are the players? Let's add encyclopedic information to it. Can we find an expert or someone willing to research the topic? Antireconciler (talk) 19:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Wrong place for this however. IF there isn't a suitable article, it may be possible to create one. dougweller (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Doug, a detailed examination of 2012 millenarianism would be off-topic for this article on the year itself. Same goes for articles like Maya calendar. However, having a separate article on it may not be a bad idea, if only to have somewhere to funnel the speculative edits and discussions that will surely increase as we draw closer to the date. To the best of my knowledge we have no dedicated article ATM.

Perhaps someone like Hoopes (talk · contribs) could be prevailed upon to set the ball rolling; he's a KU anthropologist/archaeologist prof who's one of the few academics to have written on the phenomenon, and as a sometime contributor here he may be able to help out. Quite likely he's busy on other projects, tho. Might drop him a line and see if he's interested. As it happens, have just been listening to an interview with him at gnosticmedia podcast, recorded last month on the very topic of 2012 speculations. From that I gather he traces a lot of the popular interest in the 2012 end date back to Michael Coe's 1966 edition of The Maya, which seems to have been the source used by the first speculative writers for an apocalyptic or millenarian association with the Maya calendar.

Problem is, while there are any number of trade paperbacks written on various speculations, few published materials or criticisms come from established academic sources, ie publs. that we might consider as WP:RS. But there might be enough now out there that could be used to base an article on. I understand Anthony Aveni has a book coming out on 2012 soon, for eg. Otherwise, we'd have to track down papers that go into some of the background to the development of the 2012 movement, by folks who are not themselves part-n-parcel of the popular writing movement. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI: there is also Galactic Alignment, which should probably be merged into any new page that is created on the topic. --mikeu ^talk 17:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably not. Problem with merging a new "12/21/2012 mythology" article with Galactic Alignment is that the G-A is (or at least is supposed to be) an inevitable actual galactic astronomical and astrophysical phenomenon, and that its article (at least as of this writing) is devoid of any absurd pseudo-scientific speculation about the solar system or earth-moon system pulling itself apart or whatever as a result of interference with hypothetical intergalactic tidal forces or something. I also have serious doubts about a galactic event which takes tens of thousands of years to cycle through can be measured and defined as to where the "bulls eye" is, so precisely as to be defined as falling on a specific date and time, especially considering that today is tomorrow (or perhaps yesterday) on the other side of the date line - similar to the idea of when exactly did Y2k arrive. Now - I could see a decent independent article arising concerning the whole mythology of 12/21/2012, with good sourcing. The G-A article could perhaps safely mention or refer to that general date mythology, but it should not become permanently attached and contaminated with it. There should be no significant editing required, once "the date" comes and goes, with no measurable effects beyond perhaps a few news reports of crowds of folks on mountain tops being not rescued by UFOs or Jesus. Of course, if the galaxy does implode, or Jesus comes back, then it is probably all moot, more or less. Anyway a short "Speculation About..." section within the G-A article might make sense, again with suitable reliable sourcing (eg: perhaps History Channel summaries, mostly to assert that the speculation exists, notwithstanding the controversial and mythological status), but such speculation should not become the overriding tone, either at G-A or here. The reader could always click over to the hypothetical main article for 12/21 mythology if desired. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 17:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's think this idiot who predicted it was a totally desperate. The Mayans didn't die out they left. Mayans left because they built their homes near the ocean and a drought hit. They had no fresh water source. Some priests even told people the religion was bogus. So hearing this people began to leave so they could get water and also avoid that stupid religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.163.4.103 (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

music

metal band jakota rose have a song called twenty12

with lyrics "ill see you all in 2012, come one come all this world will fall" and "so grab your mates and hold them tight there will be fire in the sky tonight" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gapwing (talk • contribs) 04:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyright

