Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007 April 25

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:Reference desk | Archives | Miscellaneous

Miscellaneous desk
< April 24	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 26 >

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.

1 April 25

[edit] April 25

[edit] My Games Fever

Hello again, I'm sorry to bother you again, but I just have to know something.

Is My Games Fever cancelled because it fell victim to the "low ratings curse"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.18.90.122 (talk) 01:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

These questions are probably more suited to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment. Pretty much all shows on US commercial television that are cancelled early are done so because of low ratings, which means less profit. Rockpocket 01:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to apologize for asking us questions. :)

[edit] Localised Websites

Why do websites such as Google, Yahoo! and MSN have localised versions for many countries, except USA? For example, someone can search on Google for worldwide pages OR just UK pages at google.co.uk, but if someone wanted to look for just US pages, there is no google.us for them to do so? Same for MSN and Yahoo!. Isn't this ever an issue for Americans? --203.208.88.170 03:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Because the world revolves around the US, that they're the centre of the world, and every page is localised to US by default. --antilived^{T | C | G} 03:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Those sites are (at least de facto) USA-English-centric portals to begin with. The localized portal you suggest might be more useful on a site such as this. dr.ef.tymac 03:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a way to restrict your Google search to pages located in the USA; use the search form at google.com/language_tools. --Mathew5000 17:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Some countries require a localized version, such as China, so they can censor any mention of the Tianemen Square massacre, for example. StuRat 17:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's an example of how to use the parameter cr= to restrict a search to pages in a particular country such as the US. Compare the following URLs searching for a certain eight-word phrase:

The first search returns 24 results, but the second search (with the added parameter "cr=countryUS") returns only 6 results; the non-USA results have been excluded. --Mathew5000 05:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yahoo does have a different version where I am (in australia) its at yahoo.com.au Thepalm 09:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question (lesbians and AIDS)

I don't know where else to ask this, but here: Can lesbians get AIDS? I've been wondering that for a while.--$UIT 03:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, why not? For example, a lesbian could have a bi-sexual lover, or a lesbian ~~nurse~~health care provider could get infected non-sexually. Clarityfiend 04:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Or one lesbian could contract it from another lesbian. I don't see why a prick of one sort or another has to be involved. Dismas|^(talk) 04:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Fact is, physically a lesbian is the same as a heterosexual woman (aside from some brain structure differences). Clarityfiend 04:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no difference in brain structure.

Everyone's brain is structured slightly differently, that is what makes most of us individuals.

If the questioner really means "is HIV transmissible via cunnilingus?", the answer is yes, but the risk is quite low. The risk increases if the person giving the oral sex has any lesions in the mouth or throat and if the recipient has any lesions in the vaginal neighborhood or is menstruating. Epidemiologically, monogamous lesbians have some of the lowest rates of HIV among sexually active people. More here. --TotoBaggins 06:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

How about via scissoring? Hmmm... Azi Like a Fox 12:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Lesbians can transmit AIDS via Genital to Genital contact. Anyone can. I can't find a spot on online citation on this, thugh I'm sure a search will turn up lots of information. You could also contact your local AIDS association for information, or even a non-local one. The people at Aids Vancouver Island are helpful folks: http://www.avi.org/ gorffy 23:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can contract AIDS including virgins and children. Any transmission of blood with someone HIV+ can contract the virus. Lesbians are only less likely to contract HIV+ than gays and heterosexuals because (on average) they have fewer sexual partners than either group. --Ephilei 01:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is fair to say that the reduced risk for lesbians is because they have fewer sexual partners. There are several possible routes for HIV transmission. In the case of sexual transmission, lesbians are not at reduced risk because of a reduced number of sexual partners, but rather because the forms of sexual activity they are most likely to engage in are those that carry an extremely low risk of transmission. Bluntly put, if no penis is involved, the risk of HV transmission is drastically reduced. (Before jumping on me, please note that I said reduced, not eliminated.) - Eron ^Talk 01:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] tunes used in ACT II of stage play "Picnic"original 1953 Music Box Theater NYC

04:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)WorcennojI have searched and searched. All I have come up with is "there is no documentation" of the music in "Picnic". NOT the movie of 1956, but the award winning stage play Feb. 19, 1953, by William Inge and directed by Joshua Logan. What were the piano tunes that Ernie Higgins played in ACT II?Worcennoj 04:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How do you decode this Dewey Decimal Classification code?

