Miscellaneous desk
< October 19	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 21 >

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.

October 20

Use of your image

We would like to use an image appears on your site for our client's web page. It's the image of Social Security Card. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ssi_card.gif Is it legal to use the image on my client's web page? Do we need to purchase a usage right?

Please let me know, thanks, Akemi Allen

I removed your email and phone number: see the rules at the top of the page. The image in question does not belong to the Wikipedia, but was created by the US Government, and its use is governed by the information given on the page you listed above. You're perfectly free to use it--you don't need anyone's permission. Probably came from the SSI website. -THB 00:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read the copyright notice on that page: "This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code. See Copyright." So yes you can use it without asking for rights --⁪froth^{T C} 01:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everything on Wikipedia is licensed under the GFDL (provided it was contributed by someone who was entitled thus to license it). So even if it weren't public domain, you could still use it, provided you complied with the conditions. I'm not sure what the conditions are precisely; you should read the license for that. But my understanding is, they boil down to: (1) you have to give credit, (2) you have to let anyone else use it under the same conditions, and (3) you have to tell them that (that is, point them to the GFDL). I don't think you need to GFDL-license the content on the rest of the page, but I'm not sure about that. --Trovatore 06:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Trovatore is clouding the issue. Forget the complexities of GDFL, if its Public Domain then you can use it, modify it, publish it or whatever without asking anyone's permission and with no need to even credit where you got it from. That's the beauty of PD - Adrian Pingstone 15:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trovatore is also incorrect that everything is licensed as GDFL. All text is supposed to be licensed as GDFL at a minimum, but images have many different licenses, and some are unlicesed alltogether (fair use). --Fastfission 19:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legality?

Is it legal to kill somebody if they hit you first? Is it legal to kill somebody if they verbally threaten you first? If not, what if they have a weapon with them? Is it legal to act like a cop even if you're a civilian, and arrest people and stuff if you do exactly what a cop would do? If not, what if you're wearing a mask? --216.164.192.249 01:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC) --Rentwa 02:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of those, the only two reasons I see which may be legal are:

Self defense, if you have good reason to believe the person with the gun means to kill you.

Citizen's arrest, if legal in your jurisdiction.

StuRat 02:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Impersonation of a police officer is generally illegal in america. --⁪froth^{T C} 02:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever said this was about America? There's a whole world outside the US, you know. JIP | Talk 08:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have to talk to a lawyer, see the top of the page, and it would depend upon where it occured, anyhow, and you didn't say. Most importantly, this sort of question is an "illegal/illegal in a mask" question and should be posted on that page. Thanks. -THB 02:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wish people would stop recommending people talk to a lawyer about every little legal question that pops into their head. It's not practical and I'm getting tired of reading responses that begin with disclaimers... --Username132 (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Killing someone in self defence in Scotland UK is a very narrow concept. Before that defence can be proferred to the court, the defendant must prove that every and all other avenues had first been considered and where appropriate pursued. You are looking here at options such as fleeing the scene; negotiating with your attacker; using reasonable force to resist his attack; summoning assistance by screaming for help. You must also prove that after attempting all other tactics that you were in genuine fear of losing your own life. If someone is trying to steal your purse (in Scotland) you cannot shoot him through the eye and then plead self defence. You could however plead Guilty to the charge of Murder and expect a life-sentence with a recommendation from the judge that you serve a minimum of 15 years before you could apply for parole on licence. Now down in Good 'ol Texas????????????????

Unfortunately, in the US self-defense can be claimed if somebody "feels" threatened, which, for some nut jobs, is apparently always. The case of the Japanese kid "playing cowboy" and drawing a play gun at Halloween comes to mind. A homeowner felt threatened and shot him to death, and was then acquitted StuRat 15:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recall a similar incident in which a British tourist who got lost in the middle of a "respectable" residential area, stopped his hired car and knocked on the glazed front door of a house that was lit up for the evening - to ask for directions. The occupier admitted afterwards that he shot and killed my countryman without opening the door and was ably assisted by being able to see his profile through the glazed door - and he successfully claimed that he was entitled to do so - in self-defence. The right to bear arms in the land of the free? You can keep it.