"March 22 – Unless the European Council votes to extend current copyright law, The Beatles' debut album, Please Please Me, will fall out of copyright." Are we sure of this? My understanding is that at present copyright is good for the life of the composer or, in the case of a group, the last surviving composer plus 75 years. How could Please Please Me fall into Public Domain? Was the copyright sold to someone and thus we have a different time limit? Gingermint (talk) 01:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

See Uk copyright law#Sound recordings. However, the portion you have cited is still false as a) it only applies to the UK and b) the Beatles' album Please Please Me was not released until March 1963. We have an off-by-one error here. The BBC article used as reference refers to the Beatles' first single, Love me do which was released in late 1962. --Kulmala (talk) 21:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

WEB

{{editsemiprotected}} A WEB section under FICTION would be instructive:

There is a new crop of humorous sites that are using parody as a way to discuss the event. Worth noting : http://www.geddongear.comTweak2020 (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

 Not done: I would think that this statement would not be helpful in an excyclopedia. Leujohn ^(talk) 09:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

2012 predictions

The most advanced models presented at the 2007 meeting of the American Geophysical Union anticipated an ice-free Arctic in the summer as early as 2013 or even 2012 ??? = where will all of the melted ice go to ? = flooding ?? = new seaways open allowing access to North pole for countries to explore and to rape for minerals could cause a war ? Two large dams to be removed in 2012 in Upper USA = ? severe flooding ??

Unusual prediction from ytmnd user GaryGnu in site titled ripfidelcastro that Fidel Castro will die in 2012. (can't put the link in due to ytmnd's blacklist status.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moroderzone (talk • contribs) 20:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

2012 Doomsday prediction

Just letting people know that this new article exists. dougweller (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Religious holidays

Can we come up with a more neutral term than "Christianity" for holidays such as Christmas and Easter... as the list correctly notes, the Orthodox Churchs celebrate these holidays on other days of the year... and Orthodox Christians are no less a part of Christianity than the Roman Catholic or various Protestant denominations. Perhaps "Majority of Christian denominations"? Blueboar (talk) 03:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

2012 Movie Based Era

The movie "The Postman" with Kevin Costner is based in 2012. The world is unorganized and there has been plague in certain places. Morale is low, so is life in general. Everything seems to have gone the opposite direction in advancements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rokmongo (talk • contribs) 00:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Try 2013. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

ROC 100th anniversary

Arthur Rubin, why did you revert my edit? ROC was established on 1-1-1912 RayYung (talk) 02:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Answered on my talk page. Anniversaries are not included in (future) year articles unless there are present, notable, sourced, plans for commemmoration, and maybe not even then. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not referring the commemoration but the mere fact that the country is 100 years old. Should it be notable enough in a year article? --RayYung (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Call of Duty 4

Should it be noted in gaming that Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare took place in the year 2012? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.154.144 (talk) 20:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

If accurate, and if the game has an article which confirms that, it's appropriate for the "in fiction" or "in video games" section. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Whoops my bad, 2011 :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.154.144 (talk) 20:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

View Source

LOL pseudoscience. I see all this troofing has led to enough vandalism to cause the 2012 article to be semi-protected. First of all: there is no Planet X. Second of all, Earth Changes relies in part on obsolete geology, which has been surpassed by the more accurate plate tectonics theory. How would Atlantis or Mu rise "again" if they were never there to begin with, and is the Mid-Atlantic Ridge really eruptive enough to create an "Atlantis"? (Well, it built Iceland, but that was hot spot volcanism, and I don't know of any other hot spots under the Mid-Atlantic Ridge.) As for Mu, there is an oceanic ridge at the boundaries of the Nazca Plate and Pacific Plate, but it's not likely to produce land. No land means no real displacement of water; no real displacement of water means no sea level rises swamping existing land. Finally, the idea of a rapid pole shift is also bunk. The Earth has a lot of inertia; how is it supposed to tilt without something big hitting it or affecting it somehow? Since there's apparently no planet X or anything similar in size, we might as well conclude the Earth will stay on roughly the same axis it has in the past. Now that this troofy stuff has been disproven, let's get on with the events that may realistically happen in 2012, and not worry about the troofy stuff. 192.12.88.7 (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Some people who refer to "pole shift" may actually mean to be referring to "geomagnetic reversal". But no matter ... there is, obviously, no reason for anything to happen on the winter solstice of 2012. Of course, the sunrise will be sort of (roughly) close to the intersection of the galactic and the ecliptic planes (wherever that is), but, like, so what? I think the interesting question is whether or not the ancient Mayans even knew about the precession of the equinoxes. The answer to that question has not been determined (yet), but I believe it is highly unlikely that they did not know about the precession. It's hard to believe that they did not know. That is the interesting question. But trust me, my scared children ... the world's not gonna end until the sun puffs up into a red giant, and that's gonna be a long while. Worldrimroamer (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

