Help desk
< April 25	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 27 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

April 26

Portal:Current events's Wikinews articles question

In Portal:Current events in the Wikinews articles sections there are "News briefs: April 21, 2012" posted multiple times on different dates, why? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see it twice, under "April 22, 2012 Wikinews articles" and "April 21, 2012 Wikinews articles". The inclusion under April 22 originates from Wikinews itself. I don't know their practice but the inclusion traces back to this edit by a Wikinews administrator. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. So the question would be better for some Wikinews helpdesk? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems so. You can also ask the Wikinews administrator who made the linked edit at wikinews:User talk:Pi zero. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Historical figures sometimes considered autistic & List of people with autism spectrum disorders

Should we have articles like Historical figures sometimes considered autistic? Michael Fitzgerald claimed at least 19 historical figures were autistic. Does that mean they are "sometimes considered autistic"? Shouldn't we put the claims in the articles about the person who made the claim (and if it is important enough in the article about of the "autistic" person) instead of doing this WP:OR WP:SYNTH thingy?
Should list of people with autism spectrum disorders be renamed to list of people diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders? Those are two different things, right?

Von Restorff (talk) 00:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the second one, both of those are one and the same, and I believe the first one's wording is better. - Purplewowies (talk) 01:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the first question, I think "sometimes considered autistic" means "speculated by reliable sources as having been autistic". These would be people who fit the profile of a person within the autism spectrum but for whom medical/psychiatric diagnoses have not been made. This would probably mostly be historical figures. Any claim that a historical figure is considered autistic will need a source, and if the claim is made for a living person then you should delete the claim first and ask for sources second. If a person is listed under the list of "Historical figures sometimes considered autistic" (and I think it's fair to consider this a "list article") then I would expect the information to also appear in the biography of the person in question. -Thibbs (talk) 12:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Files

How much experience do I need in working with files to become a file mover? Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 00:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be a goal. Just something you get when you need it. Von Restorff (talk) 00:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to know so I can decide when to appropriately request it. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 00:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of years maybe? :-) Wikipedia:File_mover. Trust me, it shouldn't be a goal. You do not need to become a file mover. When you do, it will be easy to become one. Wikipedia:Hat collecting. Von Restorff (talk) 00:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are no fixed rules. As far as I can tell you have never uploaded a file to Wikipedia or edited a file page so I don't see reason to speculate about it now. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback guys! I was just wondering because it seemed to peak my interest and I just wanted a general knowledge on the subject. I did not intend on filing now. I also am not hat collecting. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 01:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear that. Sorry if I came across rude, this is the permission they usually ask for, and I am glad you are not one of them. Von Restorff (talk) 01:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Housewives of NJ

Who is the lady (she wears a cap on her head) related to? Is she in Teresa's or Caroline's or Kathy's family On Housewives of NJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.98.249 (talk) 05:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for questions about using Wikipedia. Please consider asking this question at the Entertainment reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unverified statements and potential correction?

In a page on which I have recently been working there are two particular statements which are potential problems. Against a heading of "Famous people with a connection to Charlton Kings" are two entries without verifiable references. "James Gill occasionally visits Charlton Kings." "Corrinne Wicks, is an actress from Cheltenham." There is a disambiguation page for James Gill. Corrinne Wicks has a page about her. In respect of James Gill this could be a person on the disambiguation page, someone else entirely, or just someone making a personal statement about themselves. In respect of Corrinne Wicks there is no verifiable evidence cited of her connection to Charlton Kings. A search on Google confirms Cheltenham link but so far has not yielded anything about a Charlton Kings link. How is this kind of entry to be dealt with apart from the 'review history' record which can make this kind of problem visible? Sjeans (talk) 08:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These are unsourced pieces of information which means that they can be removed at any point by someone who challenges or questions their validity. So one option is simply to delete them. It looks like you've gone the extra mile and have attempted to search for sources on Google and that's commendable. If you can find sources to add then that would be another solution, but failing this there is also a middle-of-the-road approach available by inserting "{{Citation needed}}" (everything between the quotation marks) after the unverified claims. This flags the claims for other editors as needing sources and allows editors who are potentially familiar with good sources to link them. This is all available without using the 'view history' option.