And then there was the Turkish teenager on a student exchange who went up to his host family's neighbour's house at Halloween (no toy gun, nothing) and got killed. No charges. --Charlene.fic 17:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So it looks like - assuming that the questionner is American - the answer to his prime question is yes, you can. God Bless America????????????? It's amazing that their population has just this week INCREASED to over 300 million, despite the best efforts of George W. Bush; Charlton Heston; and the US National Firearms League to achieve exactly the opposite effect. They should change the anthem, "Out of my cold dead hand:", to "Over your cold dead body".

Strange that no-one remarked on the flaw in the question "Is it legal to kill somebody if they hit you first?" What do you mean, first? You're mixing up two things. If the reverse were possible, it might not even be legal. But, sticking to something more executable, "Is it legal to hit somebody if they hit you first?" In a civilised country, no. The state has (or is supposed to have) a monopoly on violence. In a civilised country, that is. Same for killing. The state will also not hit someone for you if they hit you. Or kill them, of course. In a civilised country, that is. DirkvdM 05:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answer from a lawyer. Iam a lawyer you can only kill a person if you reasonably that the person question poses immnent danger of causing death or bodily harm to you or another.

Malaysian coordinates

I'm interested in knowing the precise coordinates for the following Malaysian business address:

Lot 28 & 30 Jln Beliong 15/11 Seksyen 15 40200 Shah Alam Selangor Malaysia

I know almost nothing about Malaysia so I'm not sure how to get this out of something like Google Maps or Earth (entering the above doesn't get me anywhere, and Shah Alam is a pretty big place). Anybody have a clue? It should be the address of one factory. I'm not really sure which parts of the above are streets, for example, much less where I might find (in English) a way to pinpointing where the streets are on a map of Shah Alam. --Fastfission 03:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the street is Jin Belion, 15/11 identifies either the street location or a block on the street, the lot is like a street number, Seksyen is "Section", 15 is the section number, 40200 is the postal code. You already know the city, state, and country.

Here's how I figured that out: see http:// www.dromoz.com/directory/place/?id=655&p=Seksyen+11%2C+Shah+Alam -THB 03:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That helps a lot, I think. Thank you! --Fastfission 18:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilyrics?

What are the chances of a wikilyrics site being developed? I'd like to see it. Dave

I'd say 1 in 1: http://lyricwiki.org/Main_Page ☢ Ҡi∊ff⌇↯ 05:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, apparently people still have no clue about copyright. I wonder how long will it take for them to get sued. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also wonder about copyrights the other way around. The fact that it's a wiki seems to be no guarantee the content is open source. I wouldn't participate in something like that if they don't specificallly state it's open source. I'd just be making money for other people. Note the ads. DirkvdM 05:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MARKET SYSTEM

I have to make a presentation for my school on the topic : - Market System -- a double- edged sword. I am havin problems as to what to write in it. i want to know about a few points as to how is the global market system disadvantageous. PLEASE HELP. URGENT.

I would look under market economics to start.--Light current 10:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest disadvantage may be that it favors owners of companies (stockholders) over workers, which is another way of saying it takes money from the poor and gives it to the rich. The reason is that, with a global pool of potential workers, employers no longer have to pay local rates, which are almost always higher than labor prices somewhere in the world. This disadvantage could be overcome if society intentionally countered with more taxes on the rich and benefits for the poor, like universal free college education and health care. StuRat 12:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would be weary of Sturats comments. The movement of work from one nation to another on a basis of lowering costs can ensure the future longevity of company - beneficial to all its workers and stockholders. It can benefit consumers as the cost-savings are passed onto them (at least in competitive markets). It can benefit the community they go to as it provides them with economic activity and will help build up skillsets and knowledge for use in the future and to attract/create new jobs. The advantage of global-operation is that one can look for the best value employees - just as an individual can look for the best value for their product online. There will be some firms that favour value over quality, others not.

