Miscellaneous desk
< May 3	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 5 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 4[edit]

Replying on wikipedia?[edit]

How do you reply to a question? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wookiemaster (talk • contribs) 00:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Press the edit button above the question asked and write your response below the question and/or previous answers. Joneleth 00:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And to make it more readable insert a ":" before you type to indent the text (as I've done). Also, it helps to sign your name with ~~~~ so people know that it was you that answered. —Mitaphane _?|! 03:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of Flores[edit]

Can anyone direct me to a place that tells the colonization history of the island Flores? Joneleth 00:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article on the German wiki [1] has a (very short) history section, if that's any help. Algebraist 08:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, Google gives a few pages (starting with an american court case for some reason). Algebraist 08:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homo floresiensis discusses the arrival, and demise, of the hobbits on the island. Rockpocket 17:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

poker - texas holdem[edit]

dear poker players, is the hand 2-A-K-Q-J considered a straight? please answer only if you know the answer and a reference would be nice... thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.155.55.86 (talk) 01:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

"Wrap-around" straights are not allowed in texas hold'em or any other standard poker games ([2] see section on straight flushes). They are allowed in some weird poker home game variants. Clarityfiend 01:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erotic cast on Amsterdam street[edit]

In Amsterdam's Red Light District, there is a cast of a man's hand fondling a naked female breast embedded among the cobblestones outside a church. Here is a picture: [3].

(It appears to be a little worn compared to when I saw it. I remember the nipples being a lot clearer.)

Who put this there, why did they put it there, and what does the church right next to the cast think of it? -- Mwalcoff 01:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is apparently "one of several bronze and iron statues donated to the city of Amsterdam by an unknown artist." [4] Rockpocket 20:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should really send an e-mail to the church. I wonder if they speak English there. A.Z. 23:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "the church" is more tolerant than you assume. Remember this is Amsterdam.--Shantavira 07:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. But there's a difference between tolerance and decadence. It's one thing for a church to welcome gays or ordain women; it's quite another to use church space for erotic art. Kind of shocking to me. I can't imagine even a United or Unitarian church in North America donating part of its property for a cast of a hand fondling a naked breast. -- Mwalcoff 01:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is outside Die Oude Kerk which is no longer in use and is now used as a gallery to exhibit some alternative art forms. Considering that there are windows with hookers looking out at the the church I doubt whether anyone would really worry about this cast. Jon

In North America, I agree. (Well, the US anyway - I bet there are some in Mexico). But Amsterdam isn't North American. 24.167.75.163 01:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As friends have remarked: "You know when you're in Holland - the locals speak better English than the English..." -- Arwel (talk) 21:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

iPod vs Zen Vision: M[edit]

In your humble opinion of Reference Desk members, which one do you think is better? RedStateV 01:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i personally have a Zen nano and love it to death. it holds as much as an Ipod. You dont have to buy each song. it comes with a microphone recorder feature, am/fm radio, allows mp3 incoding and all that jazz. the best thing about it is that i can plug it into anywhere...I mean...ANYWHERE that has a headphone jack and record off of it. Sometimes i record from the radio in my car, from my friends Ipod, from the tv. It is so awesome. Plus you are not limited to the songs that they have on itunes. --Kittycat rox 01:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it matters much, but you are not limited to the songs on iTunes with an iPod. I've plenty of songs on mine and never bought a song off iTunes in my life. You can easily put any CD you own onto it or any mp3 you find somewhere else. I'm also a little dubious about the am/fm addition — isn't listening to the radio one of the onerous activities than an mp3 player supposed to emancipate you from? ;-) --24.147.86.187 03:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Do not start debates. The reference desk is not a soapbox." - Reference Desk Guidelines. Joneleth 01:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, there are no Reference Desk Guidelines (yet?), only a still-changing proposal for guidelines. But the reference desk is no place for debates in any case... --mglg_(talk) 03:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to debate, but if you're asking my opinion, I like my Vision: M very much. Two big plusses for me are the vibrant screen (you can easily find online reviews that hold the iPod and ZVM screens together for comparison) and the ability to play most XviD/DivX files (me no likey Apple's uncommon iPod video formats). The ZVM can also output the screen to RCA video, something I don't believe the iPod is capable of. The biggest thing I don't like is that there's an extra dongle type thing necessary to connect USB and power, so that's one extra thing to lose. Anyway, you can find plenty of more complete and informed views than this one, but I think the ZVM is a neat little gadget that holds its own against the iPod. -- mattb 03:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had always thought that creative mp3 players were far superior to ipods in terms of audio fidelity? Anyone agree? 213.48.15.234 06:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to read our article Comparison of portable media players, which includes 2 iPod models and both the Vision:M and Vision W. Laïka 07:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are alternatives as well. If you're looking for video playback as well as audio, the Cowon PMPs, with their nice screens high battery life (10 hours with video) look like a nice option, though their interface is apparently a bit obnoxious. The iRiver clix 2 is very cool looking, also plays video, has a nicer interface, and has a great screen; it's more of a competitor with the iPod Nano, as it has only 4GB of space. There are more, but I like these ones and so I have mentioned them.

