Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2006 November 20

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Miscellaneous desk
< November 19 << Oct | November | Dec >> Novmeber 22 >
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.


November 20[edit]

football[edit]

What was the name of Jim Nance's younger brother, who played football at University of Buffalo in late 60s or early 70s?...thanx!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hooper49 (talkcontribs)

Given where buffalos live, I assume you mean American football, but that's just a guess. Please specify. DirkvdM 08:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Buffalos are from africa or asia, america has Bison, which they like to call buffalos. However the place Buffalo is the name of various places in the US. Philc TECI 23:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Dirk, if you know who Jim Nance is and what the University of Buffalo is, you know which football he's talking about. If those names don't mean anything to you, you won't have the answer anyway. It's true that sometimes American users sometimes fail to be geographically specific, but there's no reason to be scornful of someone when it's not really relevant. -- Mwalcoff 01:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Suppose I were a football fan, then I'd waste time reading the question and trying to figure out what it is about, based on the title. Sorry about the buffalo-mistake. That was stupid. DirkvdM 07:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Dislike of nudity[edit]

Why is nudity such a social taboo throughout most of the world? What is it about the human body that people fundamentally don't like? I wear clothes like most other people because it's the social norm, clothes look good too, and it keeps me warm -- but, why are people so hostile towards eg nude images? --Lightspeaker 00:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The articles on nudity and indecent exposure explore that topic. I'm with you, I find it abhorrent that the so called conservatives find images of war and murder more socially acceptable then love and nudity. Vespine 00:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I notice that this is your first post ever as Lightspeaker. Please excuse me if I doubt the sincerity of your question. If you indeed have contributed to this project with a different identity (username) then please let us know so that we can make some judgment as to your sincerity. The nature of your question does not seek a factual answer so much as to encourage controversy. That kind of inquiry is not welcomed at this RD, we are doing our best to answer factual questions and not to encourage controversial dialogue. Get it? --hydnjo talk 00:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Hardly a reason to discourage them from starting, and even though it could be a controversial subject, it does seem like a valid question. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 00:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree. It seems like every day someone is calling for deleting a question because it borders on trolling. I firmly believe they should only be deleted in extremely rare circumstances. The questioner might want anonymity and questions that seem to be trolling may have a genuine lack of knowledge behind them. -THB 00:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Fine. Please have a go at answering the question then. --hydnjo talk 00:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but although I realised this is a controversial subject (enough that I did get a different account), I did try to ask as best I could. I will try to rephrase the question more simply: what are the main reasons a majority of cultures throughout the world find nudity taboo, and what is it about nakedness they specifically dislike?

Is this more acceptable? Maybe I tried to explain myself too much before. Also, thanks for the links, the first one in particular had some pertinent stuff :) --Lightspeaker 01:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to us and I apologize for my harsh commentary above. I have no quarrel with legitimate inquiry. --hydnjo talk 01:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Probably because of its sexual connotations. Cbrown1023 01:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
No, not at all. The question Why is nudity such a social taboo throughout most of the world? is a subject of debate and not a question that could be responded to with a factual reply. I agree that the debate would be fascinating and lengthy but such questions are in the category of debate rather than exactness or factualness. --hydnjo talk 01:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I was referring to his question, not your comment. Cbrown1023 01:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I wish to make it clear that User:Lightspeaker is of course not me! I would have chosen a completely different name from my own 8-)--Light current 01:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Why Lc! Why would you think that any newcomer with ...light... in its name would be thought to be you, no matter how clever or witty? --hydnjo talk 01:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Mystery shopper (I havent been spotted yet!) 8-)--Light current 01:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Possibly (guessing here) because the people in power are often fat old and ugly and so acquisition of fine clothes was prized over natural talents like attractive naked bodies. Perhaps when we are ruled by hollywood celebrities will will achieve naked utopia. meltBanana 01:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Some universal reasons:

  • Because your level of sexual arousal becomes apparent, especially for males, if naked. It would be equivalent to saying "I'd like to have sex with your wife" or "I'd like to have sex with you" whenever your excitement to meet a husband and wife seems rather excessive.
  • Because of hygiene concerns, especially diarrhea and menstruation.

Note that those reasons only concern covering the genitals and anus, they don't apply to toplessness, showing ankles, or anything else considered "nudity" for purely cultural reasons. Also, the first reason doesn't apply to young children, so public nudity in that age range (like baby butts) is sometimes considered more acceptable. Hygiene, of course, is a concern at any age (except menstruation). StuRat 04:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

"If God had meant for us to be nudists, we all would have been born buck naked." StuRat 04:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Haha:) I like it! Yes, you can explain your universal reason to the thousands of nudists that get by quite happily without clothes. Nudity as taboo is purely a phenomenon of society, it has nothing to do with hygiene or arousal, for one, male arousal is a result of the taboo, remove the taboo and the arousal is removed too, or do you think the Kalahari bushmen constantly walk around with erections because their women go about topless?Vespine 04:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
No, the problem is that men, and especially teenage boys, get erections all the time. When they are hidden, it's not a problem, but when exposed, it creates a situation. For this reason, and for hygiene, adults almost always have their crotches covered, in all societies. As I said, those reason do NOT apply to toplessness, that is a purely social taboo. As for the hygiene issue, primitive societies with total nudism didn't know about how diseases spread, so didn't worry much about hygiene. As a result, they had much higher death rates, particularly among children. StuRat 04:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmm thats interesting about the childrens death rates. IDKT. Do you have any refs?--Light current 01:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
You didn't know that life expectancy was much lower and infant mortality was much higher in primitive societies ? I find that surprising. See the links for info. StuRat 06:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