An examination of the article's history can be revelatory in such cases, though. In the case of James Gill, for instance, I can see that this information was added to the article by User:82.69.6.125 in this edit. Judging by this editor's talk page, it looks like he has a history of vandalizing the Charlton Kings article. So I'd be suspicious of this addition. As for Corrinne Wicks, the history reveals that she was added by User:Ashayler in this edit. This appears to have been User:Ashayler's only edit so there is little information to go on. You could try to write to this editor to ask for a reference source, but considering that the person hasn't edited since September 2011, this may be pointless. -Thibbs (talk) 12:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help Sjeans (talk) 12:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New to Wikipedia editing

I was going through a list of different wikis out there and noticed that rickipedia was not listed. Rickipedia is a wiki about the Mummy Franchise. How do I add to this chart? Thank you, Felix Fllopez (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

In order to be included in the list, a stand-alone article should exist on the site first, and for that to happen, it needs to be notable such that it warrants being the topic of an article (i.e., it needs to have been the subject of significant treatment in published, reliable sources that are independent of it, and from which material can be synthesized and cited to write an article with verifiable information) and then someone has to have the inclination and ability to write that article. In point of fact, there are many thousands of wikis that are not included in that list, most of which are not notable at all, as we use that word here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A tool maybe?

Is there a way for me to view the distribution of my edits throughout Wiki. I want to know how many edits I have done to various different pages.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 10:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go to your contributions then scroll to the bottom of the page and then click on "Edit count". If you want to know what edits you've made to a particular page, you can use the User Contribution Search tool; if you want to see a page's history without isolating your edits from others but in comparison, you can use the Page History Statistics tool.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikichecker is a useful tool; however, it doesn't work 100% of the time. Sometimes I need to refresh the page a couple of times are press the back button on my browser and click the link again. It will show you what day of the week you make the majority of your edits and how many edits you have made each day. It also has information about the distribution of your edits and your top edited pages. Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check this out: http://wikidashboard.appspot.com/enwiki/wiki/User:AnkhMorpork# --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

deleting

How do I delete a page from Wikipedia that was produced ages ago. I need to replace the whole page with up to date information and new logo. I am employed by the organisation Round Square. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Admarkroundsquare (talk • contribs) 11:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really it needs to be edited from where it is. It's a year and a half old~, infrequent edits, and very stable. Be careful explaining changes (see Help:Edit summary), and do not remove sourced content without a clear improvement, update, or talk page consensus. Since you state they employ you, you also need to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Dru of Id (talk) 11:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The user has been blocked for a spamusername. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlist

Is there a way of viewing your watchlist by page instead of recently changed? MrLittleIrish ^(talk) © 13:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By clicking the "View and ddit watchlist" link you can see which pages you have listed broken down into alphabetical in several categories. also known as Special:EditWatchlist IIRC. 2eschew surplusage (talk) 13:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

user:js/watchlist is a script including an option to sort watched pages by namespace number and then by page title. It also includes the possibility to quickly unwatch pages. See the description for how to install it. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 13:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reference

For the article Ra.One, there had initially been a reference from a reliable source - a print magazine The Week. I had come across an article which had this URL. Very, very inconveniently, the article has decided to go poof. Its gone, vanished, and has left me in the lurch because a lot of valuable information from this article had been used. I'm at a serious problem, as I could do with the details. The magazine is a print magazine, so I guess the content could be available in a respective print edition; the problem being, I can't find the edition on Google. I endear somebody to help search for the older edition.

The details of the article are :-

Title - Khan, Super Khan

Author - Ruma Malia

Date - November 2, 2011

I'd be hugely obliged. Thanks in advance! ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 15:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to have a weblink to the article if it's in a print magazine. Simply citing the print magazine is sufficient to satisfy WP:V. The ease of verifying the information and indeed the access level aren't at issue for Wikipedia. I've located a copy of the text in a Google cache and I can paste it on your talk page if you are interested. But if you are just concerned with linking it in the article, rest assured that a working weblink is not a requirement for a print source. -Thibbs (talk) 20:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You did? How awesome! Please do paste it on my talk page, so that I can verify whether I have missed anything. Thanks so much, you've lifted a great burden :D. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 06:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Love dont live here anymore

Wiki love doesnt seem to love me anymore. It keeps comming up with "invalid template" (in the actual error message there are angle brackets instead of quotes). I had this issue multiple times yesterday trying to award a barnstar, and today trying to give someone some strawberries. Grrr! FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which exact templates were you using? The barnstar for User:Dsp13 appears to be working. -Thibbs (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism, too broad a term?

Sometimes I think that different terms should be used for the two following situations.

I'm editing Elephant to change the entire article to "Francis Miccel stinks"
My organization Mu Mu Mu considers the fact that the name comes from "Moose Might Meld" to be private to the organization even though it was published in the New York Times in 1896. Before Wikipedia, this was totally obscure, but Wikipedia has increased the number of people outside the group who know this ten thousand fold. So any time that the article on Mu Mu Mu is unprotected, this fact is deleted by a Mu Mu Mu member.

Is there a better name for the second?

