Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2006 October 8

dry erase
Is there such a thing as a semi-permanent marker that could be used to write on a white board with, that can be easily removed, but will not come off when kids rub the board?--67.172.248.207 02:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe you can find temporary wet-erase markers at stores where you buy dry-erase ones. Hyenaste (tell) 03:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * A word of caution, though: Most people (and especially most kids) have some moisture on their fingers, and the wet-erase markers can smear. And it stains your skin much worse than dry-erase (although not as much as permanent). --ByeByeBaby 04:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Anecdotally, I'm told that marks from a Sharpie-brand permanent marker can be erased from a dry-erase board by over-writing the Sharpie marks with a dry-erase pen, and then erasing the dry-erase pen. I suppose it would work with other permanent markers than the Sharpie brand, if indeed it does work.  I have never tried it, but an acquaintance swears that it works as described.  192.168.1.1 9:04PM, 7 Rocktober 2006 (PST)


 * We have a dry-erase calendar that we use a Sharpie permanent marker on. When we need to erase something, we use rubbing alcohol. It seems to work fine for us. Note, however, that we do not subject the same area to repeated erasures. –RHolton ≡ – 04:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What 192 said about permanent markers is true; I've had to do it many times. I've also found (on a related topic) that nail polish remover takes sharpie off of any metallic surface (like the refrigerator). Anchoress 05:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have found that if you have a sharpie mark you want to remove, just mark over it with the same sharpie, and wipe it off quickly while it is wet. The wet sharpie ink dissolves the dry stuff. --WhiteDragon 15:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That's why I switched to writing on my fridge with these!--192.168.1.1 10:08, 8 Rocktober 2006 (PST)

Why not just cover the marker writing with a plastic sheet to protect it ? StuRat 01:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

An intriguing question
If you had to lose one of your five senses, which sense would you give up? ''Why?

Any good suggestions? --DrZeus 03:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion 1: They're asking why you would choose to give up that particular sense. A suitable response would be Smell, because it is not as important in life as sight or hearing, and would degrade more than any other sense in the future anyway.
 * I could do without smell or taste easy. I get much more pleasure from music than I do from food, though I suspect there are many people who would feel otherwize. Loss of sight and hearing would be a major inconvenience for someone who has had the pleasure of having both for the entire span of his life, and losing feeling/touch sense would deprive me of the pleasure I most fundamentally desire as a creature attempting to protect my species, and that would really suck too. freshofftheufo  ΓΛĿЌ  04:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I always suspected that you had no taste already 8-) (Or am I thinking of some other editor?)--Light current 09:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd rather lose my sense of touch, that way girls can't rape you. Chris 04:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What??--Light current 09:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Since when does inability to feel rape make rape not rape? freshofftheufo  ΓΛĿЌ  04:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I suppose he means you wouldn't be able to get a hard on. And about the loss of smell I've heard that that is pretty bad too because it makes you 'lose contact with your surroundings' or something, making the world 'colder'. Can't remember precisely, heard something like that once. DirkvdM 06:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No thats hearing!.


 * Any way just for fun.


 * A.my dog's got no nose!.
 * B.How does he smell?
 * A Terrible!
 * --Light current 09:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You guys have lost your sense of humor. He was only kidding. Clarityfiend 09:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No, no humor's not a sense :) My answer would easily be smell --⁪froth T C  14:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Well a quick peruse through the senses-article and I would give up nociception, though i guess it won't stop the pain of a broken-heart. Oh well. Smell seems easiest but then i'd spend all day wondering whether or not I smelt-bad and I would never know when I had stood in dog-doo and that wouldn't be good now would it! ny156uk 16:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Pain actually seems to have been a crucial factor in human survival. I saw a TV program once with three children having congenital insensitivity to pain, and it actually seemed quite awful if the kid lacked the reasoning to live safely by itself. One young girl nibbled down her own fingers to the bones, and almost lost the sight of her eyes. (I don't remember the reason why, if she scratched out her own eye, or failed to notice an infection.) 惑乱 分からん 16:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Smell. I find it the least useful. --Proficient 05:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