My guess is that it is evolutionary and that one of the main things that separate humans from animals is their ability to refrain from sex and make mroe conscious decisions about reproduction. To that end, nudity works against that discipline and societies that didn't refrain died out through natural selection. Whence the social taboo is s surival mechanism. --Tbeatty 05:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree. Many other animals are amazingly picky about mates, even without clothes. StuRat 08:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't find that a very convincing explanation. In contexts where nudity is commonplace, it quickly ceases to be a sexual trigger. You may still be turned on by a person, of course, but she'd turn you on in a burqa, if all you ever saw were women in burqas. I remember someone (not an expert, maybe a sci-fi writer, but it was pretty convincing) arguing that clothing serves precisely the opposite purpose -- the fashion cycles of more- and less-revealing clothes, he claimed, had the precise scope of keeping sexual interest high by stimulating the imagination. --Trovatore 05:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
No, I still don't agree, ok, granted the topless thing, but there are nudist societies where having or seeing an erection is obviously not the end of the world, THAT is also a social taboo. I really don't believe men cover their crotches to hide their erections, and I'm sure they also don't have massive hygiene problems with diarrhoea or menstruation, I do the laundry for myself and my partner and I can't remember ever having to wash blood or faeces from out underclothes.. ahem.. As to conscious decision about reproduction, well, that's arguable, but I really don't think nakedness has anything to do with that. Again, I cite evidence in the thousands of people who participate in nudist societies who manage not to spend the majority of their time copulating as you would suggest they would since they are shamelessly derobed a large amount of the time. Vespine 05:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The hygiene problem may be somewhat reduced by modern technology, but in primitive societies people had a harder time keeping clean (without toilet paper, running water, feminine hygiene products, etc.). With the exception of tampons, the other feminine hygiene products require wearing panties to keep them in place. Also note that sitting on an apparently clean bench another nude person sat on might be enough for you to pick up a parasite egg; it isn't necessary for there to be a big steaming pile or a bloody mess. StuRat 08:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I, for one, am surprised that religion hasn't been mentioned. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all (AFAIK) have taboos with regards to nudity and that covers most people on earth as far as religion goes. Dismas|(talk) 07:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
But religion typically just reflects the social views of a culture, it rarely changes those views. StuRat 08:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I have no actual data, but it can start like this: people wore clothing for warmth. So after a while clothing became the normal state. And thus not wearing clothing became odd, with all the taboos you refer too.
I'll give you a modern example: shoes. In america if you walk barefoot, you will be looked at oddly. Why? Because most of the time people wear shoes, so not wearing them becomes taboo. So why is it not a universal taboo like clothing is? Because in some contexts (swimming, etc) it's normal to not wear shoes. The resulting taboo 'level' exactly matches how common it is to wear, or not wear shoes. In other countries (or in times past) going barefoot was normal, so no taboo resulted.
You can apply the same reasoning to wearing pajamas outside. Would you be comfortable with that in an office? It's not nudity, but most people would be embarassed, but in the proper context it's fine. In many bath houses in europe people sit nude in mixed company without being embarassed, yet would not dream of doing it in a different context.
Basically what I'm saying is that many taboos are the result of what's usual, and any variation from that eventually becomes taboo.
Ariel. 10:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm ok so its either (or a mix of) sex or social taboo then? Thanks for the info --Lightspeaker 23:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Male nudity will never be generally accepted until women can view a (male) erection without getting scared or offended! --Light current 23:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Also will not be accepted till women can view a man from behind when he bends over! 8-((--Light current 00:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Name of a game[edit]

There's a board game I know as fox and geese, but it is quite different to the game described in our article on the subject. Played on the white squares of a chess board, one player has four pieces which move as draughts pieces except that they cannot jump or become kings; the other has one piece which moves as a draughts "king" except that it also cannot jump. Starting from the first rank, the player with one piece (the "fox") attempts to reach the furthest rank. The other player attempts to use the four pieces (the "geese") to put the fox in a position where it is unable to move.

Does anyone else know this game, and if so, does it have another name? thanks, Warofdreams talk 00:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I played a variant of this game using a checkerboard and pieces, but I can't remember the name. bibliomaniac15 01:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The game is Fox and Hounds. The objective of the "Hounds" is to trap the Fox; the "Fox," obviously, is attempting to evade the Hounds and reach the other side of the board.

The game is "unfair" in that one side should always win. However, with proper play by the other side, it can be made very difficult. So much so, that I'm not going to tell you which side is which. B00P 07:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I've always known it as Fox and Geese too, but privately thought Fox and Hounds would be a better name... Is there likely to be a source we can use to provide a link from fox and geese to fox and hounds? Skittle 17:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Don't bother. I'll add a section to Fox games in a day or two. B00P 19:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I've seen the board game before, and I think it's called Hounds and Hare. NeonMerlin 20:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the information! If no-one else get there first, I'll try writing something on it. Warofdreams talk 04:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Have done so (incl Fox and Hounds redirect) as threatened promised. B00P 19:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Red turning blue[edit]

Moved to WP:HD#Red turning blue by hydnjo talk 03:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Clearly a question about using WP and not a question for the RD. hydnjo talk 03:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes you are quite right! Mea culpa! Sorry!--Light current 03:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Glad you explained it, I was thinking it was about red US states (Republican) voting blue (Democrat) in the last election. StuRat 03:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

...and I was thinking it was something to do with acids, alkalis, and litmus paper! Grutness...wha? 05:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
...and I was thinking it was to do with Red vs. Blue! Skittle 17:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia and UAE country info articles contradict[edit]

UAE article says: Many churches are present in the UAE, as all other Muslim countries, being tolerant of other religions. Compare this with the Saudi Arabia view of christianity.

