Miscellaneous desk
< December 9	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 11 >

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.

December 10

How to join forum?

I recently joined Wiki, and would like to be on the Forum for Encyclopedia Standards. 1) I don't know how to join 2) is this an administrative position? If so, then I'm too "young" to be on it, as I just joined. :) 3) shouldn't this page be archived? Richiar 00:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as i'm aware, the Wikipedia:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards is a voluntary group. I can find no eligibility requirements, so I see no reason you cannot join.
Membership of the forum is not an administrative position.
This page is archived regularly, see Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives. Rockpocket 00:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this page should be archived! I'll get RefDeskBot on it soon! M a rtinp23 00:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tourist Cities in Mexico (Near Tempe, AZ)

Hello everyone:

I will be in Tempe, Arizona later this month, and want to take a road trip to Mexico. The trip is solely for tourism; just walking around/hanging out, amusement parks, museums. However, this trip is just going to be for the day.

The city I had in mind was Hermosillo. But after doing a bit more research, I found that it will take around 5.5 hours to get there (by car). So my question is this: does anyone know of some "touristy"/fun cities to go to which are closer to the border/a shorter drive?

Thanks, --Vikramkr 01:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The closest Mexican city, in terms of driving time, to Tempe is Nogales, which is 177 miles away. So you're looking at 3 hours, not counting Phoenix traffic (it's December, so all the snowbirds are in town) or getting through customs. One day is probably doable, but it would be a long day. Another thing to mention -- from what I've heard, it's a good idea to park your car in the US and walk across the border. That way, nothing happens to your car in Mexico, and customs and immigration goes a lot faster on the way back. Not to mention that US insurance is no good in Mexico, and if you're driving a rental it's probably in the rental agreement that you can't take the car to Mexico. Since I've never been to Nogales, maybe someone else can comment on what's there and whether it's worth going. Dave6 02:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that a daytrip to Mexico makes much sense from Tempe. It takes at least 3 hours just to drive to the border, and none of the border towns is particularly interesting. They tend to be industrial towns full of working-class Mexicans, many of them trying to get across the border illegally. The closest real "tourist" destination would be Puerto Peñasco, but that is a 4.5-hour drive each way. Marco polo 17:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

D i'm from south scottsdale - 5 mins. from tempe. so hi to you! hope you have fun in mexico. bye. Coolsnak3 18:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks everyone! Vikramkr 00:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Jetsons

In the original animated TV show, was the ground ever shown? 192.168.1.1 5:35pm, 9 December 2006 (PST) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.112.143.116 (talk) 01:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

No. See this page --⁪froth^{T C} 04:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. From the same source as above: "The ground does show, for example in Invisibly Yours and The Flying Suit". Although it's pointed out previously in the same document that the ground is never shown except for floating islands. So either the document controdicts itself or the ground mentioned in what I quoted is referring to the islands. Dismas|^(talk) 09:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I swear I saw one episode in which George crashed the flying car and hit the ground, which was all rocky like Mars. I don't know if that was one of the original epiodes or one of the ones made in the 80s. -- Mwalcoff 14:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to remember an episode where at least Elroy and Astro were on the ground - there was a dumpster and a 'hobo' as well. Robovski 06:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject setup.

I'd appreciate some assistance in setting up, or rather resetting up, the Climbing wikiproject at WP:CLIMB. I don't quite get all the categorization and template stuff, but it's definitely an area that needs a wikiproject. I'd appreciate some help. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 01:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

accuracy rate

So, What is the error rate on the articles of Wikipedia? I'm a bit confused with the error rate on Wikipedia.--PrestonH 03:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some articles probably are completely correct, there's no "error rate" for an average article.... --⁪froth^{T C} 04:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nature did a publicized study and found that the average science article on Wikipedia had about four inaccuracies, compared to three for Britannica. Of course, that was a while ago, and it could have gotten worse, but more likely better. Also, if you really need to make sure of something, you should look up the source it came from: that's the whole point of citing sources. —Keenan Pepper 05:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny, actually; I just had this conversation with the forklift driver at my place of employment. IMO, Wikipedia's error rate should probably be somewhere between nil and zero, primarily because it is edited and checked by so many different people that it can't possibly be wrong. And, if there's a chance it's wrong, someone's going to fix it eventually. I don't know the answer for sure, but (and I don't want to sound biased but I have no choice) I trust Wikipedia over the Encyclopedia Brittanica if that means anything to you... Cernen Xanthine Katrena 12:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Socialism or Religion?

