Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2006 October 10

ツ
Hi, I was wondering if anyone knew how to make the ツ symbol. It is a chinese or japenese symbol, and, obviously looks like a smiley face. I assume its an Alt code, but can't figure out the code. Thanks! --D e on555talkReview 00:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It is the tsu character from the katakana syllabary. In Unicode it is U+30C4, which you can enter in html source as " ", giving "ツ". Japanese writing also uses a small variant, U+30C3, which gives "ッ". I don't know if you have a Unicode input facility installed. A variant spelling of "tsu" is "tu". --Lambiam Talk  00:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Or you could save weird characters you might need in a text file, and copy and paste on occasion... Works fine if you don't care for longer texts... 惑乱 分からん 06:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If you're using Windows, then depending on which version you may already have software that lets you type Japanese characters (I believe XP, and maybe one or two versions previous to that, have Japanese support available to install as a global environment), and in any case you can install the Microsoft IME with Japanese support that lets you type Japanese in web browsers, mail programs and some other programs. Finally, there are programs like NJStar which do a similar job. In all cases, when you turn the software on, you type the romaji - in this case, 'tsu' - and select the appropriate character from a list. Confusing Manifestation 12:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Flavor to Coffee Beans
I roast my own coffee beans at home and I am trying to add flavors to the beans/grounds to enhace the flavor of the beans. I used chocolate pieces once and it turned out well and gave a full body taste, but when I tried it again the chocolate pieces melted and the coffee wouldn't filter. How could I add flavor to the beans and or grounds? Would it be possible to dip the beans into coffee syrup and then bake them in the oven? Any other ideas I should try?


 * Cinnamon B00P 03:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Why not add the chocolate after you've made the coffee? Should melt easily enbough if you grate it. DirkvdM 05:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Either that, or use cocoa beans instead of chocolate. Of course, unsweetened cocoa is quite bitter, so you will need to add more sugar than usual. StuRat 16:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Cardamom is the perfect complement to coffee. JackofOz 06:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * you can also make vanilla sugar by burying a vanilla bean (or pieces thereof) in a sugar bowl, and leaving it for a week. This is really, really nice! :) Chris 17:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Do I add the vanlla sugar to the grounds of coffee to make a nice blend?

Speaking of Ccoa beans, could I do the same with cocoa beans as I could with the vanilla beans by placing them in sugar or cook them with sugar to sweeten the bean?


 * I would think that would work, but you will need lots of sugar, as cocoa beans are extremely bitter. StuRat 04:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Atheistic, skeptical organisations
Is there an organisation that exists with the aim of furthering the causes of atheism, skepticism (with regards to alien abductions, ghosts, bigfoot, etc etc) and holding things up to scientific study -- especially one with an online forum?


 * Look into Brights movement, Rationalist International, and The Skeptics Society. I don't know to what extent each of these combines the specific aims you mention, but together they cover the ground. --Lambiam Talk  00:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * American Atheists, perhaps? Adam Bishop 05:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Technically speaking The Skeptics Society is a secular organisation not an atheistic organisation. The fact they are against charlatans utilizing religions beliefs and superstitions does not make them an atheistic organisation. 202.168.50.40 00:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You could try CISCOP as well. They also write The Skeptical Inquirer as well. Hope this helps. Martial Law 00:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Referencing a Morning Radio Show
Recently, an anomyous user put up a unreferenced tag on the Dave, Shelly, and Chainsaw article, which I removed. This leads to my question, how can one source a radio show, knowing that there is very little to none information on the internet about the different bits, famous callers/characters and subjects a radio show, or even a radio station uses.

Thanks a lot for your help! --Raderick 01:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Per Reliable sources, Wikipedia's sources need to be secondary sources, not primary sources. You need to find a magazine article, or a book, or a website to cite.  You should not cite the radio show itself, since this is a primary source. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You should at the very least have a recording of the show in question to back up the claims you make in an article were actually mentioned in the show. - 131.211.210.13 10:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

permission to copy images only
I am interested in using the images of Matisyahu and Samuel Barber for a fund raising book that I am doing for one of my classes. We will hopefully be selling this book but the proceeds go to an area daycare for a new playground. How do I get permission or how do I have to "tag" them to make it legal? Any ideas would be greatly appreciated.Jannamcandrews 02:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You should really at this at the Help Desk, which is where Wikipedia-related questions are. If you click on any image in Wikipedia, it will take you to the image's page, where there will probably be a larger version of the image, as well as information about the image copyright status.  In the case of the image of Samuel Barber, if you go to the image description page Image:Samuelbarber.jpg, you will note that the image is in the public domain.  You don't need to do anything to use the image, but as a matter of courtesy you should acknowledge the source of the image in your text.