WTF (or: Doomsday-related material)

Can anyone reduce the drivel in "Geophysical and cosmological" to a paragraph? •Jim62sch•^dissera! 18:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this sentiment. AT the moment it basically says this, "Random crank with no evidence predicts cosmological event which will have implications to Earth (i.e. it ties in with the whole Mayan Calendar 2012 thing), but people who know what they are talking about (e.g. Nature) disagree." Why are we giving so much space to all this pseudoscience? This article is supposed to be what is expected to happen by reasonable people in 2012, not what crazy New Age people predict will happen. Did we accept the idea of some in the media that the LHC was going to destroy us all by creating a giant black hole? No. So why should we accept this crap as if its the equal to the work done by real astronomers? 86.155.7.136 (talk) 21:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Been there, done that, got... roasted, probably! :( Do join in! --PL (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Alas, the tripe met its own doomsday. Now, 2012 Doomsday prediction needs a lot of help. Go get 'em.  :) •Jim62sch•^dissera! 17:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Aw, I dunno. Doesn't the title say it all, without any help from me? OK, I've been through it with a fine-tooth comb (and not a fine tooth-comb!), but I'm not sure how much good it'll do. Ditto the article on the History Channel. Meanwhile, hardly a squeak from anybody here! The calm before the storm? --PL (talk) 08:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Quarantining all of the 2012 guff off into its own article is probably for the best. Easier to deal with spot fires when they are corralled in a central place, instead of smouldering across mutliple articles. This 2012 article will no doubt still require constant monitoring, tho... --cjllw ʘ TALK 09:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You bet! --PL (talk) 09:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Moving fiction to the subarticle was a mistake. Even if most of the fiction relates to doomsday scenarios, I can point to a few which don't. I think I've reversed that properly, although it's difficult to determine. (Also, one of the subarticle edits added 2012 (film) a second time.) It would be tempting to add some of the doomsday stuff presented as fact to the fiction (literature) section, but that might be considered WP:BIASed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't see any fiction that doesn't relate in some way to the doomsday scenario, which has no business here. Discuss which? In case of doubt, I suggest assuming the worst. --PL (talk) 15:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you guys talking about the references section? As they no longer reference anything, they have no purpose, and basically violate MoS by being there. In other words, they need to go. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 16:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Arthur here, and have restored the fiction section to this article. For one thing, fiction sections are standard parts of Wikipedia year articles, whereas these sort of lists would be chaotic and non-WP:SS in a piece of regular prose such as 2012 Doomsday prediction. Additionally, the Doomsday article is not separated from this one due to any POV distinction between "fact" and "fiction"--the predictions about 2012 do not come from novels or anything else containing the plot and character required for fictional narrative; the only element of narrative that they consistently possess is setting--but rather because there is so much to say about the predictions that it cannot be fit neatly into the 2012 timeline. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The only fiction that legitimately belongs in this article is fiction that (a) is about ordinary calendar events in the sense of the article and (b) definitely has nothing whatever to do with the 2012 Doomsday prediction myth, which has its own article. Having been carefully through the proposed fiction list, and found only half-a-dozen or so references that fulfil these two criteria, I have therefore let them stand (even though I'm not sure even about one or two of those), and quite properly deleted all the rest.--PL (talk) 08:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Please get consensus before blanking the article again. And stop duplicating 2012 (film). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