What has led to the death of more people? Яussiaп F 03:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Socialism probably. Deaths related to religious conflict mostly occurred in pre-modern times, and communist states arose later when the human population was in the billions. I suppose it would be helpful to have an actual figure for how many people Stalin killed.. the figure ranges from a few hundred thousand to 30 million --⁪froth^{T C} 04:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to disagree, basically there have been more wars over religion than anything else. You have to think about the Holy Crusades and many, many more different wars/conflicts that I do not want to state. Also remember that religion has been around for a "long" time. So basically I would have to say religion. — Seadog 04:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It depends what you mean by "led to". If you tally all those that lived (and thus died) under socialist/communist regimes throughout human history, and compare that to the number that existed in societies underpinned with religious doctrines, then I think the latter number would be much higher. What is unclear is to what extent the doctrines contributed to the death of the individuals. To be a bit more flippant, once could argue eternal life awaits those who follow (most) religions, therefore the answer must be socialism. Rockpocket 04:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Religion, clearly. In one way or another religion was the justification of almost every major conflict in human history. Slavery, the Holocaust, even the extermination of the Native Americans. There are of course elements of all these events that were not religious, but even Stalin's socialism had an element of religiously motivated justification (even if it was a lack there of). --Cody.Pope 04:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basically this question would be a very hard if not impossible question to answer, since if you think about it no one can know for sure. You have to take into consideration of what counts as religion and what doesn't also what do you mean by "led to" as what Rocket pocket has stated. — Seadog 05:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I'd say that the number of people that died as a result of a modern concept of socialism is finite and at least estimatable (not a word but come on), whereas the number of people to die as a result of religion is very hard to estimate, but using just modern times numbers you can easily pass socialism. --Cody.Pope 05:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just think that "religion" being much, much older than Socialism — religion would most certainly have to pass the modern concept of socialism. I was just trying to say that some people look differently at what constitutes for religion. — Seadog 05:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we both agree that it is religion but disagree about how provable that is? --Cody.Pope 05:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since all who are born eventually die anyway, irrespective of belief system, the question seems to be about war, not about dying. Instead of blithely accepting a general opinion, it may be worthwhile to review each major war recorded in history, and trying to discern what the likely cause for the conflict was. Examples: In ancient Egyptian wars, the soldiers may have thought they were fighting for the god/king, but what was the pharoah's motivation? Why did Greek city states make war, or the Romans? To take what the other had, to shake of suppression, or for religion? Did Islam really go to war solely for religious reasons, or did the leaders think that material security from enemies - irrespective of religion - would be worth the effort and suffering. Was extra land, income and prestige a mere by-product of the battles? Were the crusades really about religion, or were there diverse and devious motivations in the minds of secular and church leaders? Did the Tatars fight for Shamans? The Huns - were they socialists or true believers? The War of the Roses - what that not about land and kingdom? Napoleon's adventures? WW1? WW2? The "civil" wars of Africa? I believe that when one looks at specifics, one would find socialism or religion as such to be pretty superficial excuses for war. --Seejyb 10:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about those nations that are socialist AND religious? Most of Europe's nations have at least one major socialist party and most of Europe (particularly the EU) are christian-dominated societies with many having a national religion. If we were to look at the things both can do that 'lead' to death (and one presumes this is a premature death) we could have: war, poverty, famine, persecution and oppression. I do not believe that you can put a figure on these but since socialism is relatively 'new' compared to the world's main religions, also because religion is more widespread than socialism (whose power is limited to whether it can convince enough people to vote for it) I would say the answer is almost definitely going to be religion.