 * As for the second image, if it's this Matisyahu the image description tag for it indicates that it's a copyrighted publicity photo. You may need permission from his agents to use that photo, as your usage may not be fair use. --Robert Merkel 07:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Symbols for the left wing
Is there any symbol that represents people to the political far-left, such as libertarians?


 * Libertarianism is not "the political far-left." B00P 03:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * B00P is right... other than that, the most universal far-left symbol I'm aware of is the color red. --Allen 05:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Red represents socialism, not specifically far-left. If you mean communism (at least in the form of state socialism), a pentagram against a red background seems to be popular there, but I don't know if that stands for something in particular. DirkvdM 06:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * A pentagram usually means communisim, espcially if gold. AMX
 * More specifically than the colour red, there is the red flag. --Richardrj talkemail 10:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's what I meant, really. That's the socialist (and communist) flag. DirkvdM 06:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Libertarianism is a from of liberalism, the colour for which is blue. At least in the Netherlands, for the major right wing party, VVD, but I believe that is also the international colour. DirkvdM 06:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * In North America, Libertarianism is nothing like Liberalism, in fact it's in many ways its opposite. Liberalism is about big government, restrictions and regulations imposed for the good of the people, etc. Libertarianism is about small government, fewer restrictions, laissez faire business practices, everyone for him/herself, etc. Anchoress 08:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What liberals and libertarians in North America do have in common is what North Americans call social liberalism. This is the belief that the government should not interfere in people's private lives.  For example, liberals and libertarians tend to support civil rights for ethnic, religious, and sexual minorities.  Marco polo 16:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The use of colors and symbols to represent political philosophies is little known in the United States and perhaps elsewhere in the English-speaking world.  Only recently, people have started referring to "red states" (Republican states) and "blue states" (Democratic states) based on the colors used by the U.S. media on their maps of presidential election results.  But blue is not universally understood here as a symbol of the Democratic party or of liberalism.  The best-recognized symbols for the main U.S. parties are the donkey for the Democrats and the elephant for the Republicans, but these parties do not really correspond to political philosophies.  For example, Democrats as a whole cannot be described as "far left," or even "left,' except relative to Republicans.  Incidentally, the color for the Free Democrats in Germany, known there as "Liberalen," but better described in the United States as moderate libertarians, is yellow.  Marco polo 16:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If you want a common international symbol, you'll probably have difficulty finding one - in Britain, the last ten years have seen some changing of colours and images, the Labour Party went from a red flag to a pink rose, the Conservatives from a blue torch to another blue torch to a green tree, and the Liberal Democrats have actually stuck on a yellow bird. Libertarianism in particular you might have trouble finding a common symbol, as pretty much by definition they want to reject the enforced regulations this would require.  --Mnem e son 22:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There is loads of confusion about the meaning of political terms and an extra complication seems to be that the same word is not used for the same thing in different countries. In the Netherlands (and I imagine in many other countries), 'liberalism' refers to the word 'libre'. It's about freedom, which is associated with low government interference. This can be economic freedom, free enterprise, free market and that sort of thing. But it can also refer to personal freedom, the freedom to lead whatever life you wish, with your own lifestyle and philosophy, a traditionally important exponent of which is freedom of religion. But recently freedom of speech has become much more important (since freedom of religion is already assumed). I believe that in the US this is usually referred to as 'democracy', althought that literally means something completely different. And the original question even associates libertarinism with the far left. How can there be one international symbol if there is not even agreement on what the terms mean? The only true international movement with a clear symbol that I can think of is socialism with its red flag. DirkvdM 06:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. In the United States, "liberal" almost always means "socialist" or at the least "quite far left of centre". Americans sometimes assume that their terminology is the only one that exists, and sometimes that causes misunderstandings. The same thing happens when Europeans hear Americans bleating about how horrible "liberals" are, and assume the Americans are anti-free-speech and the like. In many European countries, "liberal" isn't the opposite of "conservative" but the opposite of "authoritarian" or "totalitarian". Liberal beliefs usually include things like universal adult suffrage, freedom of expression, freedom of movement, and the like. These rights simply didn't exist under the old European authoritarian governments. Charlene.fic 12:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