How do you decode the Dewey Decimal Classification code below?

64'.7—dc22

What subdivision does the publication belongs to? Is it 064? Or is it 640? Something else? What exactly does

64'

mean? And what does "—dc22" mean? --72.78.237.89 05:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't look like a Dewey or LCC number. What's the book? Where's it from? FiggyBee 07:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The book is a DIY home improvement manual. The Dewey classification is from the Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data on the copyright page of the book, which I assume is accurate. --72.78.237.89 12:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

In the Dewey Decimal Classification, 640 is the general class for 'Home & family management' (reference), which seems like a good place for a DIY book. I thought perhaps the ' in your number was a misprinted 1, however 641 is 'food and drink'. The summary document linked above doesn't get into the decimal portion of classifications, and the only thing I found when Google searching for 641.7 is 'Specific cooking proceses and techniques', so that doesn't work out. As far as the "dc22," it most likely represents version 22 of the Dewey Decimal Classification system (reference). --LarryMac 14:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for replying. I think I've found the answer. Like you said, "dc22" stands for the 22nd edition of the Dewey Decimal Classification. From checking the catalog of the Library of Congress, I found that a digit is missing from the Dewey classification number. The correct number, according to the LoC catalog, is: 643'.7

As for the ' ("prime mark"), it is used to mark the place(s) where the classification number may be truncated, if one wants to use a shorter/truncated version of the classification number.[1] --72.78.237.89 14:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plz help to kill my nokia!

My Nokia 3310 was stolen three weeks ago. I don't want that thief to use my cell. So I want to destroy it's software using it's IMEI(International Mobile Equipment Identity) number. When I want to use it here I came to know that it can't be done in India. Can any one from any country help me to do it. I'm giving you my IMEI no: 350606605344266. Plz do what ever you can do with that number. But it should be destroyed. Plz post me the result after you have done that. It was a very sentimental one to me and should not be used by others. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Temuzion (talk • contribs) 07:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

That's impossible. Just cancel your account with your provider. atomicthumbs 16:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

My god, this could be the lead-in to a great phishing attack! --Zeizmic 16:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Just call your provider and have them deactivate your sim card, that way the phone won't be able to dial out, or receive calls, or download ringtones, etc..--VectorPotential^Talk 17:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

While you cannot "destroy" your phone's software, the article on IMEI seems to suggest that there are steps you may take, such as contacting CEIR, to get the device blacklisted, in theory preventing the use of the phone even if its SIM card is replaced. Azi Like a Fox 04:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Even if a reader had special software which could reach out and disable a phone with a certain ID number, we have no real way of knowing that the person requesting such an action is the rightful owner (as opposed to someone with a grudge against the owner and knowledge of the ID number). Edison 16:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Purgatory

