Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010 February 15

= February 15 =

Best Brazilian News Websites
What are the most popular and/or acclaimed Brazilian news websites/online newspapers? - Vikramkr (talk) 00:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * For the most popular see: --Normansmithy (talk) 14:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

"megapixel lens", etc
Retailers such as avsupply.com of surveillance (?) cameras seem to have a fairly standardized terminology; for example, "megapixel camera" and "megapixel lens" pop up all over the place. Googling for these terms takes me to descriptions of consumer cameras with this or that number of megapixels -- not obviously explanatory, because after all if your DSLR offers 12.8 megapixels, you hardly say that the lenses designed for or usable with it are 12.8 megapixel lenses. I'm sure explanations for ignoramuses of industrial video terminology are out there on the, er, information superhighway, but I know so little about the subject that I don't even know how to google for it effectively. Tips? -- Hoary (talk) 00:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't find any mention of megapixel in lenses in my cursory search on the website, perhaps you can provide a link to a description with that phrase? --antilivedT 06:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, here is Kowa's range of "1&Prime; megapixel" lenses; here is a list of products sold by avsupply.com, in which "megapixel lenses" (together with "megapixel cameras" and other inscrutable stuff like "telecentric lenses") is a major category; here is another retailer's list of lenses, including Pentax/Cosmicar "MegaPixel" lenses (the odd capitalization suggests a brand name, but even if this is so the name must have been chosen for a reason); here is Fujifilm's blurb (in somewhat dodgy English) for its range of Fujinon megapixel lenses. And there's more. (Incidentally, "1&Prime;" in the first example means "one inch" and I believe it somehow indicates the maximum recommended image circle. I think that rather than the diameter it's the length of the side of the largest square that would fit within the image circle, but I'm not sure.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This is apparently a "3 megapixel lens" and has "High image-quality monitoring with optical performance supporting 3 megapixels." I have absolutely no idea what that is supposed to mean. A lens is a piece of glass that changes the direction of light, it is an entirely continuous structure. It is not divided into pixels. Presumably it has something to do with the active mechanisms for improving the image quality, but I can't work out why they would work in pixels. --Tango (talk) 13:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes indeed. It all sounds quite potty. Of course more pixels don't mean higher quality, but all right, there is some sort of vague correlation between number of pixels (and "resolution" in the computer graphics sense) and image quality (and "resolution" in the lens testing sense). So if a company were to market a range of, say, "20 megabyte lenses" I'd know what impression they were trying to make. A single megabyte sounds like something from twenty years ago. On the other hand these lenses are intended not for still but for videophotography; for all I know one megabyte may be an impressive figure for one "frame" (?) of a surveillance video. -- Hoary (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As a hobbyist photographer, I have to agree that I don't understand how megapixels could be related to lenses. In fact, the only digital part in a lens is communicating with the camera to let the lens know what aperture and shutter length it should use, and none of these have any relation to pixels - a film camera would do the exact same thing. In my opinion, the term "megapixel lens" is either meaningless marketing-speak or simply a recommendation about the class of cameras it should be used with. J I P  | Talk 20:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The concept of a 'megapixel lens' appears to primarily originate in the CCTV camera arena I think because many earlier lens were crap and couldn't realisticly work well with megapixel CCTV cameras. These links may be of interest, particularly to Hoary. (also look in the comments and check out the links)    Also I guess because the CCTV camera market cares a lot about cost and does actually consider what the benefit is to their high megapixel setup particularly given the data rates it would entail (unlike the P&S market where for most people 12mp camera=sounds good, regardless of whether their 12mp camera is actually really any better then the 8mp camera  ).
 * While I agree the idea of a 'megapixel lens' is mostly nonsense and there doesn't appear to even be an consistent way of rating a lens's 'megapixel rating', the general idea is that the manufacturer recommends these for use with 1 megapixel (or higher depending on the rating) CCTV cameras (without the lens being a significant limiting factor). The quality of the lens does of course make a big difference to the quality of the image and if you have a very shitty lens, using it with a higher megapixel sensor (depending on the size of the sensors as well) would have limited benefit (although I think in most cases is still likely to have some benefit in a few circumstances  ).
 * There are of course real world measurable parameters about the lens that have far more meaning but understanding how these relate to their specific purpose is perhaps fairly confusing partially why 'megapixel lens' marketing speak arises. And manufacturers prefer made up stuff which makes it easier to 'bend the truth' anyway (the comments in one of the early links mentions the Australian standard plan to require some of the specs be published).
 * Incidentally from the earlier links, the megapixel rating appears to relate primarily to the resolving power (which of course does make a big difference in whether you'll get any benefit to a high megapixel sensor) but also other factors like optical distortion and chromatic aberation.
 * Nil Einne (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you Nil Einne! I think I now have the general idea. - Hoary (talk) 00:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