Dunno how to fix... Thought leave it with someone with more time then myself to sort out! Cheers

Saudi Arabia isn't in the UAE. --Wooty Woot? contribs 02:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
You would be best to ask that on the talk pages of the articles. That way editors that are invested in those articles can address your concern or help you fix it. --Justanother 03:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The Middle East Portal might also be a good place to reconcile this. Anchoress 03:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I suspect the misunderstanding is that the governments are tolerant of other religions (as burning Christians alive likely wouldn't help them out in international relations). On the other hand, substantial portions of the population are dedicated to eradicating Christianity. Of course, many Sunni are also dedicated to eradicating the Shia and vice-versa, so this should be portrayed as a general attitude of religious intolerance, not just intolerance against Christianity. But, again, remember that most governments don't participate in overt oppression, but prefer to keep it as subtle as possible, at least until they get enough military and political power so they no longer have to worry about world opinion. StuRat 03:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

StuRat, you say that "substantial portions of the population (of Muslim countries) are dedicated to eradicating Christianity". Do you know this for a fact ? What evidence do you have for this assertion ? Gandalf61 11:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Here is a poll result from the US, where presumably more moderate Muslims live than in many Islamic nations [1]:
In answer to the question, "If you learned about a plot by Muslims to attack targets inside America, would you tell law enforcement authorities," 234 said yes, but 39 said no, and 34 were undecided.
StuRat 11:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Is that your only evidence for your assertion ? That poll states that it is non-scientific [2]; it sampled delegates at the annual convention of the Islamic Society of North Amrerica who visited a particular booth; and it has no questions about the attitude of Muslims to Christianity. How does a non-scientific poll of self-selected Muslim activists in the US allow you to draw widespread conclusions about the attitude of average people in different countries to a completely different question ? Gandalf61 12:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
No, that's just one of many polls. However, scientific polls are rare in the Muslim world. Here's a poll on firing rockets into Israel (so about murdering Jews, not Christians, but still the same general idea):
"Some 42.4% of the respondents rejected firing rockets at Israeli targets from the Gaza Strip, and nearly the same number said it damaged the Palestinian cause." (So, some 57.6% do not reject firing rockets at Israeli civilians.)
Do you have a poll that shows 99.9% of Muslims worldwide oppose terrorism ? StuRat 19:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
StuRat, if 42.4% of respondents to some poll reject a proposition you cannot conclude that 57.6% of respondents support the proposition - you don't tell us what other responses were available. Could there have been some "don't know"s, for example ? Since you don't give a source for your second poll, we cannot tell. In any case, this poll still does not back up your assertion that "substantial portions of the population (of Muslim countries) are dedicated to eradicating Christianity". As you do not seem to be able to support your extraordinary claim with evidence, I can only conclude that you do not have any. I have no problems with you putting forward your opinion that the majority of Muslims are dedicated to eradicating Christianity (even though I profoundly disagree with it), but please do not present it as if it were a fact. Gandalf61 20:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say 57.6% support firing rockets, only that 57.6% do not reject firing rockets at civilians. Here's the ref: [3]. Those who answered "I strongly support" or "I support" total 52.6%, so, yes, a majority (although I only claimed a substantial portion, not a majority). Yes, this particular poll is on killing Jews, not Christians, but seems to get the point across that the idea the media portrays that "it's just a few crazies who are causing all the violence" is wrong, there is actually broad public support for violence in parts of the Muslim world. StuRat 06:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

crocodiles[edit]

Do crocodiles sneeze?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.117.179.3 (talkcontribs) .

This page concerns reptile sneezing and yawning, and as crocodiles are reptiles, I suppose they do sneeze as well. –mysid 08:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could ask one.martianlostinspace 16:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

If you don't speak crocodilish, just tickle one. –mysid 17:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Crocodiles also sneeze right before they vomit. -THB 22:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you speak from personal experience (smile). Hope you were wearing rubber boots! --Justanother 01:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Moving forward with the Metric System[edit]

