Miscellaneous desk
< March 6	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 8 >

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.

March 7[edit]

Difference?[edit]

Is there a difference between a Nintendo DS and a Nintendo DS Lite? If so, what is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.239.33.66 (talk) 00:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DS Lites are slimmer, lighter, brighter, louder, longer-lasting (in terms of battery power), and features a longer and thicker stylus than the original. It also has a nice glossy casing. If you can, get a lite instead. bibliomaniac 1 5 I see no changes 00:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a big difference, the Lite is superior. Ask anybody that knows Nintendo or portable systems. Mac Davis (talk) 02:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Southwest Airlines Refund[edit]

if i were to purchase a itenerary from southwest and decided to cancel it while the money was being taken out would i be able to go on the website and ask for a refund within 24 hours even if the fare is restricted.--logger (talk) 01:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some tickets are nonrefundable, period. Others aren't. You should check the terms of your ticket or contact Southwest Airlines. Marco polo (talk) 02:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Fish Mosaic[edit]

I need help finding more information on a roman mosaic depicting various species of fish and aquatic invertebrates. The depictions are accurate enough to allow for species information and it has provided useful knoledge about the fish species known to the ancient Romans. I have been unable to find any information. Please help.

-Ben —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.146.239.179 (talk) 03:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does this help?[1] Although the species are partly mythic as well. Julia Rossi (talk) 07:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can post an image here (if you can get a free one), or post a link to the image you are referring to, we may be better able to help. This desk is a good place to start, but if we can't help, you can try the science refdesk -- later, not simultaneously, is considered good manners. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Brainybabe, the above link includes an image. : ) Julia Rossi (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Julia, yes, I looked at the link. I interpreted the OP to mean a particular Roman mosaic about which information was sought, as of course there are hundreds (thousands?) depicting marine life in some guise. BrainyBabe (talk) 10:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vera Wang[edit]

Why is the date of death for Vera Wang as January 1, 2008. I thought she was still alive? Or am I ready the information incorrectly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.179.27.48 (talk) 04:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's vandalism on her article. bibliomaniac 1 5 I see no changes 04:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright-free materials[edit]

Where and How to find copyright-free materials? I have blog and I find a lot interesting items on the Net and elsewhere. The postings are mainly articles/materials I have read and enjoyed and which I would like to post on my blog for the benefit of friends and others.

When I tried browsing the web using the topic, I was flooded with a lot of materials from which I could make neither head nor tail. Something brief and to the point would be of great help. Could you kindly help me in this regard?

Of copyright-protected materials, how far can I make use in my postings, i.e. by condensing and by excerpting.

How to make sure that I have not broken any copyright rules?

I shall be grateful for a reply.

Surinew (talk) 05:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)surinew[reply]

Sorry, we can’t give you legal advice here. Please consult a lawyer. --S.dedalus (talk) 07:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that doesn't at all have to go into the realm of legal advice. Wikipedia is all about copyright-free materials.

To the original poster: all the text on Wikipedia, although not all of the images, are free. We prefer being linked to and not sold, but technically you don't have to follow thos. Everything at Wikisource, Wikinews, and the Commons, among others, is also free. You can get to links to all of our sister projects from the Main Page. --Masamage ♫ 07:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"How to make sure that I have not broken any copyright rules?" is a specific request for legal advice. --S.dedalus (talk) 08:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Then just answer other parts of the question?) To follow on from what Masamage said, clicking on any image in Wikipedia will take you to a page which tells you whether or not it's free. Also, on Flickr, you can search for images by Creative Commons license, some types of which allow you to freely re-use the images. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 08:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Indeed, that’s why I didn’t remove this question to the talk page.) --S.dedalus (talk) 21:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, of course, you can find endless discussion on what is and what is not the public domain, fair use, etc. all over Wikipedia, because it is part of how Wikipedia itself functions. "Consult a lawyer" on a basic question of "what is in the public domain, how can I tell?" is really quite overkill. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 01:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To the original poster: all the text on Wikipedia, although not all of the images, are free. Wrong, the text is copyright, and released via GFDL. (I'll forgo making a similar comment about Commons, etc.) We prefer being linked to and not sold We do? Where's the suggestion or request not to sell bits of Wikipedia? ¶ Back to the first question: The postings are mainly articles/materials I have read and enjoyed and which I would like to post on my blog for the benefit of friends and others. If the author has explicitly released something to the public domain it's free. If it's very old (and not recently edited, etc.), it's free. If it is copyrighted according to any of a number of systems (e.g. GFDL) that are collectively referred to as copyleft, it's not free but you are free to reproduce it if you follow certain conditions. -- Hoary (talk) 09:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons is quite different, actually. Images in general can have a wide variety of licensing, ranging from the un-free (on Wikipedia, not Commons, under fair-use) to the totally free (public domain). You have to check on an image-by-image basis, unlike the text, which is GFDL licensed.