If you made the question more broad and said 'what led to more deaths, religion or political ideology' that would maybe be a more fair question, since socialism is one strand of the political range but religion encompasses many many religions. ny156uk 12:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought that what led to the death of more people (than any other cause), was old-age, poor health, and starvation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.145.241.241 (talk) 20:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for your comment, but really this discussion is comparing socialism and religion. Thanks though! — Seadog 20:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about this -- what has led to the deaths of more people: treachery or treason? There's always an excuse for it. Mathiemood 00:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't socialism be a form of religion and vice versa? Keria 00:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is something I heard recently, apparently by Os Guinness (in whole or in part). It has been paraphrased slightly:

More people were killed by secularist regimes of the 20th century than by all religious persecutions in the world - in perhaps all of history. Pol Pot murdered 2 millon of his own countrymen. Stalin – 30 million. Mao – 65 million. That religion is responsible for all or most bloodshed is prejudice, not fact. BenC7 03:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I was thinking (my answer is at the very top) --⁪froth^{T C} 20:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Religion and socialism are both mechanisms of creating communities within humans. It would be difficult to tell who was responsible for the most deaths through war. Concerning deaths by war, it is human nature to blame on both accounts, and the conflicts between communities, whatever each their moral grounds are. Luckily, scientific knowledge is growing and it would be a huge suprise to me if many more wars were justified on the grounds of religion especially in the developed world. I believe religion is the main contributor to human deaths through war as we have thousands of years to take into account here!

Believe what you want; but it is better to have figures than a hunch. BenC7 00:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

colours of Thailand

Here in Thailand the thais all have colours of each day of the week i.e. Mon,yellow,Tues pink,wed,green,thurs,orange,fri,blue sat,violet,sun, red. I would like to know when did this start andby whom started this Thanks Jim. <email removed> —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.91.191.9 (talk) 05:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

See days of the week.--Shantavira 09:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to this website, the custom of birthday colors orgininated in the Ayutthaya period. That narrows it down somewhat. -THB 10:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck is an OP?

I keep seeing the Reference Desk question posters referred to as OPs. What does this stand for and how did it originate? --Nelson Ricardo 12:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It means the Original Poster (the person who asked the question). We should try to avoid using such confusing abbrevs. StuRat 13:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Nelson Ricardo 13:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ur 'come OP. --Bowlhover 14:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well suitly emphazied. Proto::► 14:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

r u wearin' a mask? Mathiemood

While I agree with Stu that we should be intelligible to newbies (another term) I admit that I am guilty of using OP to refer to the "asker". I guess since asker is only two keys more than OP (shift = one key) I will use that instead. --Justanother 15:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd almost argue that it's a bit less than 2 keys since in typing "OP" you're holding down shift for another two keystrokes.. perhaps not as much effort as an entirely new keystroke but it must count for more than a single press-release! --⁪froth^{T C} 19:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We've developed significant consensus that "suitly emphazi" is horrifyingly embarrasing because its usual use (you didn't really use it right) is so offensive to posters. Just throwing that out there. Oh and yeah "OP" should probably be avoided on the main reference desk but those abbreviations sometimes spill over from the talk page --⁪froth^{T C} 19:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any ideas on how did it originate because thats the second part of the question everybody seems to have not noticed? Its not from /. as they use TFA. Usenet maybe? Shinhan 09:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was a Wikipedian term. It might have seen usage elsewhere but used consistently I think wikipedia was the first. --⁪froth^{T C} 20:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's an older term. We have it right here at OP: "Original Poster, on Usenet refers to the person opening the thread" --Justanother 20:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Suitly emphazi" comes from a particularly poorly worded post a long time ago that asked us to "suitly emphazi" our results, by which I believe they meant "suitably emphasize", by which they meant "provide links". This then became an inside joke. StuRat 04:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COW!