How about the hammer and sickle for communism? Lemon martini 10:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yhat's the logo Wikipedia uses, probably for lack of anything better. It's rather confusing, though, because that's the USSR logo, which had a form of state socialism, not communism. The best indication is what communists used during demonstrations, and that was a red flag afaik, so that should really be the logo used by Wikipedia. DirkvdM 06:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

See Anarchist symbolism. -THB 10:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Copyright......again!
Okay! I think understand the wikipedia copyright. But ive got just one more question! If I were to modify a copyright document (a wikipedia article) how much do i have to chang before it becomes mine? If i took multiple copyright documents and put them together and change the wording -- would that make it mine? Or do i have to make a whole new article? If so then how is it possible for many people to write about the same thing many times? Its only going to be matter of time before someone write the same thing as someone else. Take articles about Microsoft Windows Vista for example. Everyone has the same stuff just worded or set out differantly. Thank you for your help!


 * The very idea of the copyleft philosophy that underlies all the GNU licenses and hence also the GFDL that Wikipedia uses is that the derived work never becomes fully "yours". After all, GNU licensed work is a valuable asset to the public, as you now notice yourself when you find it useful. Hence, the GNU licences gently force you to contribute yourself to the effort of producing free material by demanding that you put everything that you derive by using GNU licenced material under the respective GNU licence again. So, when you create a work and wish to incoporate GNU licences material who have to start by asking yourself the question: Am I willing to release my work under copyleft again? If your answer is "No" you must do without the copylefted material. On the other hand: Everything that you add and contribute (and hence the buld of your work, if you took only minor parts from copylefted material) is "yours" in the sense that you have the copyright and may righly label it as your work -- but you need to either give the public access to it by releasing it under the GFDL or you never release it to the public at all. You find more information on this on the web site of the Free Software Foundation, . Simon A. 08:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That is not quite true. If you read the content, understand the content, and then write what you just learned in your own words then the work you just created is yours no matter what the copyright of the sources is.  If you take a work and change a few words around, even if you move around a few sentences that is a derived work of the orginal and is still own by the orginal author (or in this case, it is still under then GFDL).   Jon513 09:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course. I did neglect to explain the term "derive". In the context of copyright a derived work is one which contains work of another author in the sense as Jon explained. Simon A. 09:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * After all, that's what we do here on Wikipedia all the time, rewrite info we found elsewhere. (Where else would we have found it, if not elsewhere? :) .) DirkvdM 06:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

personal property
i am interested in knowing the laws concerning property that was inherited by me in the acores/portugal. I live in the united states and would like to sell my property in the acores.The sticky portion of this inhertitance is that I am still legally married in portugal, but seperated from my husband in the united states. Unfortunately my husband that I have been seperated from for eighteen years wants half of the monies. I would like to know if there is a way to sell the property without giving him half seeing how it was my mothers estate and I am the next of kin, as well as the inhere on her will and not my husband.
 * With a contested will, you may come under the Probate law of Portugal, and this will be messed up with the divorce laws as well. The husband in Portugal probably has the advantage.  All of this is said, knowing that we do not know anything with regard to legal matters.  You should engage a local lawyer. --Zeizmic 14:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, it doesn't sound as though the will is contested. What is uncertain is whether a wife has the right to hold property in her name only or whether the marriage laws of Portugal mandate community property.  Probably Portugal does have community property.  According to our article on community property, this is a concept derived from civil law.  According to our article on civil law, Portuguese civil law is based on French civil law.  According to our community property article, however, in U.S. states that mandate community property, it applies to property acquired during marriage "except for gifts or inheritances."  Since the main source for community property law in the United States is the law of France or Spain, both of which influenced Portuguese law, it may be that the husband cannot claim a share of inherited property.  Still, the best course would be to consult a lawyer in the Açores, since the law of the Açores may differ slightly from that of the Portuguese mainland. Incidentally, I might suggest finding a female lawyer in the Açores to avoid the risk of dealing with a patriarchal male lawyer who might not effectively represent your interests.  Marco polo 19:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I would be surprised if it turned out to be impossible to get the Portuguese authorities to acknowledge the validity of your US divorce. A good place to ask for advice might be the US Embassy to Portugal, as embassies have to deal with this kind of stuff not too rarely. Maybe they can also help you find a good Portuguese lawyer, as it is sounds quite difficult to me to get this matter sorted out without professional legal counsel. Simon A. 21:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