I have a 5th gen iPod, and the battery is drained quickly when watching videos (it lasts 2 hours, at the absolute maximum) or even viewing photos, and the screen's size leaves a bit to be desired. The UI and scroll wheel are slick though, and it's great for playing music. Shame it lacks FM/AM radio :\ -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal fighters > encyclopedia writers.[edit]

As I try to revert vandalism (from PrestonH account), Isee more and more people rving vandalism. Will there be more vandal fighters than encyclopedia wrtiters? Will it create unbalance enough to harm Wikipedia?--69.228.148.219 04:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, I was having exactly the same thoughts a few hours ago. I spend too much time reverting vandals, but I'm not going to stand by and allow my favourite articles to be subjected to this abuse. Cases occasionally occur where vandalism is not detected until the subject of the article reads about themself and is not surprisingly outraged by some racial smear or statement about sexual perversion that a vandal has inserted. Then it's corrected quickly. But as far as that particular person's attitude to Wikipedia is concerned, the damage may be done and there may be nothing we can ever do to convince them to come back. Their attitude may well be: "No matter how well intended Wikipedia is, it is inherently vandalisable and therefore nothing in it should be trusted". And they will be more likely to spread their (not unreasonable in the circumstances) negative opinion of WP to others. That's a sad by-product of vandalism that I'm sure most vandals never think about. Nevertheless, the numbers of these cases are low in comparison to the vast majority of users who know what great work we do here. I don't believe vandalism will ever harm Wikipedia in the long run. The way to fight vandals is to recruit ever more people as conscientious and dedicated editors. Eventually, every person on the planet will be an editor and there'll be nobody left to be a vandal. (Dream on, Jack!). JackofOz 05:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's success or failure can be described fairly simply. Writers/Proofcheckers = Quality Creation. Vandals = Quality Destruction. As long as there's more content and quality being created than there is being destroyed, wikipedia will improve. That said, I don't think having more people who do nothing but ward off vandals will hurt much. It's a quick and simple job, while writing is somewhat more tedious. Vandal watch is something you can sit down and do for five minutes or five hours, a quick thing that helps make wikipedia a better place. -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 09:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In no time, each one of us will be an administrator and we'll start to block the vandals. The ludicrous and nonsensical requirements that today exist to become administrators shall be put an end to once and for all, and all users with some edits and some time here will have the tools to fight vandalism. If any of us does something wrong with their tools, they'll just be blocked. Of course, for all of this to work, administrators must begin to lose all their tools while blocked, including the ability to unblock themselves.