How long would an average cow feed a family of four if they ate a meal 2 times a day? Thank you

See here: [1]. StuRat 13:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reference StuRat cited indicates that there is about 500 lbs of edible beef on a carcass. So 4 eaters x 2 meals/day x 6 oz/meal = 48 oz/day = 3 lbs/day yielding an answer of 500/3 = 167 days assuming that they are not picky about which edible part of the cow they eat and more if the children eat less that 6 oz/meal. --Justanother 16:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

.....and they have a big freezer.--Shantavira 17:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which reminds me of one of the best episodes of the Andy Griffith Show: "Bargain Day". -THB 20:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A butchered cow would feed you no more than one day. See meat poisoning.

Oh, I see that meat poisoning is not a real phenonmenon according to Wikipedia. As you were then. Mathiemood

Meat will of course go bad if you leave it out, but as shantavira suggested if you put it in a freezer it would be fine. What do you mean by it being a hoax? --⁪froth^{T C} 20:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Essays

hi!!! can i get essays in english on some topics from wikepedia??? i realy need them as i am a student of 12 grade...if not, can i get some reference sources that can provide quality essays for the subject of english.........thanks

You want to write an essay about English ? If so, pick the link for our articles. If you want to write an essay on something else, let us know the topic, please. If you want us to choose the topic, no problem, write an essay on wombats. StuRat 13:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be asking if it would be OK with wikipedia if you used the essays here instead of writing your own essays and, if not, where could you get some good essays to use? I am going to answer what I think is your question. Please do not take offense if I misinterpreted your question. Wikipedia does not really care what you do with the material here provided that you cite (let people know where you got it). Click "Cite this article" on the left of any article to see exactly how to cite that particular article. Note the warning

IMPORTANT NOTE: Most educators and professionals do not consider it appropriate to use tertiary sources such as encyclopedias as a sole source for any information — citing an encyclopedia as an important reference in footnotes or bibiliographies may result in censure or a failing grade. Wikipedia articles should be used for background information, as a reference for correct terminology and search terms, and as a starting point for further research.

Regarding what your teacher might think, please be aware that teachers can easily check if a paper copies from a source on the internet and exactly how much copying has been done. They use services like this one. Also see Essay mill and Plagiarism. The correct way to write an essay is, IMO, to first gain an understanding of the subject by reading lots of material then outline your essay and write as much of it as you can before you go back to the references that you will eventually cite. That way it will be something that you wrote which is what the teacher wants. --Justanother 15:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, although in highschool the tertiary sources rule might be a little lax. But many teachers are very distrustful of wikipedia for some reason (ostensibly because their very students might possibly have written the article), so WP might be an even worse source than an encyclopedia --⁪froth^{T C} 19:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and Wikibooks are great starting points for researching an essay. Wikipedia now puts a lot of emphasis on provinding links to evidence (see links at the bottom of most pages) which allow for more research on a subject. You should check them, and other materials like printed books, as Wikipedia is not a reliable source - just check out Wikipedia:General disclaimer. If you want to quote or cite wikipedia, read Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia. However, if you want to use whole pages, you should probably read Wikipedia:Copyright. Wikipedia allows use of information on it for free (even for commercial use), but you have to follow some rules, such as actually saying it comes from Wikipedia. Plagiarising Wikipedia is seriously dumb, as most markers will look on Wikipedia themselves at some point. They may even have written that page you just copied... --h2g2bob 19:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One time, in Culinary School, I read off an essay lifted almost directly from a 1970-something edition of Brittannica. It was on hotels. They were deeply impressed -- at least the applause indicated such.