doctors
What's that round silver disc that cartoon doctors wear on their foreheads? For example at dr worm. --⁪froth T C  19:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a light. Anchoress 19:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh you mean like miners wear? --⁪froth T C  19:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, I don't think Dr Worm is a real doctor. Anchoress 19:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * But he is a real worm, an actual worm! :p --⁪froth T C  19:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And to go full circle, Anchoress, it is not a light, but AFAIK a concave parabolic mirror with a hole in the centre through which the doctor can look. I guess it reflects ambient light back on the point being examined - which according to the Yahoo source cited here, might be the eye. Example at ebay and a nice image of; and at Yahoo it is described as an "Authentic Eye Doctor's Medical Instrument". --Tagishsimon (talk)
 * It doesn't sound like it would work very well.. a 2 inch metal mirror can't collect much light --⁪froth T C  21:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * But if you put a small battery-operated light in the hole in the centre of the mirror, the parabolic mirror qould quite nicely illuminate the area the doctor is looking at, even if it is only a dim bulb. And that's probably the point of it. With modern halogen spots at the ceiling or even operation room lighting, the doctor has clear view everywhere. But 60 years ago, I imagine, even an 100 Watt bulb at the ceiling was luxury, and having a hands-free flashlight was probably quite handy. Simon A. 21:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Tagishsimon, yeah, I was going to go back and add that sometimes they're just concave pieces of metal, but they are sometimes lights. My doctor had one when I was little. It wasn't just a mirror, it was a mirror with a little light in it, it looked like a halogen light bulb. The pic of Dr Worm looks like it has a little bulb in the middle. Anchoress 21:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Harumph.
 * Otorhinolaryngologists spend most of their lives peering down dark and deep orifices. The reflecting head mirror with separate light source is the traditional method of illumination. In 1841 Friedrich Hoffman first described the use of a centrally perforated, handheld mirror to reflect sunlight into the ear. Anton von Tröltsch, a contemporary German otologist, popularised the concept and ultimately fastened a circular, concave mirror to his forehead, as is currently practised. Today, a standardised mirror is used for otoscopy, rhinoscopy, and laryngoscopy. Much practice is needed to use the instrument properly. An otorhinolaryngologist looks through the central aperture with one eye, the line of sight being effectively parallel to reflected light rays, and around the edge with the other. This eliminates head shadow and parallax, allowing all-important stereoscopic vision, not to mention brilliantly focused illumination. - from The instrument that determined my practice S Alam Hannan, ENT specialist registrar, in BMJ. 2003 April 5; 326(7392): 747.
 * And referring to the manufacturers, we find a whole heap of difference between a head torch, a head mirror, a head light and another head mirror. Think about it. The parabola of the reflector in your hand-torch and the parabola of the head mirror are completely different; the head mirror would be useless at directing a centrally mounted bulb's light onto a thing being studied. These things really really really have a hole in the middle of them for looking through, and are not a light. --Tagishsimon (talk)
 * My doctor certainly used one years ago. All he needed to do to examine the throat was flip the thing down and reflect the light from a lamp or window into the patient's throat or nasal passages, while he looked through the hole in the center. The illumination was coaxial with the line of sight, so better than a flashlight. Edison 14:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

extracurricular activities
As far as a school application is concerned would under-graduate research be considered an extracurricular activity?


 * I'm sure it's argumentative as far the application is concerned. The definition of "extracurricular" is outside a school's cirrculum. So, if this under-grad research wasn't specifically for your class(i.e. your cirrculum) then I'd say you definitely could call it extracurricular. To put it an easy way, if a grade depended on this research then it probably isn't extracurricular. —Mitaphane talk 01:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