Do Catholics believe that all people who will go to heaven after they die will go temporarily to purgatory before they go to heaven, or just some?The Anonymous One 09:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, an interesting(to me) question about Catholic theology phrased in a nuetral way! ;) Well, after some research, and going by the words of Julian, Cardinal Cesarini speaking at the Council of Florence, souls' of Saints get to go straight to heaven, so no, not all saved people have to stop-over in purgatory prior to going to heaven in Catholic theology [2]. I also saw mention of Martyrs getting a free pass, but from what I can tell the vast majority of the saved do have to go there. Also, just in case, here's a Catholic apologist page(one of many I'm sure) which addresses some common criticisms of the Catholic doctrine of purgatory, in case you were wondering[3]. As an aside, personally I've always been perplexed from a strictly logical standpoint at the various ways, indulgences, etc., that were in times past offered to shorten a souls' time in purgatory. What's the big deal about having your soul spend a finite amount of time, no matter how long, being purified in purgatory if you're guaranteed eventually to spend an !!eternity!! of bliss with God in heaven? Even if purgatory is extremely unpleasant/painful the obsession with commuting the time spent there just doesn't make much sense to me...---AZI--- 38.112.225.84 11:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think technically (according to Catholicism), the people in Purgatory are saints, because they are saved. They aren't the canonized saints whose lives the church puts up as an example to believers, but they're saints nonetheless. Not that I'm an authority on Catholicism; "just telling you what I've heard". --Trovatore 19:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

No, the people in heaven are saints; that is the general Catholic definition of 'saint'. The 'saints' that are cannonised are just those among the saints that the Church considers definately to be saints ('proved' by miracles granted in their name), who have lived heroic lives that serve as a good example to people. In order to get to heaven, everyone except martyrs has to go through purgatory, to make sure they're clean for heaven. Martyrs get a free ride for their pains! The church makes no claims over how long purgatory takes. Yay for absorbing knowledge. There's lots of doctrinal detail if you want it at The Catholic Encyclopedia, or you could find propaganda either way on Google. Skittle 21:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that it is correct to say that, according to Roman Catholic doctrine, "everyone except martyrs has to go through purgatory." As the Catholic Encyclopedia states, Purgatory is "a place or condition of temporal punishment for those who... are, not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions." It further states the "many who have died are still in a place of purification;" many, not all. The Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church states that "all who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified," undergo the necessary purification in Purgatory, while "Those who die in God's grace and friendship and are perfectly purified," do not, but go directly to Heaven. It is possible, through confession and penance, to receive full absolution for sins before death, and so to avoid Purgatory. (Not always easy, but possible.) - Eron ^Talk 00:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There's different forms of Catholicism and within each form, not every believer thinks the same. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

After you die, your soul goes to a Steambath; be nice to the little Puerto Rican guy.

Atlant 12:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

SeeJohann Tetzel, who said something like, "How can you cling to that gold piece, knowing that your dead mother is suffering in purgatory and with the money you could shorten her suffering? and the catchier ""As soon a coin in coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs." See also[4]. Edison 16:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The person who asks this question is a troll proof.--Kirby♥time 13:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why won't my teachers let me cite Wikipedia? This is asinine.

Ignoring the likelyhood of an article on things such as muon-catalyzed fusion being vandalized, the teachers at my school (Sir Francis Drake High School) say that we cannot cite or use Wikipedia for research, due to the fact that anyone can edit it, and that because of that all information on Wikipedia is suspect. I know that's not the case, and so I'm stuck using Opentopia Encyclopedia, which uses a Wikipedia database dump. It's kind of hard to use, but it has no edit link and I'm telling my teachers that it uses one of the "Certified Good" database dumps (I know, there isn't any such thing). Can anybody right a persuasive thing that'd convince my teachers to let us use Wikipedia? atomicthumbs 16:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I do understand why your teachers doesn't allow wikipedia to be cited, but they can't bar you from using it to find things out. If you look something up for an assignment here, look at the sources for the facts you want and cite those. Your teachers would have to allow that (and if the statement isn't sourced, don't use it).

Also, please educate your teachers on what a database dump is (if you can, that is). There's a reason it's called a "dump", not a "selection". --Oskar 16:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Go over their head. Talk to the principal. Or you parents. Or the school superintendent. Or your local member of parliament/senator.