By risking the charge of plaigarism, I was able to bring around twenty people some good, eloquent information. So, plaigarism isn't the worst sin in the world, as long as it's done cautiously, intelligently, and with the full knowledge that you can get in very serious trouble for getting caught. Mathiemood

Kinda like going 140 on the interstate! --Justanother 01:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEANS, justanother :)

That is another good one if we are discussing that lovable irreverent attitude here. --Justanother 20:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this is basically terrible advice and it's not worth risking academic dismissal to please a roomful of people --⁪froth^{T C} 20:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd check with your teacher/professor before using Wikipedia; some people don't like the fact that it uses an open content model. I had at least one professor like that in college. Cernen Xanthine Katrena 12:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just wondering

I was just wondering how it is that I looked up info on the PS2 and I got a picture of a penis? It was right off of yahoo search... I was ever asked if I was over 18... and never agreed to enter a site with adult content. I'm dont understand how that is allowed by Wikipedia. Please tell me why this is ok. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.133.91.130 (talk) 14:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

It's not OK, it's vandalism. Somebody put it there and it was quickly removed, but, unfortunately, you saw it in between. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, we do suffer from quite a bit of vandalism. StuRat 14:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Ok thank you.... Kind of made me wonder....

Yes it's very unforunate that these things come up from time to time. We have a lot of people constantly coming and watching for vandalism but it often slips through into our articles, often deep into rarely-viewed articles. --⁪froth^{T C} 19:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but, in these days of hard-drive paranoia (and deservedly so), is nobody on Wikipedia as concerned as myself that the innocent asker - OP - questionner here, has unwittingly committed for all-time-coming, a digital picture of a male reproductive member (I dare not use his word) to his hard-drive - and that digital image is virtually irremoveable by all but the most sophisticated IT Guru, suitably equipped, save total destruction of said hard-drive by the asker - OP - questionner? I take this matter extremely seriously and do not see it as "Yes its very unfortunate", as Froth kindly points out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.241.241 (talk • contribs)

Yes, an image of child pornography could end up on someones computer pretty much in the clear as many do not even clear their cache, let alone DoD wipe cluster tips. But that is one danger of the internet, you are letting it into your home; just most people are oblivious to it. I'm not too worried though as reward FAR exceeds risk. --Justanother 21:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you use your hard drive regularly and defrag often, then deleted data tend to be irrecoverable. Filling all remaining space or wiping it completely clean (zeroing it) will do the job 100% --⁪froth^{T C} 20:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, filling the space in question is not enough if, for some reason, someone really wanted to find out what was on a hard drive. The sector of a harddrive altered on a write still contains a trace of it's previous states and a particularly senstive and detailed magnetic scan with appropriate forknowledge could decipher its contents. Not that your average look will find that. i kan reed 08:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take a random site at the internet and it could have you download unsuitable images. It's not just Wikipedia. At least we try to check it and keep it off unrelated articles. Was there any plans to limit the use of some controversial images to only a set of relevant articles? - Mgm|^(talk) 22:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A death squad has been sent to the culprit's house; I'll let you know how it goes. Mathiemood

The bad image list stops certain images from being used where they're not relevant. Dave6 04:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure which WikiUser behaviour I detest worse than the other - secreting unsought digital pics of male genitalia in innocent looking articles for innocent browsers to stumble upon, potentially causing unknown panic, alarm, and distress; or some smart-arse like that above, pronouncing that a death squad has been deployed to deal with the perpetrator. Both actions are seriously sick, and utterly incompatible with what I thought Wikipedia stood for - an online, dynamic and interactive source of useful and informative user-contributed knowledge.

You're right.

I would add however, that Wikipedians are not robots; we will frequently post things that others take offense to. The trick is, is for that offense to not then create more offense, and so on and so forth until people get sick, banished, or otherwise angry. See also snowball effect, mountains out of molehills, stoicism.

And from the Stoicism article:

"Say to yourself in the early morning: I shall meet today ungrateful, violent, treacherous, envious, uncharitable men. All of these things have come upon them through ignorance of real good and ill... I can neither be harmed by any of them, for no man will involve me in wrong, nor can I be angry with my kinsman or hate him; for we have come into the world to work together..." — Marcus Aurelius

Mathiemood 17:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine - thanks for the elucidation - I guess I never seriously studied the classics before I discovered Wikipedia. So I shall now serenely put my concerns to rest, and remain assured that WikiRespondents such as those above, can be entrusted with safeguarding the acceptability content of its pages, to say nothing of their willingness to condone Wikipedia as a culpability-free subscriber-contributed and entrapment porno-zone.