can't control it
hi i need help i get so fucking horny some times i can't control it i end up masturbating 5 or 6 times a day even though i have a girlfriend i can't stop it's horrible what can i do?
 * Maybe you could kill 2 birds with the one stone by brushing up on your punctuation. It's a guaranteed libido killer.  :)  JackofOz 20:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, but seriously: If you feel like masturbating, just do it. The times when this made you get blind or the like are long gone, fortunately. It even reduces your risk of prostate cancer. And once you are old, you'll think back of the time of your horniness with longing. Oh, and check whether your girl-friend has the same problem but was too embarrassed to tell you -- maybe you're lucky. ;-) Simon A. 21:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There's nothing wrong with masturbating, and it's very common for people involved in sexual relationships to still masturbate. Try doing it with your girlfriend, that can be fun and satisfying, and quicker than sex ;-). But if you're doing it that much (assuming you're a male), you should invest in some good lubricant, so you don't chafe. Anchoress 21:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Bromide in your tea should damp it down a bit!--Light current 22:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, never knew that. You mean Potassium bromide by the way. Anyway, so would a little Hydrofluoric acid, though the tea needs to be scalding hot and you need to be holding the mug right over your lap when you add it. Also the mug should be glass. Good luck! --⁪froth T C  22:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It doesnt work, but if it did, wouldnt any bromide be fine, as the ions will become seperated in solution anyway. Philc  TECI 22:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Whatever --⁪froth T C  06:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * HF would cause far more dangerous effects than just dampening the ardour. Its a nasty travelling poison - gets everywhere! Its use is banned in almost all spheres of manufacture and research nowadays. :--Light current 22:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That's interesting since I'm surrounded by HF right now. It's running through pipes throughout the building.
 * For the OP though, masturbating isn't a problem as long as it doesn't interfere with other parts of your life. Like losing a relationship over it or losing your job because someone catches you in the loo having a tug.  Dismas|(talk) 00:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Lets hope you dont have a leak !! --Light current 01:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Naturally, if you did it while standing at the urinal, you'd be asking for trouble (well, asking for something, anyway ...). But you'd be safe as long as you were doing it in the privacy of a cubicle.  Unless your country has extremely draconian laws.  JackofOz 06:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I suppose you think the United Kingdom has extremely draconian laws, then. Sexual Offences Act 2003, sec. 71, part 1: (1) A person commits an offence if- (a) he is in a lavatory to which the public or a section of the public has or is permitted to have access, whether on payment or otherwise, (b) he intentionally engages in an activity, and, (c) the activity is sexual. Nothing in there that says it needs to involve a partner! Marnanel 00:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC) (IANAL)
 * So, if you happened to espy someone in a cubicle spanking the monkey, who would be committing the offence. Or would both of you?--Light current 17:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If that UK law is applied so as to put a masturbator in a cubicle with the door closed at risk of committing an offence, then yes I would say it is a draconian law.   JackofOz 02:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Buy some more kleenex and soap... 惑乱 分からん 23:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What exactly does blindness have to do with this anyway? I've always wondered that. Because I'm not blind yet. :) Temp
 * I dunno. needs glasses 01:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * In France and Quebec they say it makes you deaf-- just as groundlessly. Marnanel 01:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

What?Speak up! Lemon martini 10:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Lost Time Injury Frequence Rate
The Lost Time Injury Frequency Rate (LTIFR) is the generally accepted way of "measuring" the safety performance of an industrial entity. It is calculated as the number of injuries resullting in one or more days lost due to injury x 1,000,000 (or 100,000 in the USofA), and divided by the number of hours actually worked. It is not a frequency rate in the statistical sense. There are meny derivatives of this statistic held to be sacrosanct in the popular world of safety. It has no academic standing.

When and where did this first appear?

french-French Dicitonary
Anyone know where I can find a good french-French dictionary online for the high school level? Thanks --Jamesino 23:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Not sure about the level, but Le Dictionnaire seems to have a pretty clean interface. Z iggurat 23:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Would a French-french dictionary suffice? 惑乱 分からん 10:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Why would you want a dictionary that translated french into french? what use would that be?Englishnerd 16:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * A dictionary (See Wiktionary) explains words with other words. That's not translation. I enjoyed using Oxford's when I started to read English authors. (Also, English is easy for a French reader in that sense that Anglo-Saxon words are explained by Roman ones ...)
 * Now for your question, Jamesino : I do not know of any free and reliable french dict online ; "Le Dictionnaire", as they state themselves, is not a dictionary. Hoping that fr.Wk should do in one or two years. -- DLL .. T 19:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, there it is : Trésor de la langue française informatisé. It is very, very rich ... delightful ... shall you like it ? -- DLL .. T 19:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And the french wiktionnary? You can read also the article fr:dictionnaire, ther're some links. --82.67.156.31 06:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

lyrics
Can anybody tell me where exactly in the Avenged Sevenfold songs Seize the Day (song) and Bat Country is the explicitness? No lyrics archives says it has any, and stupid iTunes does, so now i can't buy them because my parents will end up finding out and I'll get grounded. Thanks. Temp