It will not be like giving guns to everyone, because guns kill and, if someone uses their guns wrongly, the result is irreversible; but, if someone uses their admin tools wrongly, the result is easily reversible and will be reverted. Right after that happens, the user will be blocked and will do no more harm. A.Z. 12:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking doesn't really do as much as you'd think. Most vandals only vandalize a handful of pages and by the time you've noticed they've probably had their chuckle and logged off. The most dangerous part is vandalism that nobody notices; once someone has noticed it (an admin, anybody else) then it is practically fixed. --24.147.86.187 12:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that the question is asking not about vandals, but about anti-vandals, the people who tend to spend their entire time on wikipedia reverting vandalism, but have absolutely no encyclopedia-building edits. Essentially active wikipedia users can be broken down into a number of categories. 40 % vandalism only, 40 % anti-vandalism only, about 10 % other, and about 10 % encyclopedia building. The problem is that the vandalism patrol and the vandals themselves greatly out number the people here to write an encyclopedia. The most recent addition to this is the username-patrol, users who spend 100 % of their time going through the user creation log for what they view as unacceptable, potentially random, or otherwise unsuitable usernames that must be blocked immediately whether or not they're being used to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia--VectorPotential^Talk 14:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I thought most vandalfighters were half editors half anti-vandals. I haven't seen that many people who go full out only anti-vandalism, but I see nothing wrong with it. They try and keep the quality from diminishing, while editors try and better the quality, and metapedians keep the framework, rules, and government of the system so it the anti-vandals and editors can keep doing so. [Mac Δαvιs] ❖ 21:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And there's absolutely nothing wrong with being a talk-page-only editor, is there? A.Z. 23:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Few weeks ago there was an article in Signpost about an admin that went on a vandalism spree. Vandalised main page and so on... it took 17 minutes for bureaucrats to de-sysop him. (Because when he was banned he just unbanned himself) Shinhan 10:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the need for administrators to stop being able to unblock and unban themselves, which will allow for ten times more administrators than there are today, since no bureaucrat will be needed to stop the vandals. A.Z. 23:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blue eyes[edit]

Is it true that people with blue eyes cant see as far as people with other coloured eyes? --124.181.135.14 08:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not inherently true, as the iris does not play a role in vision, but people with lighter eyes are more susceptible to vision problems caused by sun exposure (cataracts, etc.), since they have less pigment protecting the vision structures behind the iris. The vision problems of albinos are an extreme example. --TotoBaggins 14:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it alleged that blue eyes have an advantage in mist, though I've never seen any details. —Tamfang 18:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eye color is a good read, incidentally. V-Man - ^T/_C 04:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen and the law[edit]

_{I know Wikipedia doesn't give legal advice,but I think it's unlikely to arise.If it does,I'm sure the BBC will inform us...}

All UK court cases are issued in the name of the Queen,and so she herself is above the law and cannot be sued or arrested.So what happens if she is caught breaking the law?If I'm walking down the street and HM bops someone on the head with a brick and grabs their handbag and makes a run for it,am I allowed to make a citizen's arrest?Could the police take her off to the station?Would the victim be able to take her to court? Lemon martini 09:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares, the US would deem her a tyrant and dispose of her! -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 09:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert but she's covered by sovereign immunity and so therefore can't be prosecuted but should she become a Catholic then the Act of Settlement 1701 will kick in and she's off to the tower. - X201 09:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would that conversion really be an act of treason, at law? It would certainly be sufficient for her to forfeit the throne. JackofOz 13:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only criminal cases in the UK are Regina v .... . And there is no such thing as a "citizens arrest" The power of arrest is held only by Officers of the Crown. Individuals have a duty to act in defense of the peace, but have no automatic protection in the event of a false detention.----petitmichel