How to expose a fraud charity?
Hey so this isn't legal advice, it's more "activism" advice. I really believe I've discovered an elaborate fraud which involves a "seemingly" legitimate charity organization. There is a website called malariainitiative dot com which claims to be part of the "Lutheran church charities". Under their links to malaria treatment science they proclaim the efficacy of a substance known as Acidified Sodium Chlorite, a common disinfectant, as an effective cure for malaria. This is actually marketed as "Miracle Mineral Solution" by a guy called "Jim Humble" which after a bit of investigation I have come to the conclusion that he is a total fraud and MMS is a scam. My evidence is that he claims it not only cures Malaria, but also AIDS, hepatitis and most cancers and of course there is not a single piece of evidence to support any these claims, and I have done a lot of searching, including in the medical literature. malariainitiative don't mention Jim or MMS by name, but they are obviously talking about the same stuff. The evidence on their website includes videos and links to "research" is probably enough to fool most casual observers. If they are using this as a "cover" it's anyone's guess where the donation dollars are going. Feel free to look up Jim Humble and MMS, there is a mountain of websites full of personal accounts that this stuff works, but of course none of it is backed up by a shred of evidence. There is another website called lutheranmalaria dot org which seems like a more legitimate version. So if the two are linked, or if the 1st is just masquerading as the 2nd I don't know. I'm going to email united nations foundation and the Lutheran charities but I was wondering if there was more I could do. I live in Australia so I'm not familiar with the laws and stuff of American charities. Is there a charities ombudsman or some sort that could be made aware of this? I've posted on SGU (sceptics guide to the universe) but only got a luke warm response, I'm also going to email quackwatch. Does anyone else have any suggestions? I'm a bit outraged by all this, it all just started when a close relative of mine actually bought some MMS and tried to sell me on it. Vespine (talk) 05:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If I were you I would indeed start by contacting a Lutheran church. I'm sure they would be very interested to know if someone is using their name for fraudulent purposes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The website is registered by a John Peterson in 405 E. Pierce St. Elburn, Illinois 60119. If that makes any difference. I've looked on Google maps and it looks like a regular house in the burbs. Vespine (talk) 05:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If there are any Lutheran churches in or near that town, that could be a good place to start. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Or if you don't feel like calling long distance, start with a Lutheran official website and see if there's a "contact us" on it somewhere. I keep saying "a" Lutheran church because there is more than one "sub-denomination". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Showing up at a pastor's door with a hot dish couldn't hurt. PhGustaf (talk) 06:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You betcha! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Lutheran Church Charities appears to be a specific, real organization, presumably with a trademark on its name, and a legal interest in not having it misused. There is no one Lutheran organization, so "Lutheran" is presumably not trademarked, so I believe that neither the ELCA nor the Missouri Synod (the two major Lutheran denominations in the US) will be able to help.  (But I am nothing like a lawyer.)  Paul Stansifer 13:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be the most obvious place to start, as they are among those most likely to be motivated to do something. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that's a good place to start. If you don't give anywhere gives a hint of what to do for UK based charities, for the US you could try contacting the FBI or FTC  or perhaps given it involved medical claims, the FDA. However bear in mind they probably have so many of these fake charities to deal with particularly given the recent Haiti earthquake as well as other frauds there's no guarantee anything will happen (which doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad idea to report it, particularly if they are involving a legitimate organisation and you have resonable info to tie it to a real person living in the US or wherever). Consumer watchdog organisations, news media and TV shows are sometimes interested in doing exposes on such things as well. Nil Einne (talk) 15:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Fr. Chris Riley and Boys Town
Boys Town is an "organization in District of Columbia, providing more than 400,000 children each year with a safe, caring, loving environment where they gain confidence to get better". I got that quote from the official Boys Town website and from what I can gather the organization houses homeless youth. But the question I want to ask is that in the Chris Riley (priest)article is states that he was the "Principal of the charity Boy’s Town" but how can that be if the organization isn't a school of some kind? Unless i'm not getting the right impression of what a principal is. 220.233.83.26 (talk) 07:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Boys Town does operate some schools. Perhaps the meaning is that Riley was the principal of one of those.  According to the Boys Town web site, the present head of the organization is called the Executive Director, so presumably that's not what was meant. --Anonymous, 08:08 UTC, February 15, 2010.