As for the reference section; that should be moved to the subarticle. Done. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Nobody's blanking any articles -- merely arranging their content more logically. People looking for fiction based on the facts of 2012 don't want to have to wade through endless irrelevant titles devoted to the fantasies of 2012 Doomsday prediction -- especially as their inclusion gives the impression that these are relevant to the facts, which they're not. People, on the other hand, who are interested in the fantasies might well want to read fiction based on them. Far be it for me to stand in their way. Ergo, place the fact-based titles with the factual article, and the fantasy-based ones with the fantasy-based one, and provide an obvious link to both. That is what I did. As for repeating the duplicated film reference, apologies -- please correct as necessary if I inadvertently do it again (being basically filmspam, it should't really be there anyway).

The factual reference list (or rather the source-list), meanwhile, needs to go with the factual article, not the fantasy one. Anything else would be ludicrous. So please, as you yourself insist, stop shifting unsuitable material to the subarticle.

As for 'consensus', it looks as if the odds here are currently against you 3-2 on the proposal to keep the fact-based stuff and the fantasy-based stuff separate -- so please (since you once again insist) obtain consensus before you revert again. --PL (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I realise that most year articles, at least those related to the past century, have fiction sections, but that doesn't necessarily make the inclusion of such sections encyclopaedic. If the sections must exist, they should be as short as possible and not serve as adverts for the books or films. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 17:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ahem. It's WP:BRD. You (PL)were bold in moving the fiction, and were reverted. Please don't do it again until you get consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you're talking about. Fiction is still there. --PL (talk) 08:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

And you (PL) are the only one who has moved the fiction; I'd say it's 4 to 2 in favor of keeping it, but that's not a clear consensus, either. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

But it's still there! What on earth are you on about? --PL (talk) 08:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no object to a separate article 2012 in fiction, but I do object to the fiction being embedded in the doomsday prediction article at this time. As for the references, almost all of them are about the truth of the Mayan calendar, which makes it relevant to the "Doomsday" article as refutation, not relevant to this article. If any of the references are not about the Mayan calendar, go ahead and restore them. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

So, in future, all references should be anti-references? I don't get it -- and neither, I suspect, do most others here. Meanwhile the doomsday article is precisely where doomsday article Fiction belongs. Where else should it be? So please stop blanking it! --PL (talk)

I've restored the references section. The entries in this biblio listing were directly paired with inline cites/notes that exist in this article. Without the references containing the works these inline cites refer to, the inline cites are not much use. --cjllw ʘ TALK 00:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. You're right, of course. Please check that it's still OK following the latest edit. --PL (talk) 08:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Could someone please try to explain to Arthur that the Fiction section is still there, and that nobody is moving it anywhere? He seems to be living on another planet. Either that, or he is simply not reading the article and reverting blindly, which is not advised. See WP:BRD. --PL (talk) 15:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I still see it. Really -- it's still there. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 14:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

And now it is out of control and overly large. 2012 Hoodoo already exists as an article and that's where the crap related specifically to said hoodoo should go. Arthur has mangled so much of the article that it isn't even funny. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 15:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Fiction should be in 2012#2012 in fiction or 2012 in fiction, not in 2012 doomsday prediction. So far, in these atricles, there's 3 to 2 in favor of keeping it here. Y2K fiction isn't split off into the Y2K article, why should 2012 doomsday fiction. Apparently I was wrong, but there is no 2000#2000 in fiction, or 2001#2001 in fiction, although there is a 1999#Fictional. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

