Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 June 23

= June 23 =

Salem
Who were the youngest victims of the Salem Witch Hysteria and how many of them were under 25? 71.174.16.91 (talk)LeighAnn —Preceding comment was added at 02:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

According to this website, http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/salem/SAL_ACCT.HTM, there were two youngest victims out of nineteen that were convicted of witchcraft. Coffsneeze (talk) 03:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It depends a bit on what you call a "victim" - many were victims who weren't convicted. It was primarily the perpetrators that were under 25, falsely accusing their elders, but probably the youngest victim was the infant daughter of Sarah Good, who was born in prison and died of disease from the intolerable conditions. - Nunh-huh 03:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * According to People of the Salem Witch Trials, most of those with their own articles who were executed were rather old. John Willard may have been as young as 19 or 20. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I asked because I just watched the movie Teaching Mrs. Tingle, where the main character does her history class project on a girl killed during the Salem Witch Hysteria. The use of the term "girl" and not "woman" made it sound like the victim was a teenager, and according to the movie character doing her project on the teenaged victim, she was eventually "burned at the stake". But it seems like no one was burned, they were all hanged or crushed by stones. So was that movie completely off and mixed up the perpetrators with the victims? 71.174.16.91 (talk)LeighAnn —Preceding comment was added at 04:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * In a witch hunt, the line between "victim" and "perpetrator" can easily get blurred. A common technique is to offer someone amnesty if they will accuse others of witchcraft. --Carnildo (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Paul Cézanne's "Flowers in a Rococo Vase"
I was wondering whether anyone could tell me whether the flowers painted in this painting are real flowers that exist in nature, and if so, what their names would be. I am trying to replicate or at least draw from this in a bouquet if possible. Any help would be very much appreciated. Thanks. Thucydides of Thrace (talk) 03:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)



The white flower with a dark center, in the middle of the bouquet, looks like a pansyto me. The pinkish flower with a dark center (or is that an obstructing leaf?) directly above it might also be a pansy. And right below the white pansy is another large white flower, with 5 distinct petals, that I think may be a Rosa acicularis.

The two small red flowers at the very top of the bouquet are perhaps poppies, which in the language of flowers symbolize sleep (though according to our article red ones mean true love). Interpreting the meanings of all the flowers here might be fun. :-)

And, though I might be way off, the little yellow blossom and bluish flower, that appear to share the same stem, sticking out of the upper left side of the bouquet could be cosmos.

At the very bottom of the bouquet are two large pink flowers that seem to be the same species. I'm not sure what they are exactly, but they might be partially-opened tulips... They look just like a picture I once saw labeled "Rose of Sharon", but according to that flower's article no one really knows what those are.

Hope that helps a little. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.16.91 (talk) 06:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC) 71.174.16.91 (talk)Glenda —Preceding comment was added at 03:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * More suspects are varieties of Ranunculus and the top poppy-like ones fit Ranunculus asiaticus; the pink roses with a bud hanging down on the left look like these examples. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I suspect Glenda meant cosmos and not cosmos. The blue one looks a bit like a cornflower to me, but an ID is tough at this resolution. Here is a larger picture to go by. Matt Deres (talk) 14:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * With the bigger picture, I'm starting to think that the pink flower(s) to the right of the yellow one may be two lines of foxgloves (digitalis). Matt Deres (talk) 23:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction, Matt. Forgive my cosmic error. 71.174.16.91 (talk) 07:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Glenda
 * Only now I noticed it's a Cezanne... was it an early work? Not typical, then. Julia Rossi (talk) 09:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

international criminal court
Do you agree that the international criminal court has an important role to play in the international arena? should it's area of activity be expanded? please elaborate on your answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.43.250.238 (talk) 06:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you agree that doing your own homework is important? Please elaborate on your answer. --Anon, 07:54 UTC, June 23.

it's not a homework assignment.it's for my own interest.if you acquire the knowledge to answer this question please do if not, stay away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.43.250.238 (talk) 08:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well it doesn't matter since as the guidelines at the top say, this is not a place for debates or diatrabes. So asking someone's opinion on the ICC, or anything else of that sort is best done elsewhere. If you have a factual question, like on the working of the ICC then you are welcome to ask them Nil Einne (talk) 13:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