In my opinion, in the second case it's still a vandalism (since it's the removal of actual factual information, properly sourced) motivated by an editor lacking the requisite NPOV. We can't prove motivation; we can show vandalism. Some editors, however, might argue that it's a content dispute/edit war. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would be more inclined to call it an edit war and thus a disruption. There are legitimate reasons why an entity (especially a living person) might want certain verifiable information excluded from Wikipedia, but because Wikipedia abides by a set of rules that dictates full reporting, the only good way to prevent this information from being restored is to make a formal complaint to the WikiMedia Foundation asserting a legal claim to privacy in this case. Edit warring is really unproductive. It's like trying to prevent the spread of libel by burning down the newspaper stand. -Thibbs (talk) 20:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One reason that I would like the answer is the three reversion rule. If the second is Vandalism, then 3rr doesn't apply. If it isn't Vandalism, you are.Naraht (talk) 20:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Well if you've warned the editor that you consider his blanking to be vandalism and he persists without discussing it then I think you'd be justified in treating it as "obvious vandalism" and reverting. Keep in mind, though, that this is unlikely to solve the underlying issue. I'd argue that you shouldn't get in trouble for that, but there's no guarantee that all administrators will agree with your determination that it was vandalism and you might end up getting a block for violating 3RR even if you considered it vandalism. Really a much better step if discussion has reached its limit is to contact an administrator at WP:AN3 or at WP:AN/I. -Thibbs (talk) 20:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been locked at various times over the issue and almost all of the "Vandalism" edits have come from IP editors. Discussion has already occured on the talk page and the current situation is the consensus. I both looking for terminology and feelings on the 3RR in this situation.Naraht (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are justified in reverting multiple IPs that continually blank the same information from the article provided that the issue has been discussed. They would seem to have the strong appearance of being the same person. If you've warned the person on their talk page and on the article's talk page that this material has been determined by consensus to be proper for inclusion and that blanking it is considered vandalism, then you should be OK considering it "obvious vandalism" (a 3RR exception). But again just because it's justifiable doesn't mean it's advisable. I would council taking the matter to WP:AN3 or WP:AN/I. Hitting the revert button over and over is not a good solution even if it may be allowable. -Thibbs (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding on the sentiment in Thibbs' post immediately above, vandalism can be contextual. If a person blanks for a putatively valid reason, that is not vandalism because there's no bad intent (though people are well advised to always leave an edit summary on such edits or it will be assumed otherwise), but once they have been warned, or consensus is clearly against them and they continue with that knowledge, the very same edit, for the very same underlying reason, is transformed into vandalism. To put a fine point on it, if a person made what looks like a perfectly legitimate edit if viewed in a vacuum, but the context is that they have been warned three times that a discussion was closed finding against the addition of the material, I would consider that simple vandalism and would refuse a block on the basis of 3RR no matter the number of reverts. The distinction I am drawing is that it does not need to have the appearance of "obvious vandalism", such as blanking, for me to consider it obvious vandalism indeed, for purposes of applying the 3RR exception. However, you have to realize that some admins might apply the rule reflexively; it's no fun being already behind a 3RR block and arguing nuance of whether or not something was or was not obvious vandalism.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From Thibbs's "I think you are justified in reverting multiple IPs that continually blank the same information from the article provided that the issue has been discussed. They would seem to have the strong appearance of being the same person.". I disagree, multiple brothers of "Mu Mu Mu" are likely to edit to remove that information since that information is considerred secret to the fraternity by all of them.Naraht (talk) 16:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like Fuhghettaboutit said, vandalism can depend on context:

If someone who knows the general consensus at an article persists in making edits contrary to this consensus then they are vandalizing regardless of how many different IPs he uses.
If a newcomer who is unaware of the prior consensus is editing in good faith then he is not vandalizing even if he is making edits similar to those that vandals have made.
If you are unsure whether or not the edits are vandalism then it is safest from a 3RR perspective to treat the edits like non-vandalism and instead use discussion to solve the problem.
If you are sure the edits are vandalism then you can revert them without worrying much about 3RR.
If this is a long-running issue and you need help to determine whether or not the edits are vandalism you should try posting at WP:AN/I, and if you need help to determine whether or not the edits constitute disruptive edit warring then you should try posting at WP:AN3. If you are posting to either of the previously mentioned boards then I'd recommend using details from the actual disagreement rather than using a hypothetical scenario because a determination of vandalism very often depends on the specific context.