When & Why Did Matthias Paul Change His Name To Paul Van Dyk?
When and why did Matthias Paul change his name to Paul van Dyk? Danke.198.166.59.152 04:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It might have been to avoid confusion with Matthias Paul the actor. It might also be his aunt or mothers last name. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You could also try at the contact page. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Time management
I have observed a strange thing. I hear several people saying that they have no time at all in their lives to watch a movie or do something outside of their routine. However, they seem to do nothing special otherwise. The question is then why do they keep complaining of lack of time? Is it to impress others or is it just a thing they say because everybody says the same. One of my colleagues is a fellow who actually takes a nap in weekends, yet he says he has no time for anything sumal 05:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Some people find alterations or additions to their routines to be too stressful. It's easier to say no than to switch stuff around or miss out on a routine event. Anchoress 05:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

From my experience most people need some time to "destress" before they can seriously engage in any nonroutine behavior, and since so much time is rarely avaliable outside of vacations they feel like they never have any time. Joneleth 17:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * They really mean that the activity you suggested is such a low priority that they wouldn't do it unless there was absolutely nothing else for them to do. But saying that would be rude. StuRat 00:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed. It seems just to be such a common phrase to hear or say... --Proficient 06:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Jesus / Mohammed and the different ways to approach God
Please help. Hindu's believe that any path to God is valid and therefore use many different forms of worship to enable each person to find a way they feel confortable with in this quest. Christians and Muslims however believe that the only way to God is through Jesus or Mohammed and that if you dont follow the specific teachings and worship in the specific way you cannot know God. I cannot believe that Jesus or Mohammed, being enlightened, would make such limiting statements even though both the Muslims and the Christians say that this is supported by their scriptures. What evidence is there in the Bible and in the Koran to support that this is perhaps a misconception and that in fact the quest to understand is more important than the way in which it is undertaken. Thanks for any comments on this subject.


 * Personally, I've never understood this belief. How can any path to God be valid if some of them explicitly state that the others are totally wrong? It's just self-contradictory. Clarityfiend 09:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd guess early Christians and Muslims were quite conceited? Personally, I think the Hindu viewpoint actually seems much nicer. 惑乱 分からん 11:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Clarityfiend: There's really no self-contradiction, because each believes the others to be incorrect. It may in fact be correct that all are incorrect, or that only one is correct. If you have a room full of people, each claiming to be George W. Bush, President of the United States, and also claiming that the others are imposters, that does not immediately lead to the conclusion that they are all imposters. One could actually be George W. Bush, President of the United States. However, more than one cannot be correct, even if they all sincerly believe what they are claiming. –RHolton ≡ – 13:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That's the wrong analogy. The Hindu belief is like saying I'm President Bush, these other people are too and we're all telling the truth. I guess phrased it imprecisely. I should have said the Hindus believe all paths to God are valid. And that definitely is illogical. Clarityfiend 18:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe it's the Christians and Muslims that are illogical, they keep on fighting each other instead of allowing every people find their own path to God. (I'm suitably ignoring all militant Hindu nationalists, here...) 惑乱 分からん 19:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * To clarify : The Hindus feel that God is the inner part of our being and in order to know him we have to strip off all the outer layers known as sheaths. Although there are very precise methods on how to do this they do not say that other ways are not valid like the Christians who think that if you dont believe in Jesus you cant know God. Apparently it says in the Bible that Jesus claims he is the way and the only way to God. How can this be correct when people knew God before Jesus was alive and the Hindus have unbroken lines of people who claim to have known God (become self realized)? I want to know if it is stated anywhere in the Bible that in fact God is for everybody and not just the Christians. Thanks for this.