International Borders
My question is whether wikipedia contains detailed information about the exact definitions of borders between countries. The most information I can find are bits and pieces embedded in articles, especially for famous borders or areas of dispute. Just to illustrate one of over 190 countries, Brazil has a rather complex border with many parts of it following a seemingly arbitrary path when viewing a satellite photo of the country. I would think that there has to be some legal agreements/treaties that precisely define the non-disputed borders of the world, but I just can't find any through google or wikipedia. (I am looking for data on all the countries in the world, not just Brazil) Thank you. Dwr12 (talk) 06:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm... List of territorial disputes shows disputed borders. Try looking through Category:Borders by country, and it has lists of articles showing borders between countries. It has articles like Radcliffe Line, McMahon Line, Tumen River, and many others. I don't think there is a generalising article overall on wikipedia, though. Spencer  T♦C 13:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (EC) I'm pretty sure borders basically depend on individual treaties between countries and are often a result of a mixture of history and geography. There are large number of borders which remain disputed. There are various ways a border dispute may be resolved, war is the obvious one, as are bilateral negotiations. Countries may also agree to take disputes to the International Court of Justice (or may have existing laws recognising the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ) and the ICJ will consider a variety of factors probably mostly history and geography, and how international law interacts with them. For example, if a country has historically issued maps showing the defacto borders, and given no previous sign of disputing these borders, they may find it difficult to convince the ICJ they have a legitimate claim if they later start arguing for different borders which are rejected by the bordering country. Nil Einne (talk) 13:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * To refine on what information I am looking for, I do not need historical accounts about how various borders started or great detail about famous/disputed borders. I would like to gather information that would be sufficient to draw a map of all the world's non-disputed borders to within 1km accuracy given a picture of the earth (not that I'm actually trying to do this).  This information is something that all map makers surely need to practice their trade so I'm surprised how this information is not openly presented anywhere on the internet as near as I can tell. Dwr12 (talk) 21:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd guess that you'd have to rely on something such as Google Maps, which likely (at least in better-developed areas) would be able to do this. Barring that, you'd probably need to contact various embassies.  Nyttend (talk) 04:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you just want "sufficient information" to draw a map with international borders, you could use a public domain geographic database like the Digital Chart of the World. I'm not sure if it quite meets the one km accuracy standard though. On the other hand, if you want to know why the borders are where they are, or obtain some kind legal-type text description of a border, it seems to me that for most borders you would have to dig through historical accounts and the text of old treaties, etc. On the other hand, some borders are easier to learn about than others. The Canada – United States border even has an wikipedia page. You might also be interested in the category Category:Borders by country. Pfly (talk) 06:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Polling in the United States
I want to know some information about polling in the United States. I want to know the types of voters.


 * As far as I know, generally lower income group prefers Democrats, while higher income group prefers Republicans. But from the article on Republican Party, I saw many poor voters also voted for Republicans Republican_Party_%28United_States%29. I want to why many poor people vote for Republicans? What motivate them to vote for such a right-wing conservative party?


 * I want to know something about the voter base of the Green Party (United States). The article Green Party (United States) does not have any information about this. Why the Green Party (United States) has not been able to gain much votes?


 * Why the worker class in the United States do not prefer socialist parties like Socialist Party USA or Socialist Equality Party?  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 08:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

For the first and last questions, you can peruse the books What's the Matter with Kansas by Thomas Frank and "Why there is no Socialism in the United States" by Werner Sombart (which is interesting, despite being published a century ago...). AnonMoos (talk) 08:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 1)The reasons could be any of many many reasons, but logically - just because it appears (on the surface) that party X is more for 'you' than party Y doesn't mean that you will support it. I'm a low-income earning who owns no property yet my preferred party is one that provides minimal-welfare, isn't "for the poor" and is historically linked with 'the rich'. Why do I vote for them? Because i'm an idealist, because I believe in the ideological framework of their party. The Republican Party isn't just for the rich, and the democractic isn't just for the less-rich (neither are exactly socialist compared to Europe). The reasons could also be family-tradition, cultural reasons, moral-reasons (party X may support abortion or party Y may oppose it for example) etc. etc.


 * 2) The green-party will struggle as a result of your political system being a 'two-plus' system - that is that in general 2 parties dominate and other single-issue/minor parties exist which are used almost as indicators/public mood gauges. Often you'll find these parties 'rise' as public-interest in those issues increases and then fall as the main-parties adopt their policy-ideas/respond to the changing demand. That's not always the case and some parties are a victim of the electoral-system and could increase power in say proportional representation rather than the single member plurality system that exists in many countries (certainly UK and I think the US - can't say i've studied US political system enough though).