WTF? The article says it's explicit and then has a link to a lyrics site that proves it's not. That's messed up. Temp


 * Which article? The Wikipedia article? But if the lyrics do not contain profanity, simply provide an accurate lyric sheet while allowing your parents to listen to the song so that they may see with their own eyes and hear with their own ears the (lack of) profanity. Hyenaste (tell) 01:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As far as "Seize the Day" goes, you can find the video on YouTube if you search for it; and you're right, there is no profanity in the commonly accepted sense. The song is in part about the fear of death, which might upset some parents who think their kids should listen to Disney soundtracks until they're 25, and mentions the singer's doubts about whether "there is eternal life" - maybe there are some particularly anal fundie Christian parents who object to exposing their children to the idea that people sometimes doubt their faith.  But beyond that, I'm really, really struggling to find anything that might offend anyone, anywhere about this song.  --Robert Merkel 02:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * On iTunes entire albums are set as "Explicit," never single songs. This may have to do with it. "Wake Me Up When September Ends" is labelled as explicit when found with songs like "St. Jimmy" and "American Idiot". — X [ Mac Davis ] ( SUPERDESK | Help me improve  )03:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Explicitly what? Suitly emphazi, as we say around here. Or at least we used to. The article seems to not even exist anymore. DirkvdM 06:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Explicit content, the only sense of explicit that applies to this stuff. Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Content that is explicitly what? DirkvdM 05:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Um, Dirk, you may just be trolling against censorship here, but if you really don't know: it's a blanket label, very common in the US at least, for profanity and verbal descriptions of anything considered "undesirable" (typically drugs, violence, and sex; perhaps also some religious ideas, racism, etc.). --Tardis 20:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe trolling less against censorship and more against mangling of language, though this use of "explicit" is hardly the most egregious example.
 * Some of our teachers at school used to read out the exam boards' reports of each A-level module. "Discrimination" being generally a dirty word in the UK, it used to amuse me to watch some of my colleagues boggle slightly to hear the boards congratulate themselves on setting such a discriminatory exam.
 * Discriminating (between students of different ability) being of course what exams are meant to do. 80.47.237.41 21:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * American English can be very confusing. If you mean 'offensive', then why not say 'offensive'? (btw, what is a bathroom called in the US?) But the widespread misuse of the word 'discriminate' is indeed also very confusing. American English isn't quite the only illogical language. :) DirkvdM 06:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The difference between 'offensive' and 'explicit' in this context is that ideas and propositions (as in logic) are offensive, but words (profanity) and sentences (the others) are explicit. It's okay to say "all politicians are liars", which might be offensive, but it's not okay to shock with your words.  Bathrooms are called "bathrooms" in the US, although "water closet" and "loo" would often be understood; other more common (polite) synonyms are "restroom" (more common than "bathroom" when discussing a public facility; "bathroom" is always used for a room in a residence), "ladies'/men's/little girls'/little boys' room", and "lavatory" (especially on airplanes).  A clichéd feminine euphemism is "powder room", as for touching up makeup in privacy and with a mirror.  Related objects are "changing rooms" and "locker rooms", usually called such even if they contain toilets and/or showers.  Does that help?  --Tardis 22:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * In that last bit you answered the wrong question. There are loads of words for 'toilet', which can be confusing, but having one word for two meanings is even more confusing. If someone asks for the bathroom, what do you tell them? About the word 'explicit', that also can mean loads of things. If 'shocking' is meant, then why not say 'shocking'? DirkvdM 06:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you're getting at about the bathroom. The reason something is called 'explicit' rather than 'shocking' is that the former says (by admittedly confusable implication) that it is shocking and also why it's shocking (as in, its presentation rather than its thesis is shocking).  --Tardis 19:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Dub One Piece Movies
When will they ever be translated into English?

No--Light current 02:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, the correct grammatical reply would be "never". =S 惑乱 分からん 23:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Marvel vs Capcom 1 and 2 PSP
Will CAPCOM ever decide to create a remake for these 2 games for the PSP like they did with Rockman Dash 1 and 2?
 * Why not ask them? Dismas|(talk) 00:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)