I have always wondered, why do Americans still use the non-metric (avoirdupois?) systems of measurement such as pounds and yards and miles, when the rest of the world has moved on to metric (grams and metres) a long time ago? It is surely easier to perform arithmetic using a decimal based system rather than any other? Why bother to remember how many yards in a mile? At the risk of controversy, surely the technological superpower of our world should move on from such colonialist quagmires? Sandman30s 09:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, that is probably the reason: only a superpower can afford to defy common sense, ignore the rest of the world and engage in colonialist quagmires. Skarioffszky 09:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
You may be interested in reading metrication in the United States. It is not true to say that "the rest of the world moved on to metric a long time ago". e.g. you won't find any roadsigns in the UK marked in kilometres.--Shantavira 09:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
But all of the scientific community use metric (and everything else, miles is the only non metric unit we use, everythings in kilos, litres and metres otherwise, were definately not imperial). And it makes sense, it removes lots of nasty constants. Plus when NASA got lent some data for one of their probes they left in km, instead of converting to miles which they curiously do everything in, a crashed it into mars. So really its in their intrests aswell. Philc TECI 22:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
It's called social inertia. People tend to stick with what they are already doing. ☢ Ҡiff 10:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
It's kind of off the subject and I'll be accused of picking nits but most Americans who actually know how long a mile is, don't think of it in yards. We think of it as 5,280 ft. Dismas|(talk) 10:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah yes "feet" - I should have said 'caveman quagmires' - has a better ring to it :) Sandman30s 11:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I wanted to get corrected on that 'rest of the world' statement - wanted to know which other backward countries there are - apparently this is rife in the "west" :) Sandman30s 11:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
It might also be a matter of nationalistic pride. The USAns are obsessed with the idea of living in a free country, so they resist adaption of international standards for the sheer sake of resistance. "You will only take our miles and pounds away when you pry them from our cold, dead fingers". JIP | Talk 12:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
What? It has almost nothing to do with nationalism, and everything to do with the system Americans were raised in. Since our parents learned feet and ounces, from a young age we are socialized into feet and ounces. Although we learn the wonders of the metric system in school, we don't have an intuitive sense for the units. If you as someone raised in the American Standard how long a foot is, they have qualitative and quantitative answers to estimate it - our thumbs are "about an inch" to the first knuckle, a yard or 100 yards can be estimated by a football field, a quarter mile is the distance between two bus stops. Switching over to metric isn't as easy as changing the labels on products. Now the distance between bus stops is 0.402 kilometers? Our thumb is 2.54 centimeters to the first knuckle? The 49ers have the ball on 3rd and 9.144? This is why metrification is difficult. sthomson 16:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Those figures you give appear to have false precision. This might also be a factor why Americans are so reluctant to change to metric - they fear that when they do, they must start measuring everything with greater precision than they are used to. People will have to start carrying measuring tape to find how far a bus stop is from their home, and have to use a letter scale, an eyedropper and tweezers to get the correct ingredients for cooking a meal. This perceived fear is false, as no such increased precision is required or expected. (Perhaps this is also a result of the total lack of intuition about metric measurements.) I would state the measurements you gave above as "400 metres", "2.5 centimetres" and "9.1". Even though your maths teacher says 1 foot is 304.88 mm, you don't have to carry a measuring tape and a magnifying glass when measuring how far you walk. Instead, you can use an approximation that 1 foot is 30 cm. It's what we Europeans do. JIP | Talk 16:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. We in South Africa converted way back in 1961 along with our British currency, and people adapted quickly. Sure my parents still talk in the old way such as "I am 6 feet tall", but in other ways they have adapted, such as knowing a ruler is 30 cm or using a 5 metre measuring tape and never using the opposite side which shows inches. Using metric we have learned to either approximate ("I am about 1.8m tall") or use precision when needed. Now the only thing left is to convert time to use base 10 instead of 6... just kidding! Sandman30s 08:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
You're right - my attempt at humor (by leaving in too many decimal places!) obscured the point I was trying to make, which is explained more clearly below. Thanks for responding! sthomson 17:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
That says a lot, as does the Metrication article. Good to know there is an effort, which like any change has a certain amount of resistance. Thanks people. Sandman30s 12:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Metrication is allegeldy not complete in three countries, the US, Liberia and Myanmar/Burma. I think Liberia and Myanmar also use some kind of imperial/avoirdupuis system, but the articles on the countries don't tell... 惑乱 分からん 14:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Liberia uses the American system. Myanmar uses its own system. Also, there are many countries where the government is totally metrified but the people still use whatever "old" system they used before metric came along. In some countries the level of metrication among the populace varies wildly from region to region. Quebec is much more metrified, for instance, than British Columbia. --Charlene 16:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Where can I find more info about the Myanmar system? 惑乱 分からん 17:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

And if you American-types ever go Metric (about the time when the British drive on God's side of the road), then don't get suckered into 'whole degree' Celsius thermostats! They stink! You're always too hot or too cold! --Zeizmic 18:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Who would wnat to drive on the right side of the road, it's wrong and wierd! Are all bus stops in America the same distance apart? How is that possible or practical? Englishnerd 18:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Many American cities are built on a grid plan with every road intersection spaced a certain number of yards from the previous one. The house numbering will go up by 100 within that distance. Strange to English eyes, but there we go. Marnanel 20:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC) (English living in the US)

Boy, the government really tried to force a conversion to metric in the 1970s and I was all for it. I still carry in my wallet a little plastic metric conversion card from the U.S. Department of Commerce that I got in 1976. And then one day they switched all the speed limit signs back to mph... -THB 22:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Did government give a reason why? Sandman30s 08:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
They never converted the speed limits to metric. In the 70s, they started putting some metric signs up in addition to the mph signs. Congress killed the funding for metrication on the roads because no one was using it, and people thought it was a waste of money. -- Mwalcoff 04:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

sthomson's post about being socialized into feet and ounces and not having an intuitive sense for the units etc, is true for any country that decides to change from one system to another. It does take a while for those alive during the transition to change their mind set. But hundreds of countries have changed without a negative impact on life. Australia did it in stages (currency 1966, weights and measures by the end of the 80s), and we didn't really blink an eyelid. The issue is that the USA is now lagging behind the rest of the world; they all did it and now the USA is out of step. JackofOz 23:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