 * 3) As per reasons 1 and 2 - it's a combination of just because something appears beneficial to a voter doesn't mean they believe it, or that that is who they are vote. We aren't perfectly logical beings and we aren't entirely self-interested. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 08:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 2)The third parties such as the Greens and the Libertarians are often not even considered due to the overwhelming presence of the two major parties. A vote for a third party is often seen as a vote that is thrown away and useless.  While this point can be argued both ways, this is the prevailing stereotype amongst the non-political scientists in the general populace.


 * 3)In the layman's eyes, socialism and communism are closely tied together and both are seen as being bad or even evil. How much of this has to do with McCarthyism, I'm not certain.  Dismas |(talk) 10:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Per 3), it's more because the U.S. was inundated with anti-Soviet propaganda during the entire Cold War, and the US citizenry often associates, rather unfairly, socialism with the Soviet Union. Someoneinmyheadbutit&#39;snotme (talk) 18:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Most workers in the United States have virtually no class consciousness. Instead, they are deeply indoctrinated into false consciousness.  They may believe that because they occupy an office cubicle and type all day or because they pay a monthly mortgage bill and not a monthly rent that they are members of the bourgeoisie.  The Republican party has cleverly managed to paint the Democrats as an intellectual elite, who are resented and despised by the strongly anti-intellectual U.S. working class.  Many Republican candidates, while representing the interests of capital, affect working-class culture.  For example, George W. Bush, despite an elite Northeastern family background and an elite education, speaks in a manner that suggests a working-class Texan.  This leads working-class voters to identify with Republicans over Democrats who betray an elite education.  Control of the U.S. media (and particularly television) by capital has led to a particularly effective form of hegemony in which the working class, particularly the white working class, are convinced that policies that benefit the rich, such as tax breaks dramatically skewed toward the highest earners, will benefit ordinary workers, and that government programs aiming at greater equality are modeled after the Cold War enemy, the Soviet Union, and therefore evil.  76.19.109.155 (talk) 00:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's clean up the POV here. To understand why "third parties" like the Greens and Socialists don't succeed in the U.S., see Duverger's law. Basically, a vote for a third party is considered "throwing your vote away" or, worse, helping the arch-enemy get elected (see Ralph Nader). As for why Americans tend to be farther to the right economically than people in other countries, that's a very complex question, but it largely has to do with the racial makeup of the population. In America, being a have-not is associated with being in a racial minority, so most white people feel linked more closely with the haves than the have-nots. It's a largely subconscious thing. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm dubious about that last part; got a cite? --Anon, 06:29 UTC, June 24,2008.


 * See this, for example, and this. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 14:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

history
Is history determined by geography?


 * Geography can influence history. It's hard to conquer a country when you can't cross the mountains to get to it or sail across the sea.  Geography can make it difficult to keep supply lines to your troops and colonies open.  Were you looking for something more specific?  Perhaps you might find the articles on Hannibal and the Second Punic War interesting. The introduction to the later should explain why I've pointed you in that direction.  Dismas |(talk) 10:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The author of the popular book Guns, Germs, and Steel theorizes that almost all of the major trends of history were heavily influenced by geography. See the intro to that article for a quick overview.  You may also be interested in reading Environmental determinism.  152.16.16.75 (talk) 10:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And if you want to get the effect of reading all of GG&S, simply read the article four times in a row. :) --Sean 14:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There are undoubtedly other intelligent civilizations out there in the universe, and humanity's history of contact, commerce, and war with them has been utterly dominated by geography. :) --Sean 14:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's put it this way: history is not "determined" by any one thing. But of the many factors, geography is pretty important, even in the most modern times when space is largely mitigated. Think about why Pakistan is so important in the modern world—it is nestled at the intersection of a number of "hot zones" and provides a staging point for all of them. Think about things like natural resources and the way they continue to shape our world. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 13:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Also have a look at Fernand Braudel. His books about the effect of the Mediterranean effectively argue just your point. --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