If the fiction is related to the doomsday bullshit it belongs in that article. It's that simple. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 15:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Even if we don't decide to put the pseudo-factual literature in that section (as tempting as it might be), there's dispute as to what belongs there. Do you want to include any disaster set in 2012? The Doctor Who and Futurama episodes there are not "Doomsday" scenarios (well, maybe Doctor Who, but almost all Doctor Who episodes involve a disaster), and Death Race seems inadequate, even if it were sourced. There's little dispute as to what year a film is set it.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

If they are unrelated to the doomsday nonsense, they can stay -- exactly as PL had done! If one has never seen the film, I only have your word that it took place in 2012. Get it? •Jim62sch•^dissera! 15:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice to see you discussing the question rationally, Arthur, but there's no reason to insist that it has to be either/or when it can be both/and. As you may have noticed (if you bothered to look), the fiction list that I am appending to the 2012 Doomsday prediction article is fiction that is specifically devoted to that idea, whereas the fiction list that I am attaching to the 2012 article is not, but simply relates to the year 2012, however tangentially and inconsequentially in your view or mine. Consequently the two lists are quite different -- as they clearly should be. I welcome the fact that you seem to have noticed (at last!).

As for the references/sources section, everywhere else in Wikipedia (as in academic works generally), the references are there to support the text, not to refute it -- just as, if you were going for a job, you wouldn't expect the referee to say how useless you were. Unless there has been a change of Wikipolicy, that is therefore how they should be used -- unless you want to create a new section entitled 'Anti-references', that is.

We have the makings of two quite decent articles here, and it would be a pity to let personal bees in bonnets and unheard-of academic policies cloud the issues and make the 2012 article less reputable by fictional or referential association. --PL (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

See the split section below as to the problems I see with spliting the fiction sections. Or do you want to try for 3 lists; clearly not related to a Doomsday scenario; clearly related to a Doomsday scenario, and unclear? I would say only about 50% of the ones PL has moved to the subarticle are clear from information available on Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

No, no, just a single separate article '2012 in fiction', since fiction is just that -- fiction! Put whatever you like into it. Or else junk the lot. It's so interesting and relevant that I probably shan't even bother to look at it! ;) --PL (talk) 08:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Fiction split

The split of the fiction section between 2012 and 2012 Doomsday prediction is a matter of significant dispute. Even if we were not to include pseudo-factual material, there may be dispute as to whether a specific item of literature, even if it reflects a disaster, is really an example of the 2012 Doomsday prediction genre. I think they should be merged, possibly into a new article, but the split will reflect WP:OR in some instances. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if it would be OR, I'm just not sure. It could, I suppose -- unless we can verify that the item deals in some way with the Mayan calendar -- and most of them seem to. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 20:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the idea of hiving off ALL fiction relating to 2012 into a separate section is just fine. Then we can finally leave 2012 Doomsday prediction and 2012 to do their separate jobs -- the one to tackle the fantasies surrounding the date, the other to display the facts in the light of the Mayan calendar. --PL (talk) 08:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

2012 in fiction created from pre-split information. I don't think anything correct was added after that point, but I suggest that others check and complete copying new or modified information, and then merge properly. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge tag

Who in the world put that tag on? Anyway, the answer is no. Final answer.the world isnt going to end in 2012 all scientists have said no so please dont worry this tag is off megan henderson . •Jim62sch•^dissera! 16:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The section merge tag is based on (1) the status quo ante, and (2) the agreement of CalendarWatcher (talk · contribs) and myself. You are in no position to say "no", but ththe linked discussion section above suggests restoring the merged fiction section into a separate article, to which I have no objection. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Then by all means do it! --PL (talk) 09:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, my good man, I can say no whenever I wish. No, really, I can. I didn't read the tag that way -- I must look again. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 18:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how "It has been suggested that 2012 Doomsday prediction#2012 doomsday in fiction be merged into this article or section." matches what you are saying. Try again, please. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 18:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree this page is receiving 286K hits per month. Compare this with 2011, 13.6k and 2013 15.4K. The reason for this interest is the amount of chatter going on about the so called changes / doomsday rightly or wrongly predicted for the year. The article needs to reflect this in some way rather than divert it all to other pages. Lumos3 (talk) 11:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It's only the fiction that (despite the unhelpful language above) it is proposed to divert -- and that isn't going to tell them anything, is it? --PL (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