Seriously though, what I would do is ignore your teacher and cite Wikipedia to your hearts content. Dare them to fail you on account of an asinine rule. When you expose yourself to a very bad outcome, the teacher will be forced to re-think their silly position. Vranak

This is a totally irresponsible suggestion. Advising that the student should go out of his way to make his teacher's life harder when the teacher has a perfectly valid and reasonable rule as regards a writing assignment is terrible. No school administrator in their right mind would side with a student who is being disruptive just because they don't wish to follow the rules of the assignment as stated. -- mattb 18:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, searching high and low for citation sources would be 'going out of the way'. Why should anyone have to do that when Wikipedia is, in all honesty, as good if not better than any other source, on the majority of topics? Vranak

Most educators and professionals do not consider it appropriate to use any tertiary sources such as encyclopedias as a sole source for any information. 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. Always check your facts against multiple independent sources. Jon513 17:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

To back up what everyone else has said, encyclopedias should almost never be cited in professional writing. What's more, vandalism isn't the only problem. There may be information in articles that is simply wrong, misleading, or which promotes one point of view unduly over another. There is no guarantee that any page here is accurate because there are no credentials behind the editors. That's not to say that Wikipedia isn't a great starting point, but I would never dare cite any fact or figure in Wikipedia before finding a respectable first or second hand source that verifies it (this is the spirit of WP:V). -- mattb 17:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

No encyclopedia is a good source for scholarly work. You can use an encyclopedia for a general overview of a topic, but for more depth you should go directly to the kinds of sources that encyclopedias use. If you used Wikipedia this way, nobody would ever know because the sources you'd actually cite wouldn't be Wikipedia. Friday (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

'No encyclopedia is a good source for scholarly work'? With all due respect, I strongly disagree. Vranak

I'm curious whether you have any experience in professional journalism or writing for peer-reviewed resources. If so, would you honestly cite Wikipedia on a stated fact in your writing, putting the credibility of your work and perhaps your own credibility as an author into the hands of an unreviewed, unchecked resource? If you haven't, with all due respect, stop giving poor advice about something in which you've had no experience. -- mattb 00:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Though, for most of my time in High School the teachers allowed citing encyclopedias and random, crappy Internet sources. Only in a couple Grade 12 courses did they finally get serious about it. It doesn't strike me as the best way to prepare students for University, but they generally simply did not care about what the sources were. However, considering most High Schools don't have access to journals, the sources available for searching is a little more limited. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

(after edit conflict)It's a good rule, but they're citing the wrong reason. As you continue in your studies, you'll find that good academic writing demands references to primary and (some) secondary source material rather than a tertiary source like Wikipedia (or any other encyclopedia).

Remember, the rule is that you can't cite Wikipedia in your papers; there's no reason not to use Wikipedia in the course of your research. Wikipedia articles (like most encyclopedia articles, and many introductory-level textbooks) provides an excellent starting point; we give you an overview of a topic that you can use as a guide to further research. Many Wikipedia articles provide footnotes and references that point to primary sources for the information we provide. It is these sources that you should be following up with and citing in your writing.

Don't try to sneak around the rules you've been provided by lying to your teachers about your sources. Instead use this rule to improve the quality of your citations in your writing—drop all encyclopedias from your references. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Just what I was thinking, but you're much more coherent... Carom 17:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

indeed. there is no reason to cite Wikipedia. Good Wikipedia articles cite their sources, and you can just cite those. Wikipedia articles that do not cite their sources you should disregard anyway. dab (𒁳) 17:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't listen to these guys atomicthumb, they are apparently part of the establishment. Vranak

There is no cabal! -Wo o ty Woot? contribs 19:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Even Wikipedia doesn't accept Wikipedia as a source; you can't cite another Wiki article because it doesn't qualify as a reliable source. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not a compelling argument as to why Wikipedia is useless for serious scholarship. It is simply a feature which says, 'no recursive citations'. Vranak