All that being said: how do you know if something is in the public domain? There are generally three approaches:

You know it is in the public domain because you know its copyright has expired due to age/lack of renewal/etc. See this page for an easy-to-use table on determining copyright terms in the USA.
You know it is in the public domain because it is created by an organization that cannot hold copyright. This primarily applies in the case of works of the US federal government. Note that not all works by government-sponsored employees or institutions are "works of the federal government". And note that this is the federal government specifically; state governments can be different in their policies.
You know it is in the public domain because the copyright holder has said so, or put certain "free" restrictions on its use. This is what Wikipedia and Commons and etc. does — they explicitly make their copyright assignment try to promote re-use of material. There are stipulations, but they are much freer than other copyrighted material, and they don't require you to check with the authors to get permission to use them.

Does that help? The problem is that copyright law can be both difficult to understand and the "ultimate" test of it is a lawsuit, which everyone wants to avoid. My recommendation would be to read a helpful little book like Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture (free online at link), which will give you a good sense of how these things work very quickly. It's a good book, anyway. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Australia and the World Cup?[edit]

When was the last time Australia made the world cup besides 2006? 220.233.83.26 (talk) 07:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to 2006, Australia only qualified for one other World Cup - the 1974 FIFA World Cup. They did not make it past the group stage. Nanonic (talk) 08:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I bet if they had had Tim Cahill they would have. Recury (talk) 15:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They seek him here, they seek him there, they seek Tim Cahill everywhere. --68.144.73.245 (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Cahill (6)[edit]

What age was Tim Cahill when he first participated in the 2004 Olympics for the Australian team? 220.233.83.26 (talk) 08:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In order to know how old somebody was at a particular time, you need to know two things, namely (1) when that time was, and (2) when the person was born. Then you sort of subtract the one from the other. Now, you'll find one needed datum in one WP article, and the other datum in another WP article. One of these articles is coincidentally titled Tim Cahill, and the other is conspicuously linked from within it. Incidentally, how about this? -- Hoary (talk) 09:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see above to explain: AAAAHHHHHHGGGGG!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 12:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Cahill (7)[edit]

What are some of Tim Cahill's personal acheivements? 220.233.83.26 (talk) 09:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those that are ably described in the article about him. How many more questions on Cahill do you have in store for us? -- Hoary (talk) 10:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What five letter word shares the last two letters of Tim Cahill's name, perhaps? Julia Rossi (talk) 22:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i have lost the will to live...Perry-mankster (talk) 23:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Tim Cahill anyway ?86.197.20.123 (talk) 15:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)DT[reply]

See Tim Cahill. :) -Elmer Clark (talk) 08:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's just it, Elmer, we and they ha-ave! have have ha... Julia Rossi (talk) 09:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goebells[edit]

Goebells created a flamboyant blue suit as a uniform for himself, unlike that of any of the other Nazi's. Today, this would be seen a being rather camp Further more, Hiter apparently enjoyed being deficated on. I do not mean to imply that homosexuals enjoy defication, please dont take this the wrong way, but in the light of these to aspects of thier personalities relate to the Nazi persecution of homosexual persons. Thanks people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 17:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have to separate fact from rumour and propaganda, and realize that the propagandists didn't want Allied peoples just to hate the Nazis. They wanted them to also look down on the Nazis as contemptible and weird - "not like us". This is why Nazi leaders were often portrayed as being what the average person would have thought back then as "weird" or "abnormal", as this learned tome did. The Nazis tried the same kind of thing with Roosevelt and Churchill, giving them sexual proclivities they didn't have in real life.

