Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 April 30

= April 30 =

swine flu
Does eating pork cause or comtribute to swine flu —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mommatee (talk • contribs) 00:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No, indeed. There is a thread on this very topic on our science desk - I strongly suggest that you (and others) who are worried about this head over to WP:RD/S - scroll down to somewhere near the bottom and join in the discussion there - rather than starting another discussion here. SteveBaker (talk) 01:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Evil Corporation
I understand this is somewhat subjective, but which company/ies in the world cause the most `evil,' ie. mistreating workers, polluting, depriving customers of rights. If it helps make it more rigorous, this can be looked at from a utilitarian ethics point of view. Edit: utilitarianism carries the incorrect connotations; ignore this. 74.14.110.248 (talk) 01:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Union Carbide and the Bhopal disaster spring immediately to mind. However there are very many candidates. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That's interesting, but I think you may have misunderstood my reference to utilitarianism (See Utilitarianism). I referred to the `evil' intention or willful blindness of the corporation. Union Carbide obviously did not plan the disaster, and they improved safety measures and gave money to help the victims, though the clean-up operation seems to have been done poorly. Also, I doubt Union Carbide is currently mishandling anything; this accident will not happen again. On the other hand, there are companies that, even in the present, are running sweatshops, contributing to the ongoing suffering of their workers. 74.14.110.248 (talk) 02:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * DEGESCH and TESTA for manufacturing Zyklon B, or are you asking for current companies? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Err, Zyklon B is just an insecticide. It's when you start USING it on people that it becomes immoral. The companies didn't use it on people, the government did. The ability of a company to NOT manufacture a desired chemical in wartime when requested by their government (much less a totalitarian government) is pretty much nil. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 09:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You think the companies didn't know or at least guess what it was being used for? The quantities being ordered? Was Germany undergoing a plague of locusts in the 1940s? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Off the top of my head, I would guess that the quantities were not remarkable compared to the normal demands of agriculture, particularly given that German agriculture was likely so strained that it made sense to be extra sure to have enough pesticide on hand for even a minor plague of locusts. —Ever contrarian, Tamfang (talk) 04:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If we're talking all-time, the British East India Company would be pretty high in the running. If we're talking about going concerns, I'd say that tobacco companies are the most 'evil' in the traditional sense. Big agribusinesses like Monsanto and ConAgra are often criticized for their environmental practices. In terms of worker's rights, Wal-Mart is a major antagonist not only to its own workers but to organized labor in general. L ANTZY T ALK 06:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As with any question like this you need to be careful when applying a modern definition of evil to historic people or organisations. At the time it was operating, I don't think the British East India Company was considered evil by most people (certainly not people in Britain). There is an interesting philosophical question about whether there is an absolute concept of evil or if it is always relative to moral values. Judging the past by our moral values isn't generally very productive. --Tango (talk) 06:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There are NGO's and websites who publish such lists. Just to pick one example: Multinational Monitor's "The Top Ten Worst Corporations" lists each year's top ten culprits of "corporate crime, negligence and dastardly behavior." Here are the "10 worst corporations of 2008". ---Sluzzelin talk  07:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Some that I can think of would be Nestle, Monsanto (half of their article is legal issues and controversies), Coke, the Altria Group (Philip Morris) and Huntingdon Life Sciences; those five are pretty high up on the list of poorly-thought of companies. Blackwater aren't most people's cup of tea, and neither are Nike. It really depends what you mean by evil: many people hold that if someone agrees to work in a sweatshop then by giving them the job you're doing a good thing, and putting money into impoverished areas, but to many people sweatshops are a violation of a human beings dignity and a gross act of exploitation. Same thing with the East India Company: they did awful things and were afforded a scary amount of power but they created some pretty solid infrastructure across half of the world and ultimately brought the world closer together. 86.8.176.85 (talk) 08:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ethyl Corporation and related companies spring to mind - see, for example. 