Just to put in my view, I concur with the positions given by Mattb, Jon513, TenOfAllTrades, Carom, and Dbachmann. Vranak has attacked their arguments (rather ineffectively, I should add) but has completely failed to articulate any coherent argument in support of his own position. I believe Vranak may be trolling. --Coolcaesar 20:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Although I too concur with TenOfAllTrades, et seq., this is not moot court and the purpose of the RefDesk is to answer questions, not argue cases. Speaking of which, getting back to the original question ... there are numerous sources that discuss this issue. Also, the faculty and administration of a school named after Sir Francis Drake may have reason to be afraid of getting fooled by sources of questionable credibility. Whether the fear is justifiable or not is a separate matter, best left to the discussion pages. (See also Criticism of Wikipedia). dr.ef.tymac 23:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason you can't cite Wikipedia is because it is not always accurate, sorry to say. There is a lot of stuff on Wikipedia that isn't correct, whether placed there due to vandals, hoaxsters or just a well-meaning but mistaken person. What Wikipedia is good for is gathering background information and pointing you toward sources that your teacher will accept, like books. -- Mwalcoff 04:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You know, I've been thinking about this a little. My intuitive reaction was certainly, no, of course you shouldn't cite encyclopedias in a research paper, but I wasn't sure just why. The reliability argument is not terribly convincing; by and large encyclopedias are probably more reliable than primary sources.

What occurs to me is that, while information cited from an encyclopedia might be reliable, what it's not is scholarship. It's more like regurgitation. You're relying on others to process the information for you, and not learning to do it yourself.

There's a similar point to be made on the question of bias. Are encyclopedia articles -- even freely editable ones -- more likely to be biased than primary sources? No, they're a good deal less likely to have explicit biases (at least, relative to the average POV of the editorial class). The authors of primary sources are rarely disinterested parties, and they don't have to compromise with anyone else in how they present their observations.

But the point is that figuring out author bias and correcting for it is part of the task. You're supposed to learn how to do it yourself. If your sources have already tried to do that, then what you get is still not really unbiased; it just has the biases that most of the editors share, but figuring out what those are is much harder (and more to the point, the student is much less likely to even attempt it, or even notice the presence of these silent biases).

So, bottom line: The teachers are right. You shouldn't cite Wikipedia -- or any encyclopedia -- in a school paper, at least past the middle school level. --Trovatore 21:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is a FIRM base

Several times during your article on Hit you discuss FIRM base one and two. What are FIRM bases? I searced the web and am unable to find a good answer?

138.162.140.59 16:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

For the benefit of others, the question seems to be about Hīt, a town in Iraq. --LarryMac 16:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I know nothing about the military, but I did Google "military jargon" and "firm base". If you go to the site [5], it contains a paragraph about what "firm bases" include. It seems to describe a permanent camp as opposed, I think, to a forward operating base. Bielle 18:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A baby, an Aquos LC-52D62U and a Sony MDR-RF5000K !!!?

I have an Aquos LC-52D62U connected to my DVR from Comcast for HDTV reception; I also have a 9 months old at home and his Mom (my wife) that shouts everytime I turn on the volume up; So I decided to get a Sony wireless MRD-RF 5000K but I do not know how to connect it to my Aquos, or to the comscast DVR or to where??? Sony manual is quite poor in instructions. Please help.

Axel

Don't you just plug your base station in, plug the stereo cable into your TV in the earphone jack, make sure your haedphones are charged and voilà. --antilived^{T | C | G} 08:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trail and Freeride bikes

Hello,

Just asking which bike out of a Trail of Freeride bike would be best for doing moderate jumps, ramps and drops (nothing more than about 3m high). And what sort of price are you looking at for each one (in GBP if you could please)?

Thanks, --84.66.18.84 17:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gunther sunglasses

What brand/model of sunglasses does Mats Söderlund wear? Here's a closeup shot: [6]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rc251dc (talk • contribs) 18:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Taxi accident statistics for NYC

Does anyone know where I can find the number of accidents taxis are involved in in New York City? Thanks. (I'm actually looking for a measure of how dangerous riding in NYC cabs is compared to riding with the average NYC driver. And this seemed like a good statistic to start with. Suggestions for and sources of other relevant statistics also welcome.) --noosph e re 19:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Taxicab and Livery Crashes in New York City 2004: [7]

Crash rates are one-third lower for taxicabs and liveries than for other types of vehicles. The crash rate was 4.6 taxicabs involved in reported accidents per million miles traveled and 3.7 liveries involved in reported accidents per million miles traveled, compared with 6.7 vehicles involved in reported accidents per million miles for all vehicles in New York City, in 2004.