So very true. Being from austria I naturally grew up with the metric system. Upon starting to play Warhammer 40k which only uses inches and feet I had a hard time measuring exact distances in the game with the hand and/or eye. However after a while playing I was able to measure 6" almost exactly with my eyesight and fingerspan. It is really just a matter of adaptation. Aetherfukz 00:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me give my two cents as an American. I use feet, pounds, ounces and degrees Fahrenheit. I learned the metric system in school. (in the early 80s, all the math word problems were in metric -- if Johnny has 9 kilograms of apples, etc.) I do not feel that my life suffers in one bit because I don't use the metric system. I know that metric has advantages in some ways, like how 1 liter of water is 1 kg., and of course I know all about the powers of 10 thing. When the metric system is used, such as for big bottles of soda or in science, I have no problem with it. But when I think about how far something is, I think of feet. When I think about how heavy it is, I think in pounds. This is how things have been measured my whole life, and in my parents' life, and their parents' life, and so on. Trying to change it would take a tremendous amount of effort and likely coercion, as we found in the 70s. So why should we do it? Because people in Malawi and Mozambique and Thailand use the metric system? Good for them. But that doesn't mean we should go along with them. We Americans are perfectly happy using the system we've used for 200 years, and unless you can show me that my life somehow suffers because of it, I don't plan on changing. -- Mwalcoff 00:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

You mention Malawi and Mozambique and Thailand, but failed to mention Mexico and Canada, or Japan, Germany, France, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Italy, Malaysia, Indonesia, China, India, Israel, Russia .......... If you lived in isolation from these countries, maybe it wouldn't matter a jot what they do. But you trade with these countries, you provide aid to them, you have diplomatic relations with them, and so on. You sometimes even invade them. There will inevitably come a time when staying with the imperial system just doesn't serve your interests any more. If you're going to have to bite the bullet before too long, why wait? Get it over and done with sooner rather than later. JackofOz 00:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, the military's been using metric for decades (they even have their own word for a kilometer -- a "klick"). Some consumer products, such as soda, are already measured in metric; more may be as globalization continues. But that's happening voluntarily. There's no reason to try to force people to use one system or the other. -- Mwalcoff 01:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
There is a reason to force people to use one system or another; it allows consumers to make reasonable comparisons between what people are offering, it avoids cheating and makes sure things are compatible with each other. That last point is probably a driving force in itself for people to choose to use a set system, but in the mean time you can get all sorts of confusion. The first is a simple principle of consumer protection; if I can use any system I want, I can tell you apples are 30p a pound, where 'pound' is in fact short for 'Skittle-pound' being equal to 12 ounces. Or I can sell you things in 'moog' measures, and you won't be able to work out if I'm selling cheaper than my competitor or not. Skittle 01:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I was referring to individual consumers, not companies. Obviously, there has to be a standard set of weights and measures for consumer protection. At the moment, consumer goods must show their contents in American measurements. Thus, a "2 liter" of soda will say "67.6 ounces" on it somewhere. This is to keep companies from taking advantage of consumers' ignorance of the metric system. (Several decades ago, a cigarette company advertised, "It's a millimeter longer than the others," not telling people a millimeter is 1-25th of an inch.) Eventually, the government will allow companies to use only metric. -- Mwalcoff 02:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
"Metrication"? Metrication is not an American English word. Try "metrification". Who says "metricate"? It's "metrify". User:Zoe|(talk) 03:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, "metrication" is correct. Wikipedia even has Category:Metrication. -THB 04:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Whether it is nationalism or a system in which you grew up, surely this is *against* independance and freedom. You celebrate 4 July with such fervour, yet this is for independance from British rule. So why still adopt the imperial British system of weights and measures? Scientists have adapted. Athletes have adapted. Americans should move forward with metrication as a symbol of globalization and willingness to be part of a world community. Sandman30s 08:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Sandman, you may have noticed that Americans don't do things just to be like the rest of the world. If we did, we'd watch soccer, drive hatchbacks, give up root beer and make our money different colors and sizes. -- Mwalcoff 04:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I thought the UK was making more progress in metrification than the USA? Or am I mistaken? JIP | Talk 08:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Uh, yes, possibly because of all the trade with the rest of the EU. 惑乱 分からん 13:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
At the farmer's market, I saw some nice apples so I bought a half bushel of them. That amounted to two 1 peck bags. The farmer grows them on his 640 acre farm, which is exactly one square mile. He planted a new varity of apples on a one acre plot of ground is exactly 160 poles square, where the pole is 16.5 feet, the length of an ox goad. His farm is one section of a 6 mile square township laid out as part of the Public Land Survey System which laid out most of the US other than the original colonies and some southern states, starting around 1800. In the plains states, where hills and mountains are not a problem, an aerial view shows roads laid out in a grid exactly 1 mile apart,[4] so it is easy to give directions (go 3 miles west, then 2 miles north, then it is the first place on the left). Edison 16:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Another factor is that the USA is a) REALLY REALLY big, land-area wise and b) somewhat governed by the preferences of individual states (b is often necessitated by a). The US government can say, "Hey guys, let's all switch to metric! Yay!" but a lot of the funding for this metrification is going to come from state and local budgets. Also, the administration on every level, from federal to local, changes on a regular basis. It may be important to Congress A that the US fall in line with our allies, but Congress B may be more isolationist, or more concerned with health care or foreign policy, so they will end support for metrification. Finally, I am an engineer who works in both metric and "standard" units. I really don't see the US's continued use of standard units to be that big of a problem. As the world becomes more "glo-local", the US will eventually fall in line. sthomson 17:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


Why is it that converting between units is done so sloppily? I am always amazed when I look at a bottle of coke et cetera, and it say, per 100mL (theses are made up, please don't correct them!) 500Kcal; 103J, per 10 mL serving 50 Kcal; 9.7J, how does that work?! Eŋlishnerd(Suggestion?|wanna chat?) 21:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Who joked that some drug dealer got fined because he was selling weed by the ounce? Keria 22:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