immorality of poverty
Is there an academic philosophy that consider poor people in a free society immoral since they are not contributing to the society? GoingOnTracks (talk) 15:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say that poor people are poor because they don't contribute towards society. There are many causes of poverty, including accidents, disability, children, discrimination, ... 80.58.205.37 (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed, poor people often contribute more than their low rates of pay indicate, such as farm workers in the US who pick the food we eat and get paid less than minium wage. Perhaps you mean people who choose not to work at all.  If so, those should definitely not be confused with the much larger group of working poor. StuRat (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point: some (?) of their contribution above their low wages is pocketed by their bosses in the form of profit. -- Deborahjay (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Which is not immoral either since the bosses were the ones who provided the start-up capital. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 17:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There's a problem with that concept, though. Back in slavery days, the master provided all the capital and got all the rewards, and the slaves provided all the work and only got enough to keep them alive, in return.  Far more common now are forms of economic slavery, like serfdom, indentured servitude, and, in some cases, working for a company town.  It's definitely not moral to deny the workers of any benefit from their work. StuRat (talk) 18:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that those can be immoral but I was referring to the general case. A poor person who earns a "fair" wage is not a victim of immorality, IMHO. By fair wage I mean a market-related wage determined by supply and demand without any cheating involved (so the worker knew exactly what he/she was signing). For example, a mineworker. Yes, he's poor and he can barely afford to feed his family and educate his children despite his dangerous job but the mine-company can't be called immoral. If it can then we really need a huge paradigm shift. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I certainly would say they could be called immoral. Prior to the formation of the United Mine Workers Union, the mine owners had children working in the mines instead of going to school, and the politicians and police in their pockets, so anyone who complained would either be killed outright or fired and their family would then starve to death.  Unrestricted capitalism leads to some horrid results.  Later on the government stepped in and put in some safety rules and basic protections for workers.  Unfortunately, the government has largely abdicated any responsibility for consumer or worker protection recently, and unions are fatally weakened by competition from 3rd world nations.  Thus, we could be in for a new round of the most abusive employment practices, such as those which many illegal aliens must presently endure.  StuRat (talk) 23:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know which "academic philosophy" corresponds to the (presumably theologically based) Protestant (or Puritan) work ethic. Generally regarded, the terms you've stated don't seem to match up. Leaving aside "immoral," here's an attempt to clarify what I find ambiguous: "Poor people" strictly considered means impoverished or destitute, lacking means; in "contributing to the [free] society" do you mean "gainfully employed" (wage-earning)? And is this "free society" a catch term for "free-market economy"? Otherwise, turning around the last condition might be relevant: "...[since they] constitute a drain on society's resources." -- Hope that helps, Deborahjay (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a religious view that "you get what you deserve", on Earth, and thus good people are rewarded financially while poor people "did something to deserve this punishment". Of course, this concept doesn't hold up well at all, since there are rich people who are clearly the scum of the Earth and poor people who are quite noble.  The Biblical case of Job is one such example. StuRat (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This view is commonly referred to as the Prosperity Gospel; as StuRat says, it doesn't hold up very well under scrutiny. Gwinva (talk) 21:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Levinas had treated this topic in his work. Money can be a way of reaching a more moral society. It provides us a way of inter-acting and construct new thing with people that we never met before. Supposing that you have worked and earned something for this work, the money in your pocket is your way of telling the world that you did something for society (and claim something from it back). Money earners are not always on the extreme of below minimal wage or above some millions. 80.58.205.37 (talk) 17:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's a way of looking at it that I find to be jarring for people who've not spent much thought on the working poor: a game like capitalism absolutely guarantees that there are winners and losers; it's impossible to imagine a capitalist system where all have equal outcomes. Given that you've accepted the inherent goodness of such a system, how can you condemn those poor bastards who end up at the bottom?  --Sean 22:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