A link to the "fiction" article should be sufficient. None of this hype is based on reality, just fiction. btw, it's really 2029 we need to worry about -- *wink* •Jim62sch•^dissera! 17:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Tags corrected, per my newly created 2012 in fiction from pre-fiction-section-split copy. If others care to verify that I haven't missed any correct updates, and complete the merge, it would be appreciated. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Reason for protection

Is this page protected because of the end of the world rumors? Daniel Christensen (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotected as a continual target of anon vandalism & random commentary, of "the world will end/will not end" variety. So yeah, more so because of its notoriety than any other reason. When left unprotected, the edit history of this page rapidly fills up with disruptive edits and their reversions. --cjllw ʘ TALK 00:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Reverting Back to Original Page

Someone messed up the entire 2012 page, by deleting all the content and replacing it with the same message about the world ending. It needs to be reverted back to the original. I don't know how to do that, can anyone else do it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.138.253.66 (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC) Coolmanwc4 (talk) 18:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Diamond Jubilee of QEII

Following comment is posted on my talk page:

2012

Why'd you delete the entry for 6th Feb? If that can be removed, so can others, theres nothing to say that other events in that year can be called off or postponed, etc. It is there because it's likely to happen and is a very very notable event. --Knowzilla 09:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I deleted "Diamond Jubilee of Queen Elizabeth II" on 2012 several times because of the following reasons.

• She is 83 years old now, then almost reaching 86 as of February 2012. Life expectancy for British women is 81 years as of 2004.
• In British monarchs, only Queen Victoria reigned over 60 years. George III, the second longest-reigning King reigned 59 years and 3 months.
• I assumed that it is too EARLY to mention it at the present time because of the reasons I mentioned above.

I do agree to make it posted after she become the second longest-reigning Queen, surpassing the reigning period of King George III. --Belle Equipe (talk) 19:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright then, but I don't think theres much doubt Her Majesty will reach that age (and probably even beyond). Don't forget to re-add it when the Jubilee is close enough. --Knowzilla 15:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Belle Equip - she is not one of the "British women" she is The Queen, I highly doubt life expectancy for said monarch and that of "British women" to be the same - what age was her mother on her death - she was 101!--Alf ^melmac 15:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly my thoughts, especially since this is only a three years away, I really don't think The Queen is going to pass away any time soon at all, I can even look forward with some hope to the Queen's Platinum Jubilee (70 years on the thrones of UK, Canada, Australia, NZ and so on - and about 106 years of age!). I'm fine whether it stays or not, I guess, but when the Jubilee gets close enough, just remember to place it back! --Knowzilla 16:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

2012. The targets agreed during the Kyoto Conference for Climate Change should be met by 2012

The objective of the Kyoto climate-change conference was to establish a legally binding international agreement, whereby, all the participating nations commit themselves to tackling the issue of global warming and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The target agreed upon at the summit was an average reduction of 5.20n 1990 levels by the year 2012.

The article currently states that the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. This is not correct. The first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol spans from 2008 to 2012, and ends 31 December 2012. But the Protocol will continue until otherwise decided. The current negotiations on a new international climate regime is considering establishing a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, which will begin 1 January 2013.

December 20th vs. 21st

Is the 21st the date A) on which the current baktun actually ends, B) on which the next baktun (the current one having ended on, say, 11:59:59 pm of the 20th) begins, or C) on which a non-midnight transition occurs between the two baktuns? The Mesoamerican Long Count calendar article seems to indicate that it is the Long Count date immediately prior to Creation that technically repeats, although nobody really talks about the 20th. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I reckon to answer that properly would require degrees of precision, scholarly consensus, and confidence in some abstruse points that alas, aren't really there.