As an American, I can convert easily (and, in fact, often catch myself thinking in metric), but I would hate to convert wholly. Basically, it's traditional - and we don't have THAT much 'technical' collaboration with other countries that change is needed. The Space Station works fine! Plus, it's quirkier and therefore more interesting. 24.167.64.167 23:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Vultur

OK, so why doesn't the US apply that logic to, say, spelling? English spelling is nothing if not quirky ("and therefore more interesting"), but the US tends to adopt more "logical" phonetic spellings such as "defense" (for defence), "fetus" (for foetus), "nite" (for night) etc. JackofOz 00:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
See Noah Webster. Basically, in the 19th century, adopting different spellings was a way to stand out from Great Britain. To turn the tables, why not adopt Loglan, a constructed language that is supposed to correct the illogic of natural languages like English, as the world language? Undoubtedly there would be advantages if everyone did so. But it would take a long time for the benefits to make up for the "start-up costs" of having everyone learn the language. The same could be said to a lesser degree with measurement systems. The benefits of full-scale metrication for the average American would not merit the expense and effort. Logic can be overrated, anyway. There's something to be said for the idiosyncracies of something that develops more or less naturally over the generations. Only robots would want to live in a completely logical world. -- Mwalcoff 04:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Jack, please tell me that last one ("nite" for night) is a subtle troll! -- Chuq 01:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Why do people keep claiming the UK is metric. Scientists here might work in SI, (not exactly the same thing as metric but similar). And the EU tries to insist things being sold can only be measured in metric. But I am 6ft tall and weigh 12 stone 12 pounds. A football (i.e. soccer) penalty spot is 12 yards from the goal, and our maximum speed limit is 70 miles per hour. Ok we use metric in school so we aren't incompetent at using it but in every day life we are a more imperial country I think. Although maybe I am just getting old at 23. (Note I just noticed a difference with USA, 12 Stone 12 = 180 pounds.)137.138.46.155 14:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I didn't claim the UK was metric. I claimed it was making faster progress becoming metric than the USA. I guess it's because the UK is a smaller country, because it's a member of the EU (the only non-metric member, even), and because the Brits are simply better people. =) JIP | Talk 14:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Law[edit]

"Law is a command in the hand of the mighty people in a state." If you agree, make a debate on it. If you disagree, explain?

When is it due? Skarioffszky 12:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
You wiil need to define Law, Law in regard to a command and Law in regard to the state. You will need to define mighty people in the state. The question asked seems to be wether Law serves the "people" or if it is just a tool at the disposal of the "mighty people". Have a good time finding the arguments. The best way to go about would be to present your arguments for each side (serves the ppl vs. serves the mighty) then drawing your own nuanced conclusions Keria 13:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Do your own homework. We can help, but please don't give someone a whole question. For example, you could ask if your definition of "law" is correct, for example. Would here help? http://www.coursework4you.co.uk/ martianlostinspace 16:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
This question reminds me of a debate between Sir Thomas More and Will Roper, his son-in-law, in Robert Bolt's play, A Man for All Seasons. I'm having to pull this up from deep memory, so please forgive me for any misquotation.
ROPER. Now you give the Devil benefit of law!
MOORE. Yes, what would you do? Cut a road through the law to get to the Devil?
ROPER. Yes, I'd cut down every law in England.
MOORE. And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned on you, where would you hide, Roper, all the laws being flat? This country is planted with laws from coast to coast, man's laws, not God's; and if you cut them down, and you are just the man to do it, do you really think that you could stand upright in the wind that would blow then? Yes, I give the Devil benefit of law for my own safety's sake. Clio the Muse 00:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not the place to "make debates". User:Zoe|(talk) 03:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
It is not 'making debate', for the love of God. It's a quoted extract from a work of literature, relevant to the point under examination. If you are unable to understand this it would be best for your own self-esteem simply to remain silent. Clio the Muse 06:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Clio, if you look at the OP, Zoe is responding to her/his request to 'make a debate' on the topic. Please assume good faith of your fellow editors. Anchoress 06:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for that clarification, Anchoress. My apologies, Zoe, for the misunderstanding. In my own defence I should add I have seen some very poor quality editorial comments in the brief time I have been here. But on this occasion I am pleased to confess my error. Clio the Muse 07:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, if you look at the level of indents (correct in this case) you will see that Zoes comment is indeed addressed to the OP. Whereas mine and Anchoresss are addressed to you 8-)--Light current 06:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Shares[edit]

If I bought shares of a company in one country can I sell them in another thus not paying exchange fees? ps. I don't know much about how it actually works so please pardon my ignorance Keria 12:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

A share on a company is traded on a specific stock exchange; you can only buy and sell it at that exchange (and that exchange is located in only one county, and deals in only one currency). So no. A few companies are traded in multiple exchanges, but they issue different stock into those different markets, so you still have to go back to the same exchange to sell a given share. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 14:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Of course. That makes sense. Thank you. Keria 14:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Exchange fees are not your main concern - taxes are. You need to speak to an accountant before you do this. Also, not all stocks are publicly traded; privately traded stocks (those in companies not on the stock exchange - that covers ca. 99% of companies) may have their own rules. Some can be traded simply by signing a contract with a purchaser; others have to be redeemed by the company. Check with a lawyer. --Charlene 16:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you are, but in the U.S. many foreign companies trade as ADRs so it wouldn't work. -THB 21:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