The good and bad of the system are down to your interpretation. The bad may be that it makes it harder for governments to control the actions of corporations. Though the good may be that it makes it harder for government to meddle into the running of a corporation. Each side can drown the other in facts and statistics, the difficult is on you to look into those and find a case you find cohesive argument that can be used to highlight your understanding of the situation. As always in politics no answer is entirely correct, no answer entirely wrong. Good luck ny156uk 17:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know some people might be wary of my comments, but have I really made so many comments as to make people weary ? :-) StuRat 12:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you need to ask? 8-)--Light current 20:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just very briefly: The market economy is a good thing because it allows us to create more wealth (food, clothing, MP3 players...) than any other economic system we know. The main disadvantage of the market economy is that the wealth is not distributed equally among people (or countries, or whatever), because those who are good at doing what the market wants can very easily get much richer than the others. Actually, our experience with economic systems shows that in every system there tend to be few rich people and many (relatively) poor people. But since these other systems are usually not found in democracies, this is not a practical problem for the leaders in these systems, because what the many poor people want does not matter. Market economies, however, tend to be a feature of democracies, so if many people feel they do not get enough of the wealth, they make the state do something about it. This is most of what politics is about. For more info, as suggested, please see the article Market economy. For alternatives, see Economic system. Sandstein 19:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The game is more and more in the hands of the rich. Poor workers in developed countries are sometimes stockholders : both their stocks ans work may disappear if they go on buying products made in low labor prices countries. Education and high-value products are no more reserved to developed countries : they might wither quickly. Be bold! Imagine! -- DLL ^{.. T} 19:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are looking for disadvantages; here are a few. In a democratic political system, each person (or each adult anyway) ideally has one vote. Thus each person has an equal chance (in theory) of achieving his or her desired outcome in the political process.

In a market economic system, each economic actor (an individual person, organization, or corporation such as a bank or oil company) has influence that varies according to the financial resources that the actor can bring to bear in the market place. Thus each economic actor's chances of achieving his or her desired economic outcome is directly related to his or her net worth. This feature of the system is an advantage to large corporations and the superrich, who can outbid almost anyone else in a market transaction. However, it is a disadvantage to the vast majority, who must earn a living by competing with thousands, millions, or, with globalization, potentially billions of others to do the job. The rich corporation dispensing salaries will normally give the job to the person with the necessary skills who accepts the lowest wages. This has the effect of driving wages down globally. If a category of workers in one place begins demanding higher wages, the corporation is free to close up the shop and hire cheaper workers elsewhere. Corporations have a far greater ability to organize globally than does labor, not least because trade liberalization (outside the EU) typically allows corporations to hire labor in any country they choose but does not allow workers to seek employement in any country they choose.

Proponents of a global market argue that it brings down prices for consumers. However, if wages for those consumers are falling simultaneously, falling prices bring no benefit. If wages are falling relative to prices, as they have been for many years in the United States, workers lose out. Those who gain are those whose income comes from the ownership or management of corporations rather than those who must work for a living. The owner class have seen their earnings soar as corporations have exploited workers to extract record profits. So for the rich and corporations, the advantages of globalization and the market system are obvious. For those who rely on wages (although they may a small amount of stock in a retirement plan), the disadvantages are clear. Marco polo 20:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could we keep individual POVs out of the answers? THe questioner obviously has an school/college assignment problem where he needs to quote reliable sources. So lets direct him rowards some 8-) --Light current 22:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Rowards" = The direction you row the boat ? StuRat 00:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have only one reply to that: Rowlocks--Light current 00:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the questioner said nothing about needing to quote sources. The questioner specifically asked about disadvantages. I mentioned some. Our market economics article extensively quotes Milton Friedman, who is noted for his pro-market POV, not particularly helpful to someone looking for disadvantages of the global market. If the questioner in fact needs to quote sources, he might want to look at these comments by the Nobel-laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz, who is more critical of markets. He might also want to review our article Anti-globalization, which presents (and critiques) some of the arguments made by opponents of globalization. Marco polo 01:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

benefits package

on average, for an entry-level engineer in a fortune 200 corp., how much is a standard benefits package worth?