Rockpocket 22:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] US TV in New Zealand

If you bought a satilette, could u usei t watch US TV?

Probably. Of course, Satellites cost many millions of dollars, so just using it to pick up stray TV transmissions might be a bit of a waste.

If you are talking about a satellite television service, if you're in NZ you might want to look into SKY Network Television. FiggyBee 21:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

What our questioner is asking is: "If you bought a satellite TV dish, could you use it to watch US television in New Zealand?". Well, the satellites that broadcast TV to the USA are going to be on the other side of the planet from New Zealand - there is not possible way for you to pick up a US satellite there. So - the only possibility is that some New Zealand (or possibly Australian) satellite rebroadcasts American channels. I would bet that they all rebroadcast some american channels - so I wouldn't be at all surprised to find CNN (for example) - but some of the more obscure channels - I doubt it. SteveBaker 03:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly. The satellites that broadcast TV to the US are not necessarily "on the other side of the planet". Most satellites (but not all) are in a geostationary orbit over the Equator, and the difference in longitude between Honolulu and Auckland is less than that between Honolulu and Los Angeles. A broadcast from a geostationary satellite over or near Hawaii may be receivable in New Zealand. America is on the other side of the planet from the mid-Indian Ocean, south of India; New Zealand's quite a distance from there.

However, New Zealand uses a different television broadcast standard than North America. New Zealand, like much of the world, uses the PAL system, while the US uses NTSC. Unless you have a NTSC decoder (and the vast majority of TVs out of the box don't) you can't successfully watch NTSC broadcasts on a PAL box. --Charlene 03:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Apart from which, direct broadcast satellites do not radiate their signal equally powerfully at all parts of the planet - they have a "footprint" where they intend people to receive their signal. Even if a satellite in geostationary orbit is visible from both New Zealand and part of the US, it is extremely unlikely that signals intended for the US would also be directed towards NZ (who would pay to do this? Satellite transponders are valuable property). -- Arwel (talk) 12:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is there a site that lists video service sites around the world?

This question inspired an article to be created or enhanced:
WikiProject Reference Desk Article Collaboration

List of video sharing websites
Please consider contributing

I love YouTube, and I've been to Dailymotion (a video service site in France). And now, I want video sites to go to in other countries. Like Italy, Brazil, Japan, South Africa, the Middle East, and well others. Is there a site that lists international video service sites? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sirdrink13309622 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

We have a (rather poor) list at Online video#Websites. Rockpocket 07:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I can improve that! Meanwhile see http://unplug.mozdev.org/sites.html --h2g2bob 11:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

List of video sharing websites is where it's at! --h2g2bob 12:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice work, h2g2bob. I have tagged it as having been improved by a Ref Desk question. Rockpocket 18:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MySpace vs. Facebook?

How does MySpace compare to Facebook? Thanks! S.dedalus 21:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

In what respect? Carom 22:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

One of the differences is that MySpace allows user customized HTML and CSS layouts, while all Facebook profiles have identical layouts. As attractive as it seems towards MySpace, I think it is ultimately one of its downfalls as many users bloat up their profiles with large files and complicated scripts that dramatically increases load times. Jamesino 00:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

In terms of differences between the two social communities, differences in how the pages are used, differences in features, and possibly differences in the policies of the two sites. S.dedalus 01:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think facebook is largely for college/university students, whereas myspace is more used by kids and bands looking for their big break. Just a rough impression though.137.138.46.155 08:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Facebook is centered around organising events (like having a party!) and on hosting photographs of people. I'm not so sure of MySpace's appeal, but I know they treat bands and musicians well, and it is easy to add music and videos. MySpace is indexed by search engines, while Facebook is not; so lots of people use MySpace for promotion. Both allow you to leave messages and talk with friends. --h2g2bob 11:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] trinidad and tobago laws and average wage