130.88.47.18 (talk) 10:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * For a single person who was definitely not 'evil' but who's inventions were lauded at the time but the effects were worse than most corporations or governments see Thomas Midgley, Jr.. Dmcq (talk) 12:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My point there is that just judging by consequences as in Utilitarianism as specified by the question has rather a lot of problems. Dmcq (talk) 13:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Arguably the most famous recent civil case in Britain was devoted to proving the evil of McDonald's. The McLibel case took years. According to our article, it was based on a leaflet which alleged that the corporation: "is complicit in Third World starvation; buys from greedy rulers and elites and practices economic imperialism; wastes vast quantities of grain and water; destroys rain forests with poisons and colonial invasions; sells unhealthy, addictive junk food; alters its food with artificial chemistry; exploits children with its advertising; is responsible for torture and murder (of animals); poisons customers with contaminated meat; exploits its workers and bans unions; hides its malfeasance." To the extent that the company could not rebut these charges, it certainly came across as evil, if you define that as driven by the love of money alone. (It also came across as  ridiculous, with many great moments in court such as when a senior exec was asked if he thought Coca-Cola was nutritious, and he said yes, because it contains water, and water is a nutrient.) BrainyBabe (talk) 16:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The companies controlling blood diamond trade are probably up there. The petroleum companies in Nigeria also have a horrible reputation. Steewi (talk) 01:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * See the relevant SA article: http://www.somethingawful.com/d/comedy-goldmine/most-evil-companies.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schwarzes Nacht (talk • contribs) 07:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * BrainyBabe, you say "it certainly came across as evil, if you define that as driven by the love of money alone". Actually all U.S.A. public companies are legally required to pursue profit as their primary objective and they can be sued by their shareholders if they don't do so - eg if they give away large amounts of shareholders money for non-productive purposes like paying Indonesians $2 a day when they'll work for $0.25 a day or paying more than they have to to remediate environmental damage. Obviously there are cost benefit issues in terms of how much you spend on safety/pollution prevention vs how much you're likely to have to pay out in legal costs when you pollute big parts of the globe (and having smart lawyers certainly comes into this) but to a certain extent they're legally required to act evilly. Or at least not to care as much about non-monetary good as they do about profit. AllanHainey (talk) 10:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a valid point, Allan, and thank you for bringing it up. On a pedantic note, the case was held in Britain and the entity alleging it had been libelled was the British company, but of course the wider points are global ones. I was thinking of issues of corporate social responsibility. If a company consistently behaves in a way that many of its target consumers perceive as unethical, it has a PR disaster on its hands, and it can take a lot of money and time to wipe up the spilt milk. BrainyBabe (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * For a historical example, you would be hard-pressed to beat the Congo Free State (1885 to 1908), a corporate state privately controlled by Leopold II, King of the Belgians. This was the pet project of one man: it caused untold deaths, and can be linked to the ongoing difficulties of the Congo. From our article: "Immensely profitable, the Congo Free State eventually earned infamy due to the brutal mistreatment of the local peoples and plunder of natural resources. Under Leopold II's administration, the Congo Free State became the site of one of the most infamous international scandals of the turn of the twentieth century. The report of the British Consul Roger Casement led to the arrest and punishment of white officials [....] depopulation was caused mainly by four causes: "indiscriminate war", starvation, reduction of births and tropical diseases." The OP asks that "the 'evil' intention or willful blindness of the corporation" were manifest: "The European and U.S. press agencies exposed the conditions in the Congo Free State to the public in 1900. By 1908, public pressure and diplomatic maneuvers led to the end of Leopold II's rule and to the annexation of the Congo as a colony of Belgium, known as the Belgian Congo."  Even Mark Twain lobbied against the King's private fiefdom. Adam Hochschild's King Leopold's Ghost: A Story of Greed, Terror, and Heroism in Colonial Africa (1998; new edition, 2006) is a readable introduction to unimaginable horror. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Vermeer and the Missouri-based factory Cooks come to mind --Anonymous07921 (talk) 14:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In the memorable words of Buffy Summers: huh? —Tamfang (talk) 21:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

James Bond as rapist
Someone told me something about Bond raping a woman on one film. I supposed it was meant something that at his time were just playing hard and today it is considered rape. However, what is the scene and film? (if it ever happened). PS: I could put this question on the Entertainment desk, but this could be construed as an offense towards woman. --Mr.K. (talk) 12:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The roll in the (literal) hay with Pussy Galore—who is supposed to be a lesbian, though this is played down in the film for 1960s reasons—in Goldfinger may be what the person had in mind. She does "give in" in the end, though. Deor (talk) 12:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's pretty likely that had the movies really depicted a rape then they would have got a more restrictive rating than they actually did. I can't remember anything resembling rape by Bond even in the books, which are rather more gritty and realistic than the movies (in fact I would say the Bond of the Fleming books treats women rather better than the movie Bond).