Oh my. Such elocution! Cernen Xanthine Katrena 12:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indo-US Nuclear Bill

Whats the underlying intention behind the Indo - US nuclear bill? Is it more in favor of the US? Why has India given a go ahead signal for the bill? 17:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It helps India at least as much as it would help the US, if I understand correctly. You might try reading an article or two about it. --24.147.86.187 17:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything is a zero sum game. In many cases, and arguably in this case, you can end up with a win-win situation, where both parties end up benefiting from an agreement. Most business dealings are of this nature. In the case of the nuclear bill, India gets easier access to uranium and nuclear power technology, the USA gets a new market to sell reactors to, and improves its relations with an increasingly important nation. --Robert Merkel 06:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds a lot like a homework question. Cernen Xanthine Katrena 14:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Adventure 2 chaos

I've been trying to breed/mate my Chaos in my chao garden, but i dont know how! i know that they get flowers around them when they're ready, but i don't know HOW to get them ready to breed. Any help is appreciated! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.187.78.108 (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Wikipedia is not a game guide, but many other websites are. If this game is popular I bet some online guide is around- try googling. Friday (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The external links section of the Sonic Adventure 2 article might be helpful. Skarioffszky 19:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am not familiar with the game so I did a quick search on google (see). Does this help?

Chao only go into the breeding phase after they reach age 3. (usually after second evolution). When this happens depends on the chao. Sometimes I have chao at age 3 go into mating season (when the flowers grow in a circle around), and once I had a chao go into mating season right before he rencarnated.

I am afraid that I have no idea what that means. Good luck! --Justanother 21:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeeeeeah, they have to be adults. Which means a lot of patience. Cernen Xanthine Katrena 12:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sign

How do I sign in in such a way that I can edit an entry and still remain signed in?

I asked this question several days ago and now I cannot find where I posed the question.

69.19.14.28 20:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's by default. Unless you log out yourself, or there's some error, you should be able to stay signed in automatically for a long time. 惑乱分からん 20:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you check the "remember me"-box? - Mgm|^(talk) 22:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure you have cookies enabled. Wikipedia uses cookies to keep track of whether you're logged in or not. --h2g2bob 23:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Several people have been asking about this on the WP:Help desk (which is the best place to ask) recently. Apparently there is a problem with some ISPs. See here for a solution.--Shantavira 09:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas Gifts

What are some gift ideas for a mother and father of 40 years of age that is under 50$ each. Jamesino 23:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something nice, that you like, that would make them think of you. How about a nice piece of stained glass from a stained glass craftsman or other art? The article here is mostly about large, church-like glass but there are small shops that do beautiful pieces for very small $$. --Justanother 23:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about a nice evening out alone with dinner and a movie or some other activity they both enjoy? You can usually get a gift certificate at restaurants and the cinema. -THB 23:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if you have the time, you could pick up some materials and make something for them. Ilikefood 23:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For mom: get some really nice (but not really expensive) scented candles. They purify the air without having to open windows. For dad: get a really good (i.e. German or Japanese) kitchen knife. It'll make him feel like a man. Plus, you can't cook much without a very good knife in hand. Mathiemood 00:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yea, you can also ask your mother what to get your father and vice versa. Be warned some men are not good gift-pickers. -THB 00:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second THB's suggestion- at $50 each you can afford to take them out to a very nice restaurant for christmas dinner. I'd much rather have a nice evening and delicious dinner with my son/daughter than jewlery or candles or a knife --⁪froth^{T C} 20:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking that the mother and father would go out together to get away from the children but what froth said is also a good idea. -THB 11:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two words: Dollar Store. Cernen Xanthine Katrena 14:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about an audio Bible on CD's that is dramatized and with background sounds?, Zondervan has the best I know because I enjoy mine in KJV and in NIV. It's cool because you don't always feel up to reading, you can just put on play in your car while commuting to work or longer commutes or at home and just enjoy God's Word.–Spranykot 01:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]