I have tried several times to find the average monthly or yearly salary for port of spain trinidad and tobago... no luck. the minimum wage is $9.00, but for various unskilled jobs I came up with nothing. Also, I am trying to find out the average child support payments there and the child enforcement laws regarding this. Anything would be helpful at this point, I am running in circles. Thanks. ali

[edit] JULIUS CAESAR SPEECH

Hi this is Anonoymous. I'm doing an speech on Julius Caesar. What can I add in that will give me an A+? 71.141.112.218 23:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

What you can add to get an A+ is your own work. As it says above under How to ask a question, "Do your own homework. The reference desk won't give you answers for your homework, although we will try to help you out if there's a specific part of your homework you don't understand. Make an effort to show that you've tried solving it first." - Eron ^Talk 23:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, go on.

Who was he
Why is he well known
- Aa a general
- As emperor
- As a famously assassinated person
- As an author
What sources do we have for our knowledge of him (e.g. his books, contemporary books about him)
How well known is he
- Biblical reference to Caesers. (render unto Caeser...)
- Shakespeare play
- If in UK, conquest of Britain

Stuff like that, I guess. Remember not to plagiarize the wikipedia article. Work out what tone of voice you're going to use: serious student or Bill & Ted?--Tagishsimon (talk)

Think about your presentation. This is a speech, so how you present it will be marked; the best content in the world won't help if you look at your paper and mumble. Practice so that you can do most of it without reading. Use cue cards to keep track of where you are rather than reading from a paper. Have a couple of visual aids - posters, props - and use them. Speak clearly and make eye contact with your audience. Sound like you believe what you are saying. - Eron ^Talk 00:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Pretend you are Mark Antony, and do a version of his famous oration (Julius Caesar, Shakespeare, Act 3, Scene 2) along the lines of Friends, Romans, Countrymen...I come to praise Caesar, not to bury him... If you master your brief, and if you speak clearly, you should do pretty well. Good luck. Clio the Muse 00:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Make sure your speech has an argument. Have something bold to say about him. Don't just recite facts. Nobody cares about details except those who already know them. Tell them something they don't expect. --24.147.86.187 00:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Tagishsimon, for your benefit, I think you should know that Caesar came to Britain, Caesar saw Britain, but Caesar did not conquer Britain! Clio the Muse 00:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

<hangs head in shame, awards self D minus> --Tagishsimon (talk)

Your speech was superb, though. That alone deserves an A+ Clio the Muse 01:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I came to this page, I saw it, and I concur. :) JackofOz 02:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You could start by asking the audience to lend you their ears.137.138.46.155 08:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Just don't ask them to wash the blood off your toga. JackofOz 08:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

don't mention the salad :)Perry-mankster 09:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Research more than the bare minimum - that way you can just include the best bits, and you'll know what you're talking about a bit more which means you'll be more confident. To keep all the facts on his life connected (rather than a list of facts), you might like to have a common theme, like showing his willingness to take risks, or his use of military force to get things done, or his lust for power: something to tie together the events into a story. Don't be afraid to be forceful and opinionated, but be prepared to support your views. Being opinionated should be easy: he committed adultery with Cleopatra and declared himself a god! Read through the wikipedia page as a starting point, and look for books on the subject at your local library. --h2g2bob 11:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I second this. Make it interesting for the person to watch. Use sketchy sources and bend the truth a little if you want, nothing completely factual is interesting, except in the nerdy ways (Oh, something I like! Must know more, even if it's boring as hell to read!). Add little oddball tidbits about him. Did he have a scar, or a tattoo? Did he have a strange condition? Say things that will make the listener go "Huh.", instead of "Uhh." -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 06:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)