 * I guess there are cases where, had they happened in real life, Bond might be considered to have "taken advantage" of a woman in a vulnerable state, which might conceivably be considered rape. They mostly don't seem to complain, though. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a fictional character - we only have short sections out of a longer 'back story' life - and we have evidence from book and movie that don't agree...heck Bond's character changes dramatically from one actor to the next so we never really know anything about him. We originally had "Stirred, not shaken" (because it 'bruises' the drink - a sign of an expert who is careful about details and knows his stuff) to "Shaken, not stirred" because it sounds more the kind of thing an action hero should say!  So, for example, we know that Bond and Galore interacted with each other over many hours surrounding the scene in the barn - but neither Fleming nor the script writers for the movie tell us anything about that.  This makes the question somewhat moot.  Certainly Bond is not always the perfect character you'd hope - but that's part of what makes him a good movie character.  This is fiction - applying real life rules to it never works out well!  Bond is a rapist if his author(s) say so - and not if they don't - if they choose to hand us a borderline case to 'challenge' us - then that's what Bond obediently does. SteveBaker (talk) 15:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The OP's question was if there was a rape scene in any Bond movie, not if Bond was a rapist. The former is entirely answerable, it's just the latter that is not. --Tango (talk) 15:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The closest I can think of to what the OP is talking about is the treatment of the nurse in the clinic in the first Thunderball where he coerced her with what amounted to blackmail. I was rather shocked by that episode. Dmcq (talk) 19:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

What is the name of this town in the middle of nowhere?
Nowhere town outside of Las Vegas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.226.54.26 (talk) 12:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * read Fashion Outlets of Las Vegas. Cheer--Amore Mio (talk) 13:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That's Primm, Nevada, formerly called Stateline. I don't know why Google Maps decided to identify it by the mall that's located there. Primm's raison d'etre is its casinos; they would be illegal on the other side of the border, but a mall they could've put anywhere. -- BenRG (talk) 20:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Major shopping centers seem to get called out on Google maps, while casino resorts don't. For example, The Forum Shops at Caesars get called out, while Caesars Palace itself doesn't. You have to keep zooming in to find Primm itself, since it's so ridiculously tiny. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

medicare / medicaid
What is the difference between medicare & medicaid? How does one apply & obtain medicare & medicaid? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Escapa5 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you read our articles Medicare and Medicaid? You can enter any search term into the box at the top left of the page. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Photos of hookers
I'm writing a short story and I need some photos of call girls / street hookers, but all I can find on the net is outright porn. Can anyone provide links to photos of real hookers touting for business? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The sandy password (talk • contribs) 16:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Prostitution works in many different ways, and a lot of the touting is online, just as it used to be in the classified ads; only a small proportion of prostitutes work the street. If you want to look at photos, e.g. for research, try any news site for "street walkers" -- they will have photos of arrests, maybe with faces obscured. If you want to use the photos yourself, you need to think about copyright. Try Wikimedia. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it ethical? Why not have doctors, lawyers, and IT professionals pose as prostitutes for these photographs? Bus stop (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at the wikipedia articles for pictures and then seen if there are any wikimedia categories relating to them? I'd do it for you but I'm at work ;)  TastyCakes (talk) 17:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Many doctors are hot numbers when dressed in appropriate costume. Bus stop (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Searching for "prostitute" on Flickr gets some hits. --Sean 17:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * When I saw the section heading my first thought was this and this, but further reading of the post suggests that is not quite what you're looking for... Gwinva (talk) 22:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Searching likely terms on WikiCommons turns up a few suitable pictures - which have the huge advantage of being licensed under terms that let you publish them. SteveBaker (talk) 00:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

FOX
Clueless British person here, when shows like Fringe or 24 are said to be "on FOX" what does that mean? There seem to be an uncountable number of tv stations with the FOX name, most of which show the news or weather. Which specific station is showing these shows? Also, does anyone here know of live streaming links for FOX? I'd like to watch my shows live instead of torrent. Thanks for you help. THAT gomes (talk) 16:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You might want to start with Fox Broadcasting Company. You can enter any search term into the box at the top left of the page. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes that's pretty obvious. I've already looked at Fox Television Stations and List of Fox television affiliates (by U.S. state) but as I said there are many many stations listed, and I can't seem to find the main FOX station that's showing the shows I've listed. They all just say "FOX" but don't specify which FOX station. THAT gomes (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Typically it will play on all Fox affiliates. Fox news is a different channel entirely, but there will be one Fox channel in a particular area which will play a mix of Fox's national programs with some local news.  The same is true for all the big networks in the US and Canada, as far as I know.  There is some overlap, for example I think if you have satellite you may duplicate certain channels or get a channel from another area.  It's somewhat different in Canada because we get the affiliates of what seem like randomly located places.  For example, here in Calgary (western Canada) our NBC station is the Detroit affiliate and our ABC and Fox stations are (or were last time I checked) from Spokane, Washington.  There are probably streaming links for Fox shows as there are with NBC and so on, but they can't be accessed in Canada and I suspect they can't be accessed from the UK either, at least not without using a proxy or something.  I'm sure there are plenty of sites that illegally stream Fox content, you could look at tv-links.cc for that.  TastyCakes (talk) 16:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm only a slightly more clueful British person, but as I understand it, US TV works quite differently to UK TV. In the US channels are generally local to one area, but are affiliated with national networks so all the affiliated channels will show the same programs at certain times and show their own stuff at other times. FOX is one of those networks, so there are lots of FOX channels but they are each in a different area of the country and will all show the major shows. --Tango (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is correct. TastyCakes (talk) 17:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Incidentally this is the website for central scheduling for FOX. As you can see there is a lot of blank space in the schedule, where the local affiliates put on their own programming.