I've done some research and found thae answer for my self. In an article it says: "he came to Boys' Town as school principal in 1986". 220.233.83.26 (talk) 10:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Principal has other meanings than headmaster or leader of a school. Principal is merely the head person or authoritative person associated with any group or organisation. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Need help naming a hairstyle
Hey, I'm trying to find the name of a certain haristyle, Here's and example of an action figure with the hair, Rick O'Connell] from the Mummy kind of has it as well, if you wanted a picture of a real person. What's the name of this hairstyle? --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 10:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

But hard to tell off A) a Lego figure and B) a picture when his hair is messed up because of the movie he's in.I'd go with "curtains" myself.hotclaws 15:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Or an Undercut. Nanonic (talk) 15:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Firstly, that's not Rick O'Connell, it's Brendan Fraser. Secondly, I would call the hairstyle a centre-parting.92.30.7.238 (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As a popular style among the "cool" when I was in high school, it was referred to as "wings."  DRosenbach  ( Talk 21:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd just call it a centre parting. It looks like it has short back and sides as well. Its not a mullet. It looks like the photo described as an "undercut" in the hairstyles article. 78.147.202.148 (talk) 12:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)78.147.202.148 (talk) 12:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Canadian pints
How many fluid ounces are there in a Canadian pint? 89.240.201.172 (talk) 13:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you read Pint, it's rather confused, especially for beer; a pint or "une pinte" can be 20 fl oz (an English pint), 500 ml, 375 ml, 952.1 ml, an imperial quart, or any large glass. According to the Vancouver Sun, it's legally 20 fl oz in British Columbia, but this is not a universal standard, and it probably varies from province to province, particularly in the French bits. --Normansmithy (talk) 14:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Canadians tend to avoid the pint, for exactly those reasons. Most things are bought and sold by the litre, and the one that isn't (beer) is generally measured in floz. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not at all true. I buy all my beer in pubs and restaurants by the pint or glass, which are relatively consistent in size.  The glass is smaller than a pint, but they don't vary from pub to pub. Aaronite (talk) 00:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

A pint in Canadian measure is 20 Imperial fl.oz., same as in England. Any other usage is informal. --Anonymous, 09:51 UTC, February 16, 2010.
 * From reading the pint article, it seems that in Canada other sizes of pint are the formal ones - defined in law - and that a 20 fluid ounces pint would be the informal one, and apparantly rather rare as well. 78.147.202.148 (talk) 13:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Distinguishing formal or jargon usage from informal, or rare from common usages, is something that Wikipedia is terrible at. The only reference in that article to an officially defined usage in Canada is where it says, "according to Measurement Canada, vendors advertising a pint must deliver 568.26 ml."  Which is 20 Imperial fluid ounces.  --Anonymous, 19:49 UTC, February 16, 2010.