Please don't say "well, it depends on xyz..." or "well, what do you mean by benefits?"

Just give me a + or - 30% range without thinking too hyper-analytically.

Thanks.

At the very least it depends on the country you're in and the currency you're using. If said engineer worked "on the road" they may get a business car. They might not. So there's at least 20000 euro difference there on full value (do you want it per year or month?) - Mgm|^(talk) 10:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Without specifying the location, country, type of engineer, etc., you would be lucky to get + or -100% range. I will say the benefits cost the company somewhere around $30,000 a year, on average. Note that what the benefits cost the company is not exactly the same as what they are worth to the employee. StuRat 16:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How to delete the image I uploaded?

i uploaded a wrong image into wiki. Instead of a celebrity pic, i uploaded a family picture. How do I delete it?

This isn't the place for questions on how to use Wikipedia, that would be the Help Desk. Though to answer your question, just put the tag "{{db|reason}}" on the image page, replacing "reason" with the reason why you want it deleted. It will be deleted by an admin soon then you can upload the other image. Dismas|^(talk) 11:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An easier way is to replace that pic with the one you wanted to upload. StuRat 11:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Replace" meaning, I understand, uploading with the same name again. -- DLL ^{.. T} 19:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which, while easy, does not actually remove the family picture from public access. If you don't want the entire world to be able to see your family picture, use the "db" method above. Otherwise it is still there for everyone to see in the image upload history. (If it is deleted, it can only be restored by admins). --Fastfission 19:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can use {{db-author}} for such cases. --Lambiam ^Talk 23:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

paris hilton sex tapes

who knows where i can watch one of those tapes for free.the paris hilton tapes..the home made sex tapes?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.49.84.4 (talk • contribs)

Your most obvious bet would be file sharing networks. But why would you want to see that? ☢ Ҡi∊ff⌇↯ 15:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually a very unimpressive tape. During sex she looks uninterested and she's too skinny to be really attractive.

It's dark and very murky, too... 惑乱分からん 16:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

kuma ?

what does kuma mean?its a kiswahil word.

This belongs on the Language Ref Desk. StuRat 13:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to move it old chap?--Light current 00:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's the responsibility of the asker, if he expects to get an answer. If we do it for them, they will never bother to put things in the right place. StuRat 11:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right !--Light current 17:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But you're also supposed not to double post. Catch 22. So I'll answer it for you. It means 'vagina'. Wonder where you picked that up. DirkvdM 05:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

determining relevance score

Please explain how, or what parameters you use, you arrive at the 'Relevance' number that is displayed (under the various links) sometimes when there are multiple links from a search result. > Eg: "Relevance 0.4%

Thanks -p

Our Help:Searching page does not tell. Anyway, our search engine is quite poor and the relevance is better when you try a yahoogle search. -- DLL ^{.. T} 19:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interaction with a dog.