As I understand it and by way of example, it's not clearly established what the ancient Maya conceived as being the starting or ending points of a calendar's "day". Depending on which colonial or ethnographic source is given more credence, a new calendar day may have begun after sunset; alternatively, from midday with the sun at the zenith; or (apparently considered less likely) at sunrise. I think epigraphers like David Stuart and Peter Mathews have suggested that days in the 260- and 365-day calendars began at different times. It's also quite likely the conceptualisation of when day starts/day ends varied between different precolumbian Maya communities and periods, as is reported for Maya communities in both colonial and contemporary times. There is therefore some slight allowance or margin of error to be accommodated, and for the LC, no single correlation day fits perfectly to all the records and background circumstances.

Also open to some discussion is whether the intended focus of an anciently-recorded commemorative date/ceremony was on the ending/completion of a period, or the commencement of a new one.

In any case, I don't think the article's present change of focus to the 12.19.19.17.19 LC date (LC base-date minus one) makes much sense. The base date or creation date in 3114 BC is explicitly written in inscriptions as 13.0.0.0.0. It is a false to assume however that the upcoming 2012 AD date would have been written by the Maya as 0.0.0.0.0. There are no inscriptions that write it this way or imply that it would be written with zeroes in the baktuns or higher-order places. The sole extant inscription that is actually about the 21 Dec 2012 date, Tortugero Monument 6, does not actually write out a full Long Count date for it, but says that it would be the completion of the 13th baktun, and commentaries on it and dates of this epoch all generally agree that 21 Dec 2012 is best represented as another 13.0.0.0.0. The original statement in the article was more correct, I believe -- on Dec 21 the LC date of 13.0.0.0.0 is repeated. Since, as you say, nobody in scholarship really talks about the 20th, I don't think this article should either. --cjllw ʘ TALK 15:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

7,000,000,000

The world population is estimated to reach 7 billion people in July 2012. http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/popwnote.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpdsharett (talk • contribs) 03:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Major religious holidays - cross quarters and solstices

All of the holidays listed as cross quarters and solstices are for the Northern hemisphere only - Southern hemisphere would be six months out (so where 20 June is the northern Summer Solstice, it's the southern Winter Solstice, northern Halloween equates to southern Beltane, and so on). Could someone who can edit this page update this? - even if just to add "in the Northern hemisphere" to the existing info...? Ktp3 (talk) 09:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

World won't end on 12/21/2012 (only Mayans say) in real life but 5 billion years it will... (ours say)

Sorry for being off-topic.

Hmm... Year 2012...

According to "Book of Relevations", Christian Bible says that the Earth will end and be desolate for 1000 years and become a New Earth and Eternity.

There will be Pole Shift and Polar Reversal in 2012. Despite disaster, it will be a perfect alignment, however the Pole Shift/Polar Reversal will either be very short or a little longer... 2nd Coming Of Christ will be here... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.158.32.110 (talk) 10:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

According to Mayan elder priest, the world won't end on December 21, 2012, yet it'll be transformed instead, so the world will be saved.

Myth: Mayans predicted that world will end on 12/21/2012 only in 'fiction'

Fact: For 5 billion years (5000000000 A.D.) "Mayan year 12500000.0.0.0.0" in the future, it will end in real life as scientists predicted as we expect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.158.32.110 (talk) 01:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we all know that here. Please note that article talk pages are not forums. There is a fair list of places where comments such as this would be welcome at WP:OUTLET. Intelligentsium 02:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

WHY?!?!?!?!?

Why are we even disscusing this?Why are people falling for yet another doomsday theary?Just like Y2K this is fake!It's just something to scare people into buying useless movies and "2012 protection kits."This kind of thing is dangerous, it causes mass hysteria,doomsday cults,and general stupididity,which brings more fear.And do we realy need to warn people about something that will NEVER happen?All it does is scare people.arn't thare enough problems in this world with out a fake doomsday theary????I'm 12 years old and I get it why can't every one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickmnmn (talk • contribs) 01:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Kudos to you. You're more astute at age 12 than many much older. My only question is this: Is there some way that someoneone (e.g., moi) can officially nominate a Wikipedia discussion page (e.g., this one) as the most ridiculous waste of time in the whole Wikisphere? Worldrimroamer (talk) 20:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why the Wikiserver posted my comment twice. I've deleted the repetition. Sorry for any confusion. Worldrimroamer (talk) 01:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I propose making some changes to "Dec. 21", if I may.