 * If you are British and have a long memory you may recall that ITV used to run in the same way. There were actually twenty or so local TV companies, like Granada Television and London Weekend Television broadcasting in separate areas. They generally (but not always) carried the same main shows and national news, and had some of their own local programs. See Independent Television Authority. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I was under the impressions something similar still happened. Some kind of event was being held in Liverpool and a Liverpudlian friend of mine, who lived in Kent, was livid that they didn't give it any decent airtime down south. Vimescarrot (talk) 17:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There are local schedules for both ITV and BBC (and maybe some other channels), but I believe they are all centrally owned and controlled now. --Tango (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Clued in American here, and Tango is mostly right. In the U.S. there are a number of television networks that produce material for nationwide broadcasting.  See List of United States over-the-air television networks for a little background.  These networks distribute their programming to local affiliates in each Media market.  Generally, a Media Market is centered on a city and there will be a locally-owned TV station that is an affiliate of each station in each market.  For example, I live in the  Triangle North Carolina market, which carries the following networks on over-the-air broadcast channels:
 * WRAL, channel 5, CBS affiliate
 * WTVD, channel 11, ABC affiliate
 * WNCN, channel 17, NBC affiliate
 * WRAZ, channel 50 FOX affiliate
 * In other cities, these networks are broadcast on other local channels, for example in Boston, CBS is carried on WBZ, channel 4, while in New York City, CBS is on WCBS, channel 2.
 * Each affiliate usually broadcasts the "national" package from its Network during Prime time and will broadcast locally produced shows or nationally syndicated shows at other times. So basically, you have three types of programs:
 * Network-distributed TV shows which are produced by the network and shown on all of its affiliates around the nation
 * Syndicated TV shows which are produced independently and sold to individual stations without regard for network affiliation
 * Locally produced TV shows
 * Each market generally has access to 10-12 or so over-the-air TV networks, which includes the 4 major networks noted above, as well as other smaller networks like PBS, MyNetwork TV, The CW Television Network, or Univision as well as a few "independent" stations with no national network affiliation. This sort of system exists in the U.S, because, unlike the UK, there is no national monopoly on broadcasts like the BBC which controls not only content, but bandwidth assignment.  In the UK, BBC ONE is broadcast on the same over-the-air channel nationwide, with local content added in at certain designated times.  Thus the same TV channel will get that same content nationwide, excepting those local time slots.  As a result, if I turn on Channel 1 in London, I get the same show as someone who turns on Channel 1 in Manchester or Bristol or anywhere else.  In the U.S., all media is locally controlled, the Federal Communications Commission liscenses stations to broadcast, but each local market has its own set of stations brodcasting on any of 63 different channels.  To prevent interference and bleed-over, each market usually only covers 10-12 of these channels.  For example, in my market the 4 major networks are on 5 (CBS), 11(ABC), 17(NBC), and 50(FOX) but in nearby Piedmont Triad market they are on 2(CBS), 8(FOX), 12(NBC), and 45(ABC) and in also nearby Wilmington, North Carolina market they are on 3(ABC), 6(NBC), 10(CBS), 26(FOX).  This all comes from the difference between a nationally-organized top-down system (like the U.K.) vs. a locally managed bottom-up system like the U.S.  I hope that makes some sense.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  17:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Occasionally the local stations switch allegiance as well. When Fox was first organized, the Detroit CBS station (channel 2) switched to FOX and CBS moved to a local UHS station with the unheard of, for a major network, position of channel 62. This prompted a lot of advertising from CBS to try to keep their viewers. Rmhermen (talk) 19:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That's excellent Jayron, I just have a minor quibble: I was under the impression that Ofcom controlled the bandwidth assignment in the UK, not the BBC. 80.41.15.80 (talk) 19:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing that up. It appears you are right about that.  However, TV channels in the UK are still assigned nationwide rather than locally, so that ITV and BBC1 and BBC2 are broadcast on the same over-the-air channel nationwide.  Nothing like that exists in the U.S. where all over-the-air broadcasts are managed at individual, locally managed stations which are assigned channels without regard to national consistancy.  But thanks for catching my error.  Not being a UK resident myself, I was a little mistaken.