There are many books about interpreting a dog's behaviour -- a dog licking your face is submission to you, lowering its chest to the ground and raising its hindquarters indicates playfulness, etc etc. Are there any guides to how dogs interpret human behaviour? Does my dog actually appreciate me petting his head? What would he think about the fact that I've never licked him or had him bring me food? Often my dog will lay on his side and lift one of his arms, exposing his chest to me -- what does he want me to do? He doesn't appear to react at all if I pet his chest when he does this. Pesapluvo 15:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe most dog training books go into great detail about how dogs interpret human communication and behavior. Realize that much of human communication and behavior is well beyond their ability to interpret, they can only handle a few basic signals. For example, sitting your dog down and discussing why he shouldn't drink from the toilet isn't nearly as effective as swatting him on the nose and yelling "NO ! BAD DOG !". StuRat 15:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the rolling over on the back and exposing his chest is a show of submission. StuRat 16:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was jamming on guitars at my friends house, the dog was listening/sitting there. His wife came home and called the dog upstairs, my friend said noooo, he's enjoying the music, arent you bruno? and the dog nodded.

He probably trained the dog, intentionally or not, to nod when he says something that sounds like "arentyoubruno". Try having him say, "You're a miserable good-for-nothing kur, aren't you Bruno ?", then see if he nods. StuRat 16:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it was just one of those crazy 'nodding dogs'--Light current 17:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, when dogs roll over and lift their arms, THEY WANT YOU TO RUB THEIR STOMACHS! And of course he's not going to react, because you are just being a good ape. They own us. We don't own them. Maybe I shouldn't be telling you this, but you might as well get used to it. Mothperson cocoon 17:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't really agree with the "they own us" sentiment (dogs, unlike cats, seem to be nothing if not creatures begging for approval and acceptance; cats don't seem to give a damn and do think that they are entitled to care from humans), the display of the chest is almost certainly both a submission activity (exposing a vulnerable part of their body) as well as a request to have it scratched (which dogs love). --Fastfission 19:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I live with dogs and cats, and I still think they both own us. Dogs are just sneakier about it. As I type right now, I am furniture (a nice warm chair with thin skin convenient for claw traction) for my principessa cat. Not much subtlety there. But if you've ever been out in your yard on a cold dark night, calling and calling your beloved dog, who has gone missing for half an hour, only to turn around and find him or her sitting behind you silently, grinning... Actually, I'm with Lambiam's theory more than I am with my own. Mothperson cocoon 15:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A human feeds a dog and the dog thinks that the human must be a god since they can provide food. On the other hand, cats get fed by humans and think that the cats must be gods since the human is the one bringing the food.

And yes, your dog likes it when you pet him on the head because you're the alpha dog and you're bothering to show him attention. Dismas|^(talk) 20:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow there is this fad of viewing all human-dog relations on a one-dimensional scale of dominant to submissive, as if it's an SM relationship. From my interaction with family dogs as well as watching dogs interact I recognize nothing of these rich behavioural patterns in this "alpha dog" stuff. I've seen dogs become aggressive, but that's something else, when they were provoked or threatened. And I've seen dogs "submit", but that was clearly like a judoka slapping the floor: a signal "OK, you win". For the rest you can see almost everything you also see going on between humans. Dogs may fight for no other reason than that they can't stand each other. A dog obeys you because he or she cares for you and wants to make you happy, not because you are the "top dog". And just like you are mad every now and then with your little brother/big sister/spouse/mother/granny, or just want to be left alone, so it is also with your dog. --Lambiam ^Talk 23:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you know about the moscow coup attempt?

--Moscowcoupattempt 15:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He/she seems to have some identity confusion... 惑乱分からん 15:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? --Moscowcoupattempt 15:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They mean that your user name is the same as your question. I suppose that's OK, just a little weird. StuRat 15:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know everything about it as published and reported by the then Scottish Media.

Anything else? --Moscowcoupattempt 15:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know our article on it is named Soviet coup attempt of 1991. StuRat 16:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The last section in David Remnick's Lenin's Tomb: The Last Days of the Soviet Empire is an excellent and exciting account of the subject. I highly recommend them if you are looking for a good synopsis (the book as a whole is wonderful as well). --Fastfission 19:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fear of sleep

A new question have you heard of do you fear sleep? --Moscowcoupattempt 15:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term for the fear of sleep is clinophobia, if that's what you meant to ask. StuRat 16:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(I would have guessed for hypnophobia, but couldn't find any link...) 惑乱分からん 16:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Start a new headline for new questions... Don't just ask questions at random unless you really want the answers... Sorry for joking around with you, before... 惑乱分からん 16:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which is lighter, a feather or a moth's wing ?