 * It is not stated anywhere in the Bible that God is for everybody and not just Christians. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me." For the people who lived before Jesus, God had a different agreement with them -- that a person could be made right with God by obeying the laws of the Old Testament. When Jesus came, he set into effect a New Covenant (agreement) between God and man -- that a person could be made right with God through faith in Jesus.


 * Unlike others who have claimed to know God, (i.e., become self-realized), Jesus backed up what he was saying by performing many, many miracles, all out in the open where people could see. He then capped it off by rising from the dead. Others may claim to know God, or the path to God, but can they back their claims up as Jesus did? BenC7 06:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You talk of God as if he is a person with whom a contract can be agreed. This is somewhat naive dont you think? You obviously no nothing of Vendantic philosophy nor any of the many Hindus (and others) who have also affected the lives of people in similar ways to Jesus and who have done, and continue to do, what common people like you and me would call miracles (which is called the siddhi stage). This is not the highest form of realization according to Vedantic philosophy and it is even stated that one should take care when reaching this stage as it can bring the self back into the world rather than helping it to continue on its path to self realization. To have a claim on God is quite extraordinary and to negate other's claim to know God or to search for God is arrogance. Surely Godliness goes beyond caring whether people love Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, Advaita Guru or any of the hundreds of options available to us but how people apply their understanding of God in their daily lives and also, as God is beyond anything the mind or the intellect can understand, to accept that it cannot possibly apply to one group at the cost of all the rest.......


 * Can you provide examples of these miracles? Healing or raising the dead, as Jesus did almost routinely, would be good. BenC7 08:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The reasoning seems biased. It's based on the premise that (according to the bible) Christiany must be right, and therefore other religions wrong. 惑乱 分からん 11:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Sai Baba in Andhra Pradesh routinely does miracles in front of huge crowds and heals as does Amma in Kerala. A Jain monk went on a fast (no food for a year and only drops of water which was recorded and validated by a group of Israeli researchers in Bangalore about 2 years ago and which they were quite ready to admit that the monk should have been dead after 2 months but wasnt. There are many recorded incidents of realized people being seen in 2 places at the same time which are recorded in many books on the life of saints in India.


 * Sai Baba's teachings are internally contradictory. He says that God is in everything and everyone; pantheism. Yet he also teaches that all paths (religions) lead to God. I am a Christian. That makes me monotheistic. A contradiction! They can't both be right.
 * His teachings smack of relative truth, one of the most illogical concepts I know of. Truth is truth! Example: Two people jump off a building. One believes he can fly. The other believes he will fall to the ground. Does truth care what they believe? No. They will both fall to the ground. Truth exists independently of what a person believes. There cannot be multiple truths, any more than two pieces of matter can be in the same place at the same time. One displaces the other.
 * I also have to wonder why this person, who claims to be God, is in a wheelchair because of a hip injury!
 * Even so, Jesus warned us in advance: "Many will come in my name, saying 'I am he!' and 'The time is at hand!'. Do not go after them." This statement is repeated in all three synoptic gospels.
 * Finally, this man says that a person does not have to give up their religion to follow him. I certainly would have to! It appears that he doesn't know very much about what the Bible teaches! BenC7 10:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I dont understand what you mean by internally contradictory. By saying that God is in everything and everyone this does not mean at all that there is more than one God. To qualify as a truth is must be unchanging and infinite so it is perhaps fair to say that this only applies to God in which case it is the same God for everyone. It could also be true to say that if God is the only truth all else is illusion from a philosophical view point. Sai Baba was an example of many that you asked for. Whatever he says or thinks that you do or do not agree with does not alter the fact that he does perform miracles and he does heal people and there are millions of people alive today who believe in him as an avatar. I dont see the relevance between claiming to be God (which he doesnt he claims to have God within him which arguably he does - as we all do) and having a hip problem. So far as I am aware self realization does not exclude the human birth from the fate of the human body as Jesus is himself proof of. Your logic is confusing and avoids the issue that I am trying to understand and that is why Christians claim ownership of something which is beyond ownership and how any kind of logical mind could believe that something so difficult to understand (the concept of God) can only be understood by a Christian when Vedantic philosophy (for example) goes to incredible lengths and in great detail to describe it.