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  02:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not entirely accurate. BBC One, say, is broadcast on a different frequency in each region. That allows for local news, region specific programming, etc. --Tango (talk) 05:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * While in the UK we conventionally say that BBC1 is on Channel 1, BBC2 on Channel 2, ITV1 on 3, Channel 4, Channel 5, they are actually spread out over UHF channels 21-68 so that they do not interfere with signals from other transmitters. The system was designed to handle 4 channels comfortably without interference, so the introduction of Channel 5 in the 1990s posed a lot of problems, and some areas never have got a satisfactory analogue signal for 5 - digital switchover is, of course the solution for this. Contentwise, Channel 5 is standard over the whole UK, except for advertising, Channel 4 is the same, except in Wales where S4C broadcasts in a different language, ITV1 used to have a lot of regional variation, but nowadays usually only the advertising, local news, and weather is different, BBC2 is normally standard over the whole UK (no adverts, of course), but there are occasional national opt-outs in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. BBC1 has local news and weather, and the weekly "Inside Out" programme is usually local, but otherwise is usually standard for the whole of England. BBC1 Wales still has a substantially different output, and BBC1 Scotland somewhat less so, I think, and I don't know about BBC1 NI. As well as the main transmitters for each region, there are also hundreds of small repeaters for isolated areas, which is why they need so many frequencies - I'm in NW England, and our main transmitter radiates 500 kilowatts, with BBC1 on channel 55, BBC2 on 62, ITV1 on 59, Channel 4 on 65, but Channel 5 is only 12.5 kilowatts on channel 48; (this information only applies until the regional analogue shutdown in December 2009); there are 68 local repeater transmitters in the region, mostly radiating less than 20 watts (one only radiating 1W!) all of which need 4 frequencies. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 11:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd like to say a HUGE thank you to everyone who answered! :D :D :D THAT gomes (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Caffeine
Is there hidden caffeine in tumeric, spices, guar gum, cellulose gum or paste, carob bean gum, guaranine, datem, - where does caffeine occur naturally - green tea is not generally listed except as camellia sym. Where does caffeine occur other than chocolate, colas, coffee and the normal. When you goggle this, artic. will indicate it occurs in 60-100 plants - do we consume them - is it in carrageean or ginko biloba or collagen or shea butter, jojoba or woods like bark extracts - Philodendron or chenopodium quinoa seed, annatto - so many additives - help  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.230.7.6 (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We have a great article that should answer a significant portion of your question. Take a look at Caffeine cheers, 10draftsdeep (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Toastmaster 1BB5
I own one of these, And I want to know all about it, It would be great to hear what year it is from... I have tried searching google and Wikipedia... but found nothing.. All information about this Toaster would be great. 85.220.105.90 (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Can nobody fucking answer me!!! all I was asking was some information about my toaster and all ppl do is ignoring me!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.220.105.90 (talk • contribs)


 * No one is deliberately ignoring you. In fact, I searched www.toaster.org which lists a number of vintage toastmasters, but found nothing on your model. Since you already tried google as well, you may have to be a bit patient. Sometimes it takes days for someone to come up with the right info, and occasionally querents completely stump us and the question remains unanswered. We're all volunteers here, and your choice of words probably won't be much of an incentive for others to spend their time helping you out. Just a thought. ---Sluzzelin talk  13:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, can someone retroactively time-stamp the unsigned comment? I don't know how, and am curious how long a wait is considered reasonable before swearing at unpaid, potentially helpful strangers. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to timestamp it, but the answer, in the case of our questioner, is about sixteen hours. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yay!! Great now everybody is complaining about this bullshit!!! Swearing!?? wtf.. I WAS NOT swearing at anyone!! ... and (.....) P.s Nobody is going to answer me anyway so this Toaster can just go to hell!!! fucking unknown toaster junk!! 85.220.105.90 (talk) 00:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * GREAT ! That's got him of him!--81.170.122.82 (talk) 05:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Goodbye! So long! Ta ta for now! DOR (HK) (talk) 04:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)