Sentence formation
Hi, i am assigned to train a felow who has weird sentence formation ,while speaking professionally,(verbal and written)which gives me a chill whenever i assign a task with a customer,is there something i can do,maybe that way i can improve him  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.36.6 (talk) 16:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that your own sentence formation is nonstandard. Before you try to train someone else, I would suggest that you study English grammar yourself. I am guessing that your spoken English is fine, but it would be worth your while to learn about English punctuation and how to avoid run-on sentences.  Marco polo (talk) 17:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That aside, we'd need an example. I'll point out, though, that I have some friends who are professional academics who use odd sentence structures (mostly due to ESL issues.  They communicate perfectly well in spite of it, though.  remember that the goal here is to be understood, not to be proclaimed the next William Butler Yeats.  -- Ludwigs 2  17:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't this be answered better at the Language Reference Desk? —220.101.28.25 (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no quick fix; perhaps enroll him in an English class that emphasizes spoken communication. If you have an unlimited budget, send him on a year's vacation to Topeka, Kansas with the provision that he has to insert himself in the culture, marry an American, and otherwise maximize his spoken interaction with others.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Why Topeka, Kansas? AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 08:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So he can learn English with a midwestern flat-as-the-prairie accent; pick up American cultural tips on political matters such as race and evolution; and also to experience some good old American tornadoes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sometimes, managers put people who have a certain flaw with someone else who also has this flaw with the instruction that they are to get this person to improve. The thinking is that, in teaching someone else how to do things, you improve your own skills as a by-product.--TammyMoet (talk) 20:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

nice way of saying grow a thicker skin?
anyone know a sort've half polite way of saying to grow a thicker skin that is unlikely to aggravate the person further?--92.251.233.135 (talk) 18:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Depends on who's insulting them. If it's you, and you tell them to grow a thicker skin, that's just another insult. If it's someone else insulting them, presumably you're trying to be helpful. I wouldn't tell them to grow a thicker skin. I'd say something like, "Don't let 'em know if they got to you." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Where am from we tend to either say "Don't break down the touch fuzz" or "Pal, your hands leak shard 'o glass ampoule" to either the most touchy of people and they're putty in your glassy hands. Ice Pencil Made of Glass (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be an awesome pair of quotes if they made any sense. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. The guy with the glass pencil has since been blocked for trolling, and can be seen nightly on Indef Comedy Jam. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It wasn't an insult I told someone else that their company's work from before this person joined the company was unsatisfactory and the company should improve its quality, she heard it and got all insulted--92.251.233.135 (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If that's all accurate, I'd say her irritation has a basis: By casting aspersions on a company that she (probably recently) decided was good enough for her to join, you indirectly insulted her judgment.  That said, maybe she does need thicker skin, and I think Bugs's line is nicely indirect.  Ice Pencil Made of Glass is trolling.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "Consider the source"? Bus stop (talk) 19:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well considering I'm a big customer of her company and I was simply critizing it's work not the actual company I don't think she really should be irritated but I'd like to calm her down gently.--92.251.233.135 (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're a third party to the exchange, Illegitimi non carborundum or its translation is a good one. Won't help much in this case - I'd just keep my head down for a bit if I were you. "When you're at the bottom of a hole, stop digging!" Alansplodge (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Why does it matter? You told her your opinion of her company, which you are entitled to and is indeed very relevant since you're a big customer.  It's her problem if she doesn't like that, give her the opportunity to retort if she's that sure you're being unfair.  But ultimately, it's her problem, not yours: it's her company that has a shitty reputation, if anything she should be glad you brought that to her attention.  Of course if this person is an old friend, family or romantic interest, things become a little less straightforward.  But otherwise, maybe it's you that needs to stop worrying so much about hurting someones feelings with the truth, when it is in that person's best interest to know the truth.  In short, you are the "customer" in the relationship, she's the one that should be worrying about all these nuances about personal feelings.  TastyCakes (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Depending on the situation, words to the effect of "nothing personal, just business" may make things either better or worse. APL (talk) 21:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If the OP gets real desperate, then as a last resort he could try apologizing. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Jeez, there's irony for you!! Caesar&#39;s Daddy (talk) 08:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am quick to apologize when I'm in the wrong. 0:) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nil Einne (talk) 19:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As you wish. Chevrolet Citation II front.jpg :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * (outdent)I heard one on the radio today "You have no right not to be offended." It could be put a little nicer, the person inquestion is pretty blunt (he's on talk radio, albeit sports talk), but perhaps something along the lines of, "I'm sorry if my critique of your company bothers you, but you didn't expect your company to be perfect did you? Just accept that it's not and work to make it better."209.244.187.155 (talk) 00:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