 * Christians (at least none that I know of) don't claim to "own" God. Quite the opposite. They claim that God owns them.
 * The point of Christianity, though, is not to understand God as as concept, but to have a personal relationship with Him. This (God's desire for a personal relationship with us) is why Jesus came to the earth: God initially created us for relationship with himself, but sin separated us from God. God, being just, needs to punish sin, but his intent to have relationship with us has not changed. So, God sent his Son, Jesus, to take on himself the sins of man; to die in our place. God is not satisfied, though, if we just know about Jesus and say, "Yeah, whatever". Jesus' sacrifice is offered to us individually as a free gift, but we must accept that gift if it is to have any effect in us. By accepting that sacrifice, a person's relationship with God can be restored.***
 * Hopefully I have explained it a little clearer. BenC7 08:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry I must be missing the point but I dont see at all how that explains why Christians think the only way to God is through Jesus. Perhaps God sent Mohammed, Buddha and all the rest for those of us who keep on missing your point!!

To answer Anon’s question above: the way the Bible came to Jesus being the only way to God works like this. Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, at the beginning of time: with only one rule. Humanity was perfect, like heaven. Then they could all get into Heaven after death. They can’t eat the fruit of just one tree. Any other tree would be fine. But they both took it, and ate it. God said that was wrong, so well, they had to be punished. They were chucked out of the Garden. Since then, Humanity has been sinful, and all of us have that since birth. That would explain the Ten Commandments, and numerous other rules that Moses brought from God – it was the only way to stay right with Him. That’s were we get the Old Testament – or Agreement – God’s old deal with Humanity.

Enter Jesus. Being God, He had the right to turn it all upside down. And He did. Suddenly, there was no need for circumcision or anything – that wasn’t essential to a human’s relationship with God – or His work – so that was done with. Instead, it was a simple matter of accepting Jesus amazing love, from his death on the Cross. By accepting that, Jesus took my sin in away, and made me well… not perfect, but able to enter Heaven after death. That’s where Jews are different: by not accepting Jesus as the promised Messiah, the Old Testament laws are still valid for them – I think. That is, in a nutshell, that logic. Question answered? martianlostinspace 15:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Nope, but thanks for taking the time and trouble to set out what is actually quite a frightening logic...... which to my mind is not logic at all but a very simplified version of a very complicated subject. I suppose in the end its proof that you cant rationalize faith which, just for the record, is not in any way what I was wanting to do. I find it simply irritating to be a "spiritually minded" person, who spends quite a lot of time searching to understand and know God, to have a group of people invalidate my quest as fruitless. No offense intended of course!

No problem. But I should say: it might not be a good idea for me to try to rationalize God/Christianity. A lot of Christians would say He has totally different reasoning to us – and that would explain why we can’t understand how great He is, at least according to the Bible. In other words, there is no point trying to fit the Christian faith in general into logic: it ain’t gonna work, so Spock wouldn’t be pleased. For example, if humanity’s ultimate, and main purpose, was to worship God, then why save them from Hell, and go through all the pain of Crucifixtion (probably the most painful form of killing ever invented)? The short answer is love. And that simply won’t agree with logic, no matter how often you consult the teachings of Surak. martianlostinspace 20:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