1 Chronicles 21[edit]

_Why_ is it a sin to take a census of Israel? 64.198.112.210 17:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It has been discussed here and here. –mysid 17:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Rabbi Shlomo Yitzhaqi in his bible commentary (Exodus 30:12) explains based on earlier sources that it is forbidden to count the Jewish people individually and that they can only be counted by everyone giving a half-shekel and the counting the amount received. Jon513 17:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
As both methods will give the exact same result in the same number of steps, I do not know how one can be a sin and the other not. But then by using the Rabbi's method, the census taker ends up quite a lot richer. =) JIP | Talk 18:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The method was used for fund raising for public temple services. The advantage of not counting people directly is that you don't objectify people by assigning them a number. Jon513 19:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
But I bet there are poor people in Israel who don't have a half-shekel (however much or little that is in modern currency) to spare. NeonMerlin 20:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Half a shekel is about a dime. --Wooty Woot? contribs 00:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
One opinion in the Talmud is that it is illegal to literally count all the Israelites because the book of Hosea says "the number of the children of Israel was like the sands of the sea, which can’t be measured." In other words, the Bible says you can't count all the Israelites, so don't try. [5] -- Mwalcoff 00:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Then I think the past tense "was" is important, meaning the population exceeded the counting ability of the institutions of its day. It wasn't possible way back when, but it may be now. And even if you change that "was" to an "is," I think this is one of those types of statements in the Bible that can go out of date. NeonMerlin 01:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Not sure if this is relevant to current Israeli politics but Edwin Black makes the argument that without IBM census machines (and a previously-created German census) the Nazis would have had an impossible time trying to round up all of the Jews in Germany. I never thought to connect that with this sort of Talmudic approach before, myself, but I could see how one could make the connection. --24.147.86.187 01:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

A couple of points. As a biblical Statute, no explanation is given for this commandment. All we can do is speculate on reasons. In monetary value, the half shekel was sufficiently small that poor people could contribute without suffering. It clearly wasn't designed as a biblical "stealth tax", as the Bible records that the rich were forbidden from supplementing their half shekel contribution. --Dweller 11:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Specialized Programs[edit]

I am asked to find "Specialized Programs" for the university Cornell. Can anyone direct me to a site with a list of all the specialized programs of Cornell University? Thanks. Hustle 18:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Try this page where the second sentence reads "They provide a means for faculty and staff to share expensive, specialized research facilities and equipment". The link at the bottom leads to the lists. Seejyb 22:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
So what is a specialized program? Jamesino 23:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Website sisterhood[edit]

dmoz.org lists Wikipedia among its sister sites, but Wikipedia doesn't list dmoz, or any of the others dmoz claims, among its sisters. Am I to conclude that website sisterhood is non-commutative and non-transitive, or are Wikipedia and dmoz using different definitions of "sister site?" NeonMerlin 20:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It is easy to see how dmoz and WP differ. dmoz is owned by Netscape. Who owns WP ? (no cabal). -- DLL .. T 21:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Where "Netscape" means "Time Warner" these days. Marnanel 21:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Can you shoot us the link to the "sisterhood" claim so we know what you are refering to? --Justanother 00:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
It appears on the inside pages of the directory, such as http://dmoz.org/Reference/. NeonMerlin 00:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, that is weird, isn't it? I don't see dmoz on Wikipedia:Sister projects. --Justanother 01:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
We would only count sites operated by the Wikimedia Foundation to be Wikipedia's sister sites. dmoz doesn't qualify. -- Arwel (talk) 20:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Left This is funny; dmoz as the evil stepsister. --Justanother 01:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Run this search. Needs a bit of culling but it seems the sisterhood is one-sided and self-declared. --Justanother 01:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I guess under that logic you are my brother editor. Can I hold $20, bro? --Justanother 01:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Author/artist's share of book/CD sales[edit]

How much of the price of a book or CD typically goes to the author or artist, if it's published in the U.S. by a major publisher/label and I buy it in Canada? NeonMerlin 20:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

New or used? -THB 21:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
It would depend on the contract negotiated, but royalties on books generally amount to about 8% of the cover price. That's what I get anyway! Clio the Muse 00:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
New. NeonMerlin 01:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Self-published books (vanity publisher) can pay much, much more. -THB 04:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hacksaw blade[edit]

Thank you to everyone for help with the hacksaw blades/cutting the metal sofa frame in half issue. It took a couple of hours, and I got a blister, but I now have two manageable halves instead of a giant metal frame. One of the oval pipes actually had a solid 5/8" rod inside of it. I can barely lift each half, but now they'll fit in the elevator. Thanks again. -THB 21:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

How are you going to put it back together? X [Mac Davis] (DESK|How's my driving?) 05:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
It's scrap metal now! -THB 07:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm. It looks like so-fa so good, but not much further! --Light current 05:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations, you are now a successful hacker. Putting a solid rod in the center of a tubular structural member does not make a lot of sense. It would have been stronger if heaver tubing had been used instead. Oh, well. Edison 15:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like a quick fix to me. That is, they realized after they were built that it wasn't strong enough, but, at that point, it was cheaper to jam a rod inside than to disassemble and rebuild the frame using thicker tube stock. StuRat 05:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

General body info[edit]

What is the difference between high biological value protiens and low biological value protiens? I can't make any sense of our article on Biological Value, so I have no idea. Also, why exactly do the dietary requirements of male and femals differ? Is it something to do with body weight? And how it is normally seen that men are more active than women? Cheers. 81.131.60.129 23:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is new to me but after looking at the article: Apparently some proteins are better assimilated by the body than others, i.e. a greater percentage of some proteins is used by the body for cell building and repair vs. passing through the body and being excreted. The way they determine the BV is by looking at nitrogen; all proteins contain nitrogen so if you can track how much goes in vs how much comes out then you can figure how much of the protein was used by the body. I would not want to be the chemist. --Justanother 23:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Try Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. NeonMerlin 01:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Taxes[edit]

If I am an American citizen who filed taxes already for 2005 and recieved a refund from my w-2s. But because of a ss # error in a general contractor job. I never reported income on a 1099 for the wages paid. But then filled out a w-9 for the employer to give them the right ss #. How do I go about paying those taxes... Plain and simple. I didnt file for a general contracting job because they had the wrong social security number, but now the IRS has the right info. I am sure it is only a matter of time before I get a letter. Will they ever find out? How can I fix this problem and get them their money? Can I still write off any of it? And no... Going to the irs website is even more confusing! THANKS!