In the past, when members of the royal family have been (for example) caught speeding, they have voluntarily agreed to be subject to the law - and will pay whatever fine would normally be paid by a regular citizen - but as I understand it, they have no obligation to do so. I believe that there was a case a while back where some building owned by the queen burned down because she had not met the legal requirement for sprinkler systems - there was a big kerfuffle over the whole thing in the press - but in the end the queen could not be prosecuted for that and didn't volunteer to "do the right thing". She is truly "above the law" - quite literally. SteveBaker 17:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sovereign is always above the law because she, or it, purports to be the source of all law: an anhistoric fraud, but there it is. —Tamfang 18:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No citizen's arrest in England? That's strange in a country which once had no public prosecutors. A. P. Herbert's Misleading Cases mentions that citizen's arrest is limited to felonies. In one episode of the detective show Bulman iirc, the hero seizes a Red spy, saying, "In England the citizen has the privilege of arrest." —Tamfang 18:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Britain, a citizens arrest is legal, though its position in law is (iirc) quite difficult to ascertain. While the police can arrest someone upon reasonable suspicion that they may be about to commit a crime (and any other variation, such as actually commiting a crime), a citizen can only arrest someone who they actually observe commiting a true crime - and that citizen would still have no defence against a claim of false imprisonment by the arrestee. By the way, I am not a lawyer, so take what I've said here with a pinch of salt and a google search :) Mart inp23 18:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just found this Mart inp23 18:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine the public being too happy if a sovereign knowing they were above the law took this as carte blanche to go around committing crimes willy-nilly without a hope of being punished. Perhaps if that did ever happen,there would be a case that wilfully flouting the laws you are supposed to be the source of either deserves a change in the law or a removal of power from the monarch.I assume it's pretty much along the same lines as diplomatic immunity but with the added dilemma that you can't just kick them out the country Lemon martini 21:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. If the queen did something utterly terrible and refused to accept the rule of law - then the likely result would be the end of the monarchy. Government would try to pass laws abolishing the monarchy - but laws don't become law until the queen signs them (which - so far - the monarch always does, no matter what). If she ever failed to sign a law there would be a constitutional crisis - but since the UK doesn't have a formally written constitution, it would be "interesting". In the end, it comes down to whether the armed forces, police and civil service would choose to follow the line demanded by parliament - or whether they'd stick with the queen. Certainly the armed forces swear an oath of loyalty to the queen - but I doubt that they'd all side with her. It would be a horrible mess - but I think that most people would agree that they'd rather obey the laws as written by parliament - even if not signed by the queen - than obey those produced by royalty. The last thing most people would want would be a dictatorship. SteveBaker 18:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The monarch is above the law, but does this extend to other members of the Royal Family? I kinda doubt it, but IANAL. I think that if QEII and Princess Anne conspired to murder, say, Paris Hilton, ~~first of all nobody would object, but secondly,~~ I think Anne would have to suffer the legal consequences whereas the equally morally (if not legally) culpable Queen could choose to remain immune from prosecution. JackofOz 07:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, they would have to do this without assistance (dammit), since their henchmen would be liable. Bring in on, Liz! I can take you, you and your purse! Clarityfiend 15:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citizens' arrest. Check out http://www.lawiki.org/index.php/Citizen%27s_arrest. This explains the complex subject in some detail. Basically the term is widely misused on the assumption that ordinary people have some form of arrest powers that are unique compared to Police Officers, for example. Actually a policeman in the UK is a normal citizen, but granted the right to detain people on reasonable grounds... a citizen doing this would be lucky not to face false arrest or kidnapping allegations.----petitmichel

If the Queen refused to sign a law for a good reason, that most other british citizens would agree with, they would be on her side then.

The Movies[edit]

If there was a law suit over a movie produced in the movies who owns the movies lionhead movies or the person who has the offending item on their hard-drive.

Thanks Nebuchandezzar 13:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: May we assume that you mean "The Movies" video game, produced by Lionhead Studios? -Czmtzc 14:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previously the lack of any punctuation before the last word made me wonder what they were asking. Due to your comment, do you think we can assume that they meant, "If I, or anyone else, makes a movie which is produced in the video game The Movies, which is made by Lionhead Studios, who would own the rights to that movie, Lionhead or the person who made the movie?" Dismas|^(talk) 15:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that was the question, the answer would be Lionhead - because all of the artwork in "your" movie was produced by their artists. However, I would check carefully with the product packaging because they might actually give permission there for you to use movies that you make. SteveBaker 17:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The instruction manual and ReadMe for the game are surprisingly vague on this matter, but nevertheless, the instruction manual claims that "objects, characters...dialogue, locations...artwork, animations, sounds, musical compositions, audio-visual effects...are owned by Activision or its licensors." and "You shall not exploit this program or any of its parts commercially". This seems to mean that any movies produced are owned by Activision (who own Lionhead), but IANAL. Laïka 10:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, their website Terms and Conditions section 10 is much clearer: "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, you agree that LSL owns all content within your movies that was supplied with the Movies game or is otherwise made available to you by LSL...You grant to LSL and their licensees...a world wide non-exclusive perpetual irrevocable royalty-free licence to publish, use, change, modify, sub-license and/or otherwise exploit as it deems fit, your movies". Basically, by using the game, you automatically enter into a legal contract giving all copyright and intellectual property rights to Lionhead... Laïka 12:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

polly pocket[edit]

i dont know about you but d*** AMERICANSSS ruined polly pocket (GRRR) those were such querky and chic toys back in the day now there just crap, what do you all think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.42.71.115 (talk) 16:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Polly Pocket toys of the old style are likely to be available on EBAY. For example, [5] lists many, some of which might be the kind you want. [6] for instance claims to be a complete 1989 set. You could write the company directors and demand they clean up their act, or you could buy a share of stock and introduce a shareholder's resolution to change the product back to the way you want it. It probably wouldn't pass, but it might be fun to try. Edison 16:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

um, i'm not exactly sure what made you think all of us americans screwed the polly pockets up. is it because they're not as "modest" as back then, or they're plastic? whatever it is, don't be angry with all americans.