And to help answer the original question on Islam/Christianity: probably the most crucial difference between Jesus and Mohammed is that Mohammed is, to Muslims, only a prophet - ie. messenger from God (Allah), albeit a very important one. For Christians, Jesus is God, not just a prophet. He is superior to the prophets - like Moses and Isiah - who came before Him, being fully God and man. It was predicted He would come in the Old Testament. For example, see Micah 5:2: "But you, Bethlehem, David's country, the runt of the litter— from you will come the leader who will shepherd-rule Israel." And it doesn’t take a genius to work out where He was born, whether you agree he was the Messiah or not. martianlostinspace 21:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. To clarify my point earlier (that I have now marked with ***), the reason that Christians believe that Jesus is the only way to God is that Jesus deals with the problem of sin -- the sin that separated us from God in the first place. Mohammed, Buddha etc. did not die for man's sin. But Jesus did, and through him we have the way to approach a holy God; Jesus died in our place, taking the punishment we deserved. Perhaps an illustration will help.
 * A person is in court, charged with a multitude of crimes. The person is found guilty. The fine for these crimes is more than the offender can pay, but he still must be punished somehow. So he will be imprisoned. But, just as the judge is about to bang the gavel and sentence the person, someone walks up and pays the fine. The judge checks the money, sees that it is in order, and sets the person free, because justice has been served.
 * This is like what Jesus did for us; he satisfied the justice of God. He paid the penalty for the crimes we committed. As I said earlier though, the "payment of the fine" is offered to us as a free gift - we must accept it, otherwise we will bear the punishment for our own sins. We receive it by believing in Jesus, repenting of our sin, and committing our lives to him. BenC7 07:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the added information. It is very interesting. I personally feel that the Vedantic philosophy deals with the problem of sin in a much more in depth way by explaining how the mind works and, in this way, makes us each individually responsible for our sin and, although this is more difficult, gives us the possibility to understand and overcome it. As Hindus believe that God is inside everyone of us then it is not so much a question of having a relationship with God from an exterior point of view but more to strip off our ego and self idea to know the God that is inside everyone and everything. Hence all embracing love and compassion and the sense of oneness. Furthermore from what quantum physics is discovering I feel I can relate to this more although it is obvious that we arrive at a point where logic and everything else of this world doesnt count any more. What I feel is ultimately important is that we should all appreciate each others quest to understand and not be dogmatic about the way in which we do this. We cannot and must not say that our own personal experience with God is more important than others therefore defending the way in which that experience is felt or has been reached. The fact that man has been seeking to understand his relationship with God since as long as we can remember suggests proof enough of his existance and that in itself is the great and wonderful mystery of life.


 * Christians also believe that God lives within them. The Bible says, "Do you not know that you are God's temple, and that God's Spirit dwells in you?" (Paul, who wrote this, was addressing Christians, but I won't put the whole context here.) Christians do not, however, believe that God "lives" (per se) in everything, like rocks and trees. BenC7 01:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't this question be at the Humanities section??12:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If I'm in the wrong space please redirect me - this is an interesting dialogue! Going back to the last comment. If God's spirit (energy?) is in fact one and the same with the individual spirit then that which makes us apparent as opposed to potential should also exist in everything. Wouldn't that make God present in everything? Does the Christian perspective give reasons why God should only be present in people?

I would say it's a little late to move the question to the Humanities desk. But never mind. OK, for the questions. To say that God's Spirit is one and the same with the individual spirit is not the case, as far as the Bible is concerned. The Bible says that when we are born again, that God's Spirit becomes joined with our spirit. So the two are different. I think I can answer both of the other questions at the same time. The Bible makes a distinction that man is different to the rest of creation, in that man was made in God's image: Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth". So God created man in his own image...male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:26-27) Since God made us to have relationship with himself, it makes sense that God would dwell in us, because he wants to be with us. God has no desire to have relationship with rocks, grass and insects. It is us he desires. BenC7 06:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Are There Any Wikipedia Articles That Discuss The Mistranlastion Of Homosexuality In The Bible?
Danke schön.100110100 08:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The Bible and homosexuality. --Shantavira 08:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Danke, any others? Danke.100110100 00:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no mistranslation of the of homosexuality in the bilbe (levitius). The original hebrew uses very simple and common words and it is impossible that it means anything else. Jon513 19:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Audie Murphy versus Matt Urban
The Urban article says he is the most combat-decorated soldier in American history, with 29, but Murphy's says he has 33. Do some of Murphy's medals not count as combat decorations? Clarityfiend 09:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

gives a side-by-side comparison, with Murphy having 29, Urban 28. Clarityfiend 19:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * When I read about highly decorated soldiers, I always picture a Monty Python skit with drag queens.Edison 19:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

analyst and users problem in stationary shop
which problems a analys and user will face in a stationary shop?