What is lighter a feather or a moth's wing? --Moscowcoupattempt 16:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feathers vary dramatically in size as do moth's wings. While, on average, I would say feathers weigh more, there are certainly also some feathers which weigh less than some moth's wings. StuRat 16:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

black bull stickers on cars

do you know the relevance of the black bull sticker which some people place on the rear of their car? i have seen it on many cars here in ireland and have been told that they appear in other countries also. it is not limited to any make or model of car and is not limited to any race or class of driver? is it some kind of secret society medal? or is it just a sticker with no meaning?

Maybe they are making out that their car is "The vehicle called Black Bull used by Black Shadow in F-Zero GX."?--Shantavira 17:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This one http://www.theblackbull.org/? MeltBanana 20:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Student with concern

Hello, I am contacting you because I was recently told not to use information from this website when preparing reports for school. My professor told me to find more legitimate sites or books for research. I told him that in most cases I always do follow up reasearch and try not to compile information based on one resource. I also told him that I have never had a problem with bad information from your website and simply would like to continue using it for research. He told me no and that wikipedia is unreliable. This issue would not have come up but as a student I must cite my information. My question is, Should I look for information elsware do to the editing aspect of this site and can you provide a rebutt statment to change ny professors mind. Thank you

He's right. Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia's founder says so, and that college students shouldn't be citing any encyclopedia, not just Wikipedia. A good wikipedia article will have plenty of citations to reliable sources which you can check, and which should be of a scholarly nature: cite those sources directly (assuming you've actually checked and read them yourself). A wikipedia article which doesn't cite reliable sources (which doesn't allow anyone to check its veracity) is worthless. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hes right. Use WP to get a general flavor of the topic and then follow the article links to lead you to primary sources which you should then READ!--Light current 22:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an excellent tool for students, especially if you learn how to use it correctly. Your teacher may disallow Wikipedia as a reference (many do, pah), but that doesn't mean you shouldn't use it. I like to remember that Wikipedia is just an encyclopedia that covers an extremely broad range of subjects. You shouldn't cite an encyclopedia, but instead use references that are more specific to your topic. Most of our most accurate and cited pages are on academic topics that are likely to be useful to a student. Let's say my topic was on Teddy Roosevelt. I would go to the Theodore Roosevelt article, and read over it. I wouldn't take any notes, just read it to get a good understanding of him. But at the bottom of the page (and by bottom, I mean the last 20%), there are links to dozens of websites, a list of several printed books, and even some newspaper articles and such thrown in. These would be what I use for hard research. Why cite Wikipedia as one paltry source when I have a list of over a hundred reputable sources in my lap? Even if you chose a few at random, you'd probably have substantial material to build a satisfactory school paper. Unfortunately, there's likely nothing you can do to change your teacher's opinion of Wikipedia. Just grin and bear it, since he's the one grading the papers. Hyenaste ^(tell) 22:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not an acceptable citation Durova 00:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, remember no source is infallable. -THB 06:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which includes those sources that are mentioned in your sources. Wikipedia should not be used as a source not because it's unreliable but because it's an encyclopedia. Any source is unreliable. Which includes paper sources. Any nut can write a book. Let alone a web page. So you should check the background of the author (and leave it if you can't). Is there any indication they're an expert on the subject? With some publishers you can assume they did the checking for you. But even then it makes sense to use different sources, especially when it comes to the social sciences, where opinion may prevail over fact. Especially with controversial subjects. It is near impossible to find reliable information on, say, Cuba or tobacco. DirkvdM 06:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

weird question

I have a quesion for something that I would like to know if anyone could tell me what it is and anything about it, but I'm going to give an example, as that is the best way to explain it:

You are walking through a hallway and you all of a sudden fell as though a force is pulling your head into a violent headbanging motion. You don;t know if you actually just did it, but you feel as though you may have. You have to hold your hand on your head the rest of the time to stop this urge. Now you are walking up a stairway and you trip on the stairs. It is no big deal and you are in no way mad. You even have a nice person help you up. You come to the top happier than at the bottom, thinking about the incident. Then, all of a sudden, a random thought enters your mind of you tripping and then yelling "s***" fairly loud. This, of course, did not happen, but then you all of a sudden feel the urge to yell "s***" very loudly and you seriously believe that you just have. The urge keeps coming and unless you focus on one spot on the ground, and keep your mind focused strongly on something else, the urge keeps coming. If you look up at someone it's all of a sudden like you're being possessed to yell "s***" at them. Also, if you are walking near a (seriously, i do not mean any of this in a racist way)black guy around you;re age and you love black people but you for some reason you're mouth undergoes the possession-like urge to say things like "stupid black people" and stuff like that (that is not at all my opinion and i'm just using that phrase for the question), and like i just said, this is not at all coming from you or your thoughts. And then there's the whole possession-like thing of just calling people random horrible names. What is going on here and how can this be stopped?

Serious question, not just bs. Thanks. Temp 22:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schizophrenia? I'm no psychologist. Hyenaste ^(tell) 22:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly some kind of obsessive-compulsive disorder(?)... 惑乱分からん 22:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a dream: see a head doctor
If this is not a dream: see a head doctor immediately!

--Light current 22:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds a bit like coprolalia, though I have no idea if it can work exactly that way. In either case, like Light Current says, you should see a doctor. If you're feeling you're losing control to do these things, it could get serious, so the best is to see a professional. ☢ Ҡi∊ff⌇↯ 22:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the urge to suddenly blurt out obscenities and targeted epithets is usually Tourette Syndrome, but if you're older than 18, I'm not sure why it would suddenly show up in you out of nowhere. In any case, Tourette's isn't a threat to your physical health. It's the feelings of headbanging and dizziness that I'm more concerned about. This is a case where you should consider all of us on Wikipedia to be idiots, and get to a doctor. --Aaron 23:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron sounds spot on, but we are not qualified to give medical advice. This sounds like it could be a neurological problem. Please do not ask for medical diagnosis or advice on Wikipedia, because you know nothing about the qualifications, if any of the people answering the question. If it were me or a family member, I would see a doctor or maybe a neurologist as soon as possible.Edison 00:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Coprolalia" is the correct medical term for the obscenity aspect of Tourette syndrome. But considering that the guy doesn't seem to completely discern between reality and fantasies, to boot, I gigure it might be a more complex problem than simply that... 惑乱分からん 02:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legality 2: The Fellowship of the Law

Is it legal to walk around a town naked? What about on your property, outside? What aboud inside your property, next to a window? If any of these are illegal, what if you're wearing a mask?--216.164.199.234 23:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is legal to stand next to a window, inside of your property naked. Didn't see that one coming, did ya? T H L 23:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are places where you may not even smooch or consume alcohol on your own property, inside, if you can be seen from the outside. It really depends on where you are and what the local rules are. --Lambiam ^Talk 00:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where are we talking about? These types of laws vary from town to town. I'd say almost all towns have some form of an Indecent exposure law. Obviously, if you start walking around naked in public you will end up with a police officer who will arrest you on some law based on lewd behavior. I'm sure most places as well would legally allow nudity on private property, but once again it depends on where we are talking about. —Mitaphane _talk 00:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, again. Thanks for signing your post but it should be on the illegal/illegal in a mask page. Besides, if you're wearing a mask, you're not naked. Duh. -THB 02:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just something I've imagined or does Toronto have some sort of law that allows women to walk round topless in public? Lemon martini 13:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]