GoingOnTracks, maybe it's just the wording of your question, but it reads as if you're suggesting that individuals can be classified as moral or immoral. I don't think that's appropriate. Actions (incuding lack of action), intentions and attitudes might fall somewhere on the morality spectrum, but people themselves don't. It might be considered immoral that "society" has allowed some people to be affluent and others to be poor; but the poor people are not personally immoral, and neither are the rich ones. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * @JackofOz: indeed the formulation of the question was somehow unhappy. A much better approach would be to ask if there is some academic philosophy that considers the act of not earning money as immoral, since it proves that this person is not working. In other other hand, it would consider high-wages a form of social work, since this person has contributed a lot toward society (and received it back). GoingOnTracks (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, but then you'd have to look at individual cases. One person may be sick, another may have serious self-esteem or psychological issues, another may be doing their dardnest but keeps getting rejected, another may have just won the lottery, another may be devoting their time to writing a book that they hope will get published and give them an unending source of royalty income, and so it goes.  I doubt that there's a philosophy that covers all people who could theoretically work but aren't currently working, regardless of the circumstances.  --  JackofOz (talk) 23:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there a philosophy, GoinOnTracks – have you tried Thatcherism? And in case anyone thought poor people might get ahead in life, there was the Poll tax also here and here for basically, just breathing. Julia Rossi (talk) 13:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thatcherism can't blame the poor for not contributing to society since There is no such thing as society. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

But why is a contribution to society defined by wealth? Or the amount of taxes paid, or the amount of paid work done? Surely contributions to society stretch beyond that rather capitalist model? "Volunteers" of one form or another contribute massively. They donate blood, work in soup kitchens, bring up children, distribute aid, dig wells, fundraise for charities, coach sports teams, help in hospices, visit prisons, help in civil emergencies, transport patients, pop in on the elderly lady down the road, help in schools, apply CPR to a stranger...and so on. (They even edit wikipedia.) You might work all hours of the day, cut all sorts of business deals, pay lots of taxes, and not "contribute" as much as the pensioner down the road who's never worked. Mother Theresa wasn't a wage earner, for example. Gwinva (talk) 21:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It sounds to me like you're trying to think of the Free rider problem, whereby in some economic systems, some are able to consume more than they contribute. This isn't really much of a philosophical or theological one, as is discussed above, although, in my reading, the free rider corresponds to Hobbes' foole. But again, I've always been a bit dis-satisfied with Hobbes' answer to the foole. You can read about him here. Llamabr (talk) 12:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

United States Supreme Court Cases
Why does the Supreme Court of the United States have the option to pick and choose what cases it will hear when other courts in the United States do not? EagleFalconn (talk) 19:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not the case. Many appellate courts have a degree of discretionary review. &mdash; Lomn 20:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Are there any that don't? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 01:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Discretionary review suggests that the lowest level of appellate courts generally do not have such discretion, though presumably a prompt upholding of the original decision is little different in practice. &mdash; Lomn 03:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I guess that's what happened in the case (involving me) I was thinking about. The appeal was heard and swiftly rejected. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 03:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The role of appellate courts (the USSC being the highest of which, in the USA) is not to provide a place you can go if you weren't happy with the lower court's verdict, but to provide oversight for the lower courts. It's systemic, not personal relief, which not every dissatisfied party has a right to.  The personal aspects of the cases (the odious Mr. Miranda, for example) are generally not heavily considered.  --Sean 01:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

So then if I'm interpreting the above answers correctly, SCOTUS only has discretion on appellate cases. In a case where someone files suit against the federal government, or one state sues another, SCOTUS must hear the case as it is the only court with jurisdiction? 63.172.27.2 (talk) 15:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope. There's actually a federal district court system in place for just such events. The case would first go before the federal courts, then could be appealed upwards. There are only a few instances where a case would go straight to the SCOTUS. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 22:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hand ... what's a good example of a case that would go straight to SCOTUS? Can you offer a "for instance", please?  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC))


 * Under the U.S. Constitution, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a Party." In practice, its jurisdiction over most of these cases is discretionary and concurrent with the lower courts; the only cases routinely heard originally by the Supreme Court are disputes between U.S. states.  The Court generally appoints a special master to hear the case.  John M Baker (talk) 15:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Science
Please help me find something on " The Depletion of the ozone layer and its effect on the earth's vegetation". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.54.21.148 (talk) 22:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Our article on ozone (not the Moldavian pop group) and ozone depletion may be a good start. But hurry, before it has turned into a hole.  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) See Ozone depletion and Ozone depletion which has about 3 lines of information. But I'm sure you'll get a (MUCH) better answer at the Science section of the Refdesk which can be found at Reference desk/Science. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 22:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well. according to user:Zain Ebrahim it has already become a hole. WP does - in real time - reflect ozone depletion in - gasp, gasp - oh, bugger it, I thought it was oxygen - croak ...  Help, sinebot,  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk • contribs) 22:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