 * Ther will be no movement of stock? (Or the shop) 8-)--Light current 09:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I wonder if this questioner means a stationery shop. I still wonder what the actual question is. Problems could include not being able to reach the top shelf, not having enough pocket money, all those pens falling through a hole in his pocket as he leaves.... --Shantavira 14:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

How to not ask for...
Is there a symbol for 'everything but these'? example; I want a camo leppard print jacket. I don't want to sift threw every def leppard fan space to look for it. If I am correct, one may use a'%' to say 'everything'... so, is there one for 'not these'? thanks. Jinkuk Anderson


 * I'm not sure what search tool you're using. At google, you can eliminate results using the dash character. For example, enter (don't include the angle brackets):  and you'll get all the pages that include your search terms, except for those that include the phrase "def leppard". On the other hand, you may have more success if you search for camo leopard print jacket. –RHolton ≡ – 13:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah. I'm not clear on what you're asking... --Proficient 06:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

naked bbq
Is there any website with free downloading videos of naked bbq? naked bbq means people gather around in nude and have some bbq.


 * I'd guess so, but I don't know any links... =S 惑乱 分からん 13:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Do it yourself, I'd suggest. Gather some people, strip, have a barbecue and take pictures. What is the barbeque needed for, by the way? Simon A. 19:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Just be careful not to burn the sausages. (ahem)  JackofOz 21:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you saying you don't like to eat burnt wieners ? StuRat 00:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No, not burnt ones. BTW, this is an occupational hazard for flashers who gatecrash BBQs, so take particular care while you're out and about, Stu.  :)  JackofOz 01:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Why not just find pictures of naked people doing anything else? Temp


 * Such a horrible thing to tell a fetishist... @_@ 惑乱 分からん 00:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, i guess i didn't consider fetishes when i wrote that, i know a person who has a fetish for people singing Yankee Doodle Temp

There is a reason why people wear cloths and it has nothing to do with modesty. Ohanian 10:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Perception of middle level workers in any Organisation
Sir, The topic which I've been given somewhat confused me,I mean How should I exactly describe the middle level workers in any organisation? Are middle level workers same in every organisation or they differ from Org. to Org.Or should I work on any specific 'Middle level worker ' of different organisations as unit manager,sales manager etc.

Plz respond me if possible with in a Day because I've to submit my project with in a week.I'll be highly obeliged.


 * Uh, do your own homework? 惑乱 分からん 16:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * --Shantavira 17:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thin Paper
Does anyone know where you can buy "Bible thin"/"India" paper? Good old, plain, white paper, not specially made - I only want a few hundred sheets. I know paper can be made yourself, but it isn't very easy. martianlostinspace 16:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It would seem like something easily googled? 惑乱 分からん 16:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, best to Google for paper merchants as it depends where you live, and expect to have to order a minimum of 500 sheets. Otherwise try a good art and design shop. Hopefully you don't expect this type of paper to go through your printer or photocopier, cos it won't.--Shantavira 17:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, no. I've Googled it before, and all you can get is custom made stuff for at least 50,000 - at least the last time I checked. I try again, but can anyone do better than 50,000? martianlostinspace 18:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC) Nope. Can't find anything, but I won't be putting it through a printer!martianlostinspace 18:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Seen this link? --Light current 18:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