sorry mate :) but they used to be really imaginative and different to what was out then back in the day

Try searching for "original bluebird polly pocket." [Mac Δαvιs] ❖ 21:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, while I agree that the current Polly Pockets seem rather pointless compared to the originals (it's like if you made new transformers that didn't transform), this really isn't a discussion page. Probably Mattel hired some people who ran some focus groups that concluded that little girls wanted to play with dolls that they could dress up, instead of having tiny dolls live in houses in common objects. Maybe they'll reintroduce Mighty Max with stylable hair.... Skittle 19:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drug and Device Recall Act of 1998[edit]

Where can I find the March 16, amendment made to the "Drug and Device Recall Act of 1998 by the 105th Congress 2nd session. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.89.79.66 (talk) 18:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

THOMAS is your friend. But as it turns out, there are two potential answers:

S. 1767, the "Drug and Device Recall Reporting Act of 1998", was introduced in the Senate on March 16 1998, and buried in committee.
H.R. 3462, also called the "Drug and Device Recall Reporting Act of 1998", was introduced in the House on March 12 1998, and similarly buried in committee.

Hope this helps. –Pakman044 19:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dry/Wet Mix[edit]

What does "dry" and "wet" mean in sound? [Mac Δαvιs] ❖ 21:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not easy to answer! A google search on "wet dry mix reverb" yields lots of hits, but they all seem to assume you already know what the terms mean.

The term definitely refers to sound effects processing, such as when you are adding reverb or echo to a signal. The original (unmodified) signal is referred to as the "dry" signal, and the modified one is referred to as the "wet" signal. Generally, the final (output) signal will be some mix of the original and the processed signal, and "wet/dry" refers to the proportion of that mix.

For example, suppose you were inserting a simple 1/2 second echo. If your wet/dry mix ratio were set to 50/50, you'd end up with an echo just as loud as the original. A 5/95 wet/dry mix would yield a very quiet echo. At the two extremes, a wet/dry ratio of 0/100 would give you no echo at all, while a 100/0 ratio would give you only the echo, and it would essentially just be a 1/2 second delay.

When you are using more complicated effects, such as reverb (perhaps with "color") or flanging, the wet/dry mix will have a more elaborate interpretation, and can have a very significant effect on the sound of the final, output signal.

The two web hits I learned this from are here and here. Anybody got any ideas on which Wikipedia article ought to define the terms (if it doesn't already)? —Steve Summit (talk) 23:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think they should be defined in the Recording studio article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.109.128.4 (talk) 00:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Acorralada[edit]

In what state in the U.S. is the Venevision telenovela Acorralada filmed? Eric Hartley--12.18.90.141 21:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Venevision's news page "The quintessential elements of the trendy Miami, Florida play a starring role in VENEVISION International’s original production, Trapped, an enthralling telenovela with all the ingredients of an international hit." jnestorius^(talk) 01:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know that................[edit]

.........that Spiderman has been retconned ? I saw a special about this on the History Channel called Spiderman Tech which discussed spiders, retroviruses and the like. According to this, Peter Parker was bitten by a genetically engineered spider that had a retrovirus in it, not a radioactive spider as in a previous plotline. :) 205.240.146.147 22:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC) :)[reply]

Yes I did - question answered. Icthyos 22:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of the articles here mention a genetically engineered spider. Is it possible that they got it wrong for the history channel show? Dismas|^(talk) 22:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure they said that it was genetically engineered on the 1st movie. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.211.8.100 (talk) 00:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Makes more sense anyway imho. It made me wonder whether Daredevil (blinded and enhanced by something radioactive) would be retconned too, but apparently nobody ever saw that movie. —Tamfang 07:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it, and I wish I hadn't. (Retcon is a nice read for this topic, BTW.) V-Man - ^T/_C 23:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007 May 4