As for flamboyant uniforms; many leaders (Eisenhower for one) had unique uniforms designed for themselves at the time. Goebbels's uniform is no more flamboyant than Ike's. It was more colourful, since Goebbels's uniform was meant to make him more obvious in a crowd while Ike's uniform was not. Goebbels wasn't a general at the front. --NellieBly (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

whare is thi question????????????Perry-mankster (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

click the edit button on the right hand side adjacent to the header of the question you wish to reply to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.34.51 (talk) 01:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a good response to this 'question' over on the Humanities desk by Clio the Muse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yes, I believe it (talk • contribs) 07:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's gone here [2] Julia Rossi (talk) 07:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you all not mean Goering ? He was the flamboyant, extrovert Field Marshall. Goebbels was the propaganda minister. And it is fact that many of the early Nazi leaders were homosexual. Especially those in the SD. In any case senior figures have for ever had tailored uniforms, or "brand marking" - Montgomery's multi-badged beret, Patton's pistol, Admiral Beatie's three button uniform.86.197.20.123 (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)DT[reply]

Race wars[edit]

this question has been moved to the humanities desk

Qualifications of volunteers working the Wikipedia Reference desk[edit]

Hello,

I am curious about the minimum qualifications of volunteers who work on the Wikipedia Reference desk. In the Wikipedia entry on Reference desks, it states specifically that a Master's degree in Library Science is commonly held by those who work at traditional library reference desks. Is that true of the Wikipedia Reference desk as well? Thank you. 208.110.235.137 (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Any random person with internet access can wander by and answer questions. We sometimes get unreasonable answers. Like the rest of Wikipedia, we depend on most editors being reasonable, it usually works surprisingly well. Friday (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable?, bugger! i better sober up. P.S. you have to have an encyclopedic knowledge of Tim Cahill:P Perry-mankster (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you have to be able to suitly emphazi things when called upon to do so. Otherwise, if you breathe air, you're qualified. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to stick to areas of my own expertise, so in my case, I mostly answer computer-related questions. On the other hand, I also enjoy taking a look at this miscellaneous desk because the questions are usually pretty fun. Useight (talk) 23:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It helps to have patience to some degree, among others such as the third and the nth. Julia Rossi (talk) 02:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find a knowledge of activities which may be illegal when performed in a mask may help ;) Lemon martini (talk) 13:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got lots of free time on my hands being housebound.hotclaws 21:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of our RD volunteers have a sense of humour. Except for those who don't. --Dweller (talk) 15:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A knowledge of gulls can be helpful. Edison (talk) 14:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

糖醋肉??[edit]

Does anyone know what this chinese cuisine (糖醋肉) is called in US? I've googled for an hour and I couldn't find it. It looks like this. Janviermichelle (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe sweet and sour pork? [3] 207.148.157.228 (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It means Sweet and Sour meat in Chinese, but the dish you linked to does not look like sweet and sour pork. bibliomaniac 1 5 I see no changes 02:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks very regular. chicken's not usually battered, and while fish can be, it's more organic in shape, and tofu wouldn't be "meat" though it comes in little squares, is it usually battered? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julia Rossi (talk • contribs) 09:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, battering of chicken (and other meats) is quite common in 'North American'-style Chinese cooking. See the canonical General Tso's chicken, for example. To my eye, the linked picture looks like battered chicken, but I'd have to bite it to be sure. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's Sweet and sour pork. ja:酢豚 shows that hanzi too. According to the article, 咕老肉 is a dish using loin with pineapple and ketchap and 糖醋肉 is a dish using tenderloin and with just sugar and vinegar. Oda Mari (talk) 19:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

肉/meat in a Chinese dish name means always pork. Oda Mari (talk) 05:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tornadoes hit Florida , sucked up Wikipedia ?![edit]

Is Wikipedia still functioning ? Just seen on the news that tornadoes have hit your area. 65.173.104.12 (talk) 21:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing, who's Admins are more helpful, sexy, nicer, cuter, kinder ? Wikipedia's Admins or Uncyclopedia's Admins ? 65.173.104.12 (talk) 21:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uncyclopedia has admins?! 206.252.74.48 (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of Wikipedia is down, having been blown to Oz by the tornadoes. Anything you see now is likely just a dream. Try not to walk through the poppies. --LarryMac | Talk 21:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so that's where all the recent heavy rains came from. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has Admins?!. Oz has rain?! the endth of the world cometh! run to the hills! etc etc...Perry-mankster (talk) 23:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above may also explain the emergence of millions of clones of Agent Cahill taking over the WP:Reference Matrix to annihilate the nonconformists. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]