Under the heading December: December 21, the following things are said which need to be corrected. I will correct them unless someone can tell me why it shouldn't be done. The current text says:

On this day the Long Count date at creation—written 13.0.0.0.0 in modern notation, equivalent to August 11, 3114 BC in the proleptic Gregorian calendar

The Gregorian-calendar creation date given above is (generally) agreed to be correct. However, the creation date in the long-count Mayan calendar is 0.0.0.0.0, not 13.0.0.0.0. The long-count date 13.0.0.0.0 is agreed by most scholars to correspond to the Gregorian date December 21, 2012, although some calculate it to be December 23, 2012. But that's not my point -- the problem is that the creation date is 0.0.0.0.0, not 13.0.0.0.0. I would assume that this is just a typo on the part of the author. Also, I don't understand what "in modern notation" is supposed to mean. The number as stated is simply a translation of the Mayan base-20 numbers into base 10.

—is repeated for the first time in a span of a little over 5,125 solar years.[8]

I have no idea where this number comes from. One b'ak'tun is 144,000 days, which is 394.25 tropical (or solar) years. The length of time it takes the earth to complete one precession on its axis is, based on the present rate of precession (it varies slightly with time) is about 25,765 years. I cannot even tell what it is that the author is referring to as that which is being "repeated". But anyhow, I cannot find anything that repeats in 5125 years. This needs to be clarified.

The completion of this cycle and the repetition of the previous Creation's Long Count ending date have been central to the 2012 phenomenon.

What "cycle"?

Academic researchers have not concluded that the ancient Maya themselves attached similar significance to this point in time.[9]

It's correct that they have not concluded this. But some academic researchers have strongly suspected it, which is a valid point to be made (and documented, of course). What has not been pointed out in this article but should be (and I can document this from multiple sources) is that it is generally thought by scholars that the Mayan "end date" in the long-count calendar is what they chose first, and then they stepped back, as it were, thirteen b'ak'tuns to arrive at the creation date, 0.0.0.0.0. This is one of the strongest arguments for the assertion made by some (which I personally believe to be correct, but I will not insert my opinions into a Wikipedia article) that the Maya knew about the precession of the earth's axis (precession of the equinoxes), and that they were aware of the existence of a "winter solstice" (another unproven, but very likely true, assertion) and that they recognized that the winter solstice of 2012 was the first time in almost 26,000 years that the winter-solstice sunrise would occur somewhere near the intersection of the galactic and the ecliptic planes. No one can, today, define that "intersection point in space" exactly, and even if it were identifiable exactly, the Maya would not have been able to predict the time of its occurrence exactly. I calculate, using standard statistical methods and assumptions, and based on an estimation of their astronomical observatories' minimal accuracies, that they probably could have determined the date of the intersection of the winter-solstice sunrise and the intersection of the galactic and ecliptic planes to within a few weeks. So why did they choose precisely December 21 as the end of the calendar? I suspect that it is just because it was (is) the winter solstice which occurred nearest the intersection of the galactic and ecliptic planes. HOWEVER --

HOWEVER: PLEASE NOTE THIS: I will NOT insert personal calculations and assumptions into a Wikipedia article. I belabor the above points about intersection of planes only because I know there are some that are interested in the topic. There has been so much written on this topic, maybe there is some other place in Wikisphere where it would be appropriate. Maybe it's already there. I dunno. Don't have the time ... But I'm just saying that any modification I make to the article will be strictly factual. Worldrimroamer (talk) 01:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)