No, actually - even though I was actually looking. To be precise, I think Bible paper is about 40 gsm. Hang on - are these prices per sheet? 40p per sheet would be quite expensive. That said, the website shows quite alot. Anything cheaper? It doesn't need to be fancy art paper or anything. martianlostinspace 18:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * How about onion skin paper (not really made from onions) ? StuRat 00:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Or carbon copy paper (can you still get it?)--Light current 00:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

If all else fails, contact the publishers of your Bible, and ask them where they get it. B00P 14:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, that's an idea. I'll follow all of those up.  At any rate, I can't see why not.martianlostinspace 22:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah-ha. Now here: [] we have some stuff, and 500 pgs isn't bad, compared to some of the artistic paper.  This looks like it could be promising in the long run. martianlostinspace 22:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What is more, 34 gsm (very thin) appears to be available.martianlostinspace 22:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Depending on the size restrictions, rolling papers are very thin and might meet your needs, but they aren't very big. Also check out rice paper.--WhiteDragon 15:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, White Dragon, I’ll be following that one up too. martianlostinspace 19:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Drat. The link immediately above (paper.com) have what sounds like good stuff, but they don't ship to my area.martianlostinspace 16:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

artillery equipment used in iraq
what are the artillery equipment used in iraq ? enumerate the artillery equipment countrywise. giving details about them?

what kind of engineering support like repair recovery and logistic support for maintaining such high tech equipment for such long durations in operational scenario was made available by various contries?

Depot repairs undertaken by US Army in case of all its artillery equipment?


 * Iraq War order of battle will give the artillery units and from there you can probably link to what types of munitions they carry. Nowimnthing 18:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Israel
What was Israel called before being called Israel

Palestina. Joneleth 18:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Lots of things, see History of ancient Israel and Judah Nowimnthing 18:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a fair place to look if the questioner is interested in what Israel was called before the establishment of the first (ancient) state of Israel. If the questioner is interested in what the territory belonging to the modern state of Israel was called before the founding of the modern state of Israel, he or she could consult History of Palestine, though that article appears to have problems with POV on the period leading up to and since the foundation of the modern state of Israel. Marco polo 01:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Canaan Edison 19:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Warhammer SOHA
This might be an off question, but in my earlier days I use to play that game and now that I found it again at underdogs I tried installing it. But it seems utterly incapable of running on Win XP Pro, Ive tried dozen of things such as dos-box. Does anyone have any ideas on how to make it run? Joneleth 18:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

question about saving images
I have a basic question that seems very simple but I have been unable to find a satisfactory answer online. It may be a dumb question, but I want to be sure of my boundries. Here goes... Whenever I see a photo online, most will pop up with that graphic in the left corner showing a printer, a save function, email the photo, etc. I often see some that I would like to save to my computer just for my own personal enjoyment, a "gallery" if you will, so I can go back and see a photo I like without having to go download the page to see it. Generally the save function will default to "my pictures", right? My question is is is legally ok to do that with general photos on the net and save them on your computer (or back them up to a cd ONLY as a data backup, in the event I need to reload the windows on my computer, so I don't lose them and have to go searching for them again) simply for your own enjoyment. I do not wish to put them on any website, blog, or use them in any way. I know that if I ever needed to use them I would ask permission from the owner of the photo. Where can I find and print a document stating the allowability of saving photos to your computer. Yes, logic would suggest that if Microsoft built the save function into windows to pop up with every photo you see that it must be ok, but I wont assume. I need definite documentation to this effect (links, etc)  Your word here on this help page is good to know, but I need a legal backup to what you advise. Thank you for your help and God Bless.


 * Perhaps read our article on fair use. It tells a bit about what is allowed, and has several links at the bottom to official pages, which you may find useful. Your usage appears appropriate and legal, provided your pictures aren't illegal for another reason. Hyenaste (tell) 18:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * - I am interested in pictures of the Saints, Cathedrals, etc, Religious images for my own personal spiritual growth.