A real estate term PPO
Once a bank forecloses on a home it becomes REO (real estate owned). Prior to that the bank may refer to it as a PPO. What does PPO mean in this context? Could it be private party occupied? Thank you 70.103.20.224 (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Good question. Whoever finds the answer could add it to PPO. That page lists several other items, include the 2 different but synonymous health-care related term that's what I think of when I see it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * According to this site, anyway, PPO is being used in real estate the same way it's being used in health care: Preferred Provider Organization. I have not spent much time googling this, so I can't say for sure that it's definitive. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My shot on topic is Property Preservation.
 * Off topic: PPO also means person-to-person outsourcing, which I have found here. --Ouro (blah blah) 07:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This, from Yahoo answers (which might be a wikipedia mirror for all I know) said a month ago that it was Percentage Price Oscillator. So far I'm not convinced that any of the above answers fit. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

"Bund" vs. "Reich"
Is there any instance in current German society where people refer to the country of Germany with the term Reich (realm) instead of Bund (federation), in a neutral context, without even the slightest connotation to World War II era Nazi Germany? The only thing that comes to mind is the name Reichstag, which has come to mean the building where the Parliament of Germany assembles, whereas Bundestag refers to the Parliament itself. I think I once called the eagle on a German 2 Euro coin Reichsadler when speaking with an Austrian, but would Bundesadler have been a more correct term? J I P | Talk 20:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The short answer to your first question is no. The only exception would be perhaps a Neo-Nazi or perhaps an archconservative royalist, who might use the word as a kind of political statement (indicating that they desire the restoration of the second or third Reich). Even the word Bund is not often used to refer to Germany or the German state. The more common words used today are, simply, Deutschland, or, if a person wants to refer to the German state, they might use Bundesrepublik.  With the sole exception of the Reichstag, which is the name of the building, you really want to avoid compounds using the word Reich because of its nasty connotations.  For example, referring to the Bundesadler as the Reichsadler might make someone wonder whether you are a Neo-Nazi.  (If you are a foreigner, they will probably give you the benefit of the doubt.)  The Bundesadler actually has a different appearance, by the way.  Here is the Bundesadler.  Here is the Reichsadler of the Kaiserreich (1871-1918). Here is the Reichsadler of the Third Reich.  Marco polo (talk) 22:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A proper name that seems to turn up is Himmelreich, which I take to mean "Kingdom of Heaven". I'm guessing that's considered an honorable use of "Reich". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is not problematic to use the word Reich in historic or religious contexts. It just means "kingdom" or "empire".  Himmelreich does mean "kingdom of heaven".  There is also das Reich Gottes—"the kingdom of God".  The problem comes if you use the word Reich to refer to present-day Germany or its official symbols.  Marco polo (talk) 01:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * One American expat living in a German speaking coutry once pointed out how strange the German word for France, "Frankreich", sounded to her ears. To her, any use of the word Reich suggested Nazi connotations. I had never noticed this myself before. ---Sluzzelin talk  11:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The German Empire (1879-1918) is frequently called "Deutsches Reich" in present-day Germany. Also, I think people from Saarland colloquially refer to the rest of Germany as "Reich". --Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Use of "mainframe" or "main frame" in Technical Publications
I am a technical writer stumped on the use of mainframe and main frame. We use this term in the sense of a large mobile construction type machine that is welded together and then we install drivetrain (crawlers) and many other components. It is the same as a frame in an automobile including drivetrain but "main" has always been added in one form or another in our business.

All references to "mainframe" mention the computer use. I can find nothing on the use of "main frame." Presently I use "main frame."

Question: Which term is most correct and/or appropriate to use in our technical service publications to reference this structure?70.141.157.77 (talk) 21:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I am a little confused by the question because you seem to be saying that the term for it in your business is indeed "main frame". I think you have answered your own question, no?  Are you just worried that the term "main frame" is wrong because of your Googling?  It sounds like you must be the expert and should use the term you think is right.  Incidentally, googling "main frame" -mainframe will get rid of all the pages talking about a "mainframe" (1 word).  Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * A "main frame" can simply mean the main metal frame of a construction. A "mainframe" usually means a computer server. I think you should use "main frame".--Dacium (talk) 01:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I will stick with main frame. People get so picky on the use of a word in my business it can cause arguments and ill will. I needed agreement from outside sources on whether to use it as one word or two for my own well being. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.141.157.77 (talk) 14:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)