You should be able to file an amended return and pay any taxes due then wait and see if they assess interest and penalties. --Justanother 02:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Much better to go ahead and calculate and pay the interest so it won't keep accumulating at a high rate. They will definitely want the interest, at least. (This is on the Federal level. Although the IRS communicates things like this to states, some states are inconsistent with gettting their $$$.) -THB 04:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Consult a tax preparer, they can tell you what form to use. RJFJR 14:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
It's a 1040X. See: IRS Topic 308:Amended Returns. -THB 15:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Assuming you really were a contractor under the IRS definitions, you may deduct or depreciate your expenses on 1040 Schedule C. (There are some options which could only be taken on an original return, or an amended return filed within 6 months of the original due date, but there aren't many.) You will also need to get a schedule SE (if your net income from the contracting job exceeds $400/0.9375 ~ $433), and fresh copies of all schedules which might be affected by changes in your gross, adjusted gross, or taxable income. You then file the resulted returns on a 1040X. If you live or work in a state which has a state income tax, you will also have to file the corresponding state returns. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Arthur, would you recommend that he include interest or wait for the IRS to assess if they care to? Once he pays the taxes due doesn't that cap the potential interest and penalties at the date of payment? --Justanother 15:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

mountain range[edit]

what is the name of the mountain range that surrounds the valley of Las Vegas Nevada? thank you. Anne Wilson

Could be one of these! [6]--Light current 01:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
The Spring Mountains are to the west. -THB 04:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Las Vegas is located in the Las Vegas Valley, a desert surrounded by the Spring Mountains and the Sierra Nevada.[7]  --LambiamTalk 08:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Second Life[edit]

What is it and can you kill people in it?

Second Life is a "privately owned, partly subscription-based 3-D virtual world". Unsure of second question. Jpeob 03:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I believe that you can die/be killed if your health bar goes low enough, but then you just respawn in your house. Skittle 03:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Wonders about the homeless people...- Mgm|(talk) 09:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I think, like in the Wild West, everyone gets a plot of land when they start. It just isn't necessarily very nice. Skittle 15:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Editing a Wiki[edit]

Dear Sirs, I am enrolled in a graduate class at the University of SC in Columbia, SC. Our class has a "classwiki" with such information as the syllabus, assignments, notes, etc. One of my assignments for the semester was to reorganize the Class Wiki so that it would be easier to use and allow room for growth. There are several things I suggested doing to the page that I don't know if they are possible or not. They are as follows:

  • Putting links in a two-column format. (I have looked and looked and tried to play around w/ doing this, but I can’t figure it out. Maybe it’s not possible?)
  • I think adding some color would be good if possible. It looks a little dull. I know that doesn’t matter, but aesthetics are important up to a point right?
  • How about a scrolling message bar at the top for important announcements, like our upcoming online meeting for example?

Thanks for any info you can give me.

Sincerely, Mary Catherine Carroll Lexington, SC

Well, this wiki can be coded in standard HTML in addition to its own markup language. Take some lessons in HTML and go from there. --Justanother 03:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Why do you assume that all of us here are "sirs"? User:Zoe|(talk) 03:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Everybody on the internet is assumed to be a man, silly. X [Mac Davis] (DESK|How's my driving?) 05:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
On the Internet, Nobody Knows You're a Dog.  --LambiamTalk 08:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
As we in /b/ like to say, "there are no womenz on teh internets". --Wooty Woot? contribs 05:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Spelling. Probably meant to say Dears Curs 8-)--Light current 05:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
To try and answer your questions, for the first, see Help:Tables. Many articles here have columns in them, e.g. List of people in Playboy 2000-present. Color is possible using standard HTML markup. I'm not sure if there's any wiki code for colors. And depending on your wiki software, blinking or scrolling text may be disabled. I know it is here and thus I'm not sure how you would go about using it on your wiki. Dismas|(talk) 06:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
A scrolling banner could be realized within the limits imposed here as an animated gif.  --LambiamTalk 08:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Animated GIFs are hard to update. In any case one should generally not use a scrolling banner — they are cheesy, hard to read, and generally ineffective at getting attention. With a Wiki it is better to use a box with a strong text color, like the one a user sees when they have messages on their talk page. --24.147.86.187 15:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that scrolling message bars are incredibly annoying. Sometimes if you miss the first word or two you have no idea what the message is until it repeats - and if the message is long or if there's more than one of them, it can be an exercise in extreme frustration. The less animation you have on a page, the easier it is for readers to get information as quickly as possible. The best way in my opinion is to have a text box containing bold text, possibly with the background being a pale pastel to contrast with the rest of the page (which should have a white background). --Charlene 01:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The Nutcracker[edit]

How tall does the Christmas Tree grow in the Grand Rapids Ballet's version of "The Nutcracker"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.11.115.97 (talkcontribs) .

Ask them: contact info. -THB 15:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)