 * I seriously doubt this is illegal, and even if it is, it is certainly not enforced. -Elmer Clark 19:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There's not a problem here. Most web sites say that storing that site's pictures on your own computer for personal enjoyment is OK so long as no financial or commercial gain is made from them ie don't publish them in a book, don't put them onto Wikipedia (unless permission is given or they are stated to be Public Domain), republish them as your own etc. No-one could, in any case, know that that they are on your computer.


 * Microsoft could not have a policy on this because Microsoft do not own the pictures, and there couldn't be a document on the subject because each picture owner has a slightly different set of rules for picture usage. So go ahead, store as many as you like but just don't republish or make financial gain. There's no danger. Hope this helps - Adrian Pingstone 14:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

For Wikipedia administrators or people who spend much time on it
I have been blocked more then 20 times during last 2 years,but Im behaving better and I havent been blocked for couple of months now.My question is Why do you let people make new accounts?I was never a vandal,I was mostly aruging a lot,but there are some people who are enjoying in destruction of Wikipedia(like Wikipedia is Communism vandal,or Willie vandal). All they do is destroying other peoples usefull articles,and they never neither make or improve article...

So,why dont you make it possible for one person to have only one account,and then make in unpossible for anyone to make another account after hes been blocked.This is how many other web sites do,so that when someone is a vandal,he has no chance of making new account.Because I remember when I was being blocked,I would just make another account right away.Cant you just make it impossile for one computer to have to accounts??

Thank you very much
 * Hi there, not sure whether I have the capacity to say this. In Wikipedia, we highly respect Assume good faith, that we will create the collection of all facts (or encyclopedia). As for vandalism, we have got some sophisticated stuff that enable us to fight them easily, so its them who are suffering, not us. Because, according to the statistics, every vandalism will be reverted before 5 minutes (see WP:VANDAL). So, why vandalising?? Cheers -- I   mo   eng  21:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

But,my point is that they just come back after you block them,and the way it goes they can be back with a new account every day...Why dont just simple unable them from making new accounts from the same computer?


 * How?--Light current 22:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

By demanding email before making an account.And there are other ways,like on almost every other site.


 * Ahh!. THen everyone would lose anonymity. Some may not be too happy about that.--Light current 23:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Demanding email? What about mailinator? Fact is, there's really no unique identifier to each computer except the MAC address of the network card.. and that shouldn't be publically available for security reasons --⁪froth T C  23:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * ...and even then a MAC address can be spoofed. The only bulletproof way to keep a person from ever editing again would to do something crazy like biometric security, which would prevent many(if not all) from joining in.—Mitaphane talk 05:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * We do have a policy that involves sufficient security that it should keep people down to a single account, as long as we can validate their ID ;-) --Mnem e son 10:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The BlockView
The A9.com no longer provides street-level U.S. city images. Is there another similar service? -- Toytoy 22:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Google Maps? Crazy Fox (T|C|E) 22:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

moe. part 2
who is the sound engineer for the band moe.?

didgeree doo
Im not sure if thats the spelling. But I am refering to the musical intrument, i mostly associate with australia. Long wooden tube. Anyways, I guess first what is the correct spelling and where can I find some information on how to play one. Ive been searching and havent found any results but i think thats due to the incorrect spelling.

thanks!!!


 * It's didgeridoo. sʟυмɢυм • т • c  23:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

help me
Could someone help me out with the Richwoods High School article, in the "schedule" subheading. It's screwing up right and left. If you look at it, you'll probably be able to get a feel for what I'm trying to do with it. Sorry if this is the wrong desk or anything. Thanks :) Temp

Thank you, Hyenaste.


 * Hehe, no problem. If you want any tweaks, just ask here, at my talk page, or at talk:Richwoods High School. Hyenaste (tell) 23:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks good, I appreciate it. And, now I know how to do tables and i don't have to go annoy the people at the Help desk.  Temp