Does that cover everything you needed? -Thibbs (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has its own meaning not strictly analagous to the real world one here. Leavesteps789 (talk) 04:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that vandalism may seem too broad word for some edits. New words could be created. HOMER (Human Observed Modification or Edit Revision), dreadit (disruptive edit) Fredit (frustrating edit), etc.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

trying to do an Afd

I've done stages 1 & 2 without problem, bt when I follow the instructionss by usg subst ...on the aricles for dscussion page, ll that hppens is that the reason for proposed deletion appears, sans header &c. I'm sure I'm missing something terribly obvious, but what?? TheLongTone (talk) 17:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. You were missing the template: {{subst:afd2 | pg=PageName | cat=Category | text=Why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~ copy that to the nomination page and then you just type the reason in the text= field, and set the pg=pagename to the article you are nominating, and if possible the category (but that isn't critical). If you plan to make frequent AfD nominations, you may want to consider one of the tools like Twinkle that can do most of the nomination process for you, only requiring you to provide the reason for deletion. Monty ₈₄₅ 17:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that is what I though I was doing, cut & pasted from the instructions page, which makes no mention of the last two parameters.TheLongTone (talk) 17:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confusing Monty's code from step II with the code in step III. You did step I and III at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to nominate a single page for deletion correctly. The problem was step II where you omitted the code mentioned by Monty when you created the page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mattress World of Michigan. The code is on the instruction page. It creates a heading and it is this heading which is then transcluded together with the rest in step III, causing an entry in the table of contents at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 26. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll use Twinkle the next time I try to do his: I'll read the instructions (yet) again, but I got the impression that one clicks the link in the afd notice & that does itTheLongTone (talk) 18:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It only does it automatically if you click the "Preloaded debate" link (no longer displayed) on the nominated page, as described in the step II instructions. I guess you didn't click that link when you created the nomination page. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Password

I wanted to edit an article and i asked for an updated password for my user name. It must have been sent to some now forgotten email account, because I don't see an email anywhere. I have since found my original password. Can anything be done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.118.117 (talk) 17:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The original password will still work if the emailed password isn't used. Just log in normally and set a current email address at Special:Preferences. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People by century

Category:21st-century American people and Category:20th-century American people are both Category:Container categories and now contain only subcategories; should Category:19th-century American people and so on be similiarly classified as being container categories ? what about Category:19th-century Austrian people, Category:19th-century Armenian people etc. Thanks GrahamHardy (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense to me to do that if it's possible. It's certainly tidier than having multiple pages (200+) people all crowded into a parent category when more specific subcategories exist. At a certain point you may see diminishing returns for your efforts, though. If the parent category only has a handful of entries then it might be preferable to leave it as is. It's a matter of editorial discretion I'd say - a judgment call. -Thibbs (talk) 20:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just found Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 28#20th and 21st-century people by nationality and it appears that the rationale is to containerize them all, can I go ahead and do this ?...GrahamHardy (talk) 10:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Assuming you've not heard any recent discussion arguing against it, I think you'd be doing Wikipedia a great service if you tackled the job. The nominator's rationale from the CfD you posted would apply with equal force to the 19th-century people categories. I think it's a much tidier solution than what we currently have. Thanks for offering to take on this job. -Thibbs (talk) 13:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All I'm planning to do is to add a Container category tag to them and remove the individual articles - I'm not planning to create sub-categories for them to be put in ! Thanks GrahamHardy (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changes made between revisions

Why have you made it so much more difficult to see the changes made by revisions? The previous system of putting the changed text in red was much clearer.Mark126 18:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are likely to get a better answer to this question if you post it at WP:VPT instead. --Jayron32 19:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets has the option "Display diffs with the old yellow/green colors and design." PrimeHunter (talk) 19:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For registered users only. I for one prefer staying the hell away from the toxic drama that is the Wikipedia community and am therefore stuck with whatever the community of "established" users agrees upon as the standard interface. Ah well, anyone knows that IP editors are regarded as third class denizens anyway. Just another brick in the wall that used to be an open door known as anyone can edit. --213.168.72.198 (talk) 21:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This and many other things regarding the software is actually decided by developers and not users. There have been some protests at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Diffs. Most registered users have never made an edit. If you register an account then it's still completely voluntary what you do, and customization options is only one of the benefits. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the page warning prospective registrants of the drawbacks? --213.168.72.198 (talk) 22:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You could write the page – but only registered users can create pages in the Wikipedia namespace... PrimeHunter (talk) 02:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could request the page (not the content) to be created by someone else. I could then add content, plenty of it. But there's no way in hell the community would ever prominently link to such an essay from the registration page, regardless of how well-written and validly argued. --87.79.130.182 (talk) 11:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was the first discussion I saw a link to, if it has any information the other one didn't.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incremental search suggestions

I've wondered for some time now how the ranking in Wikipedia's search suggestions (the "typeahead" suggestions which come up when you start typing in the search box) comes about. Are the suggestions sorted strictly by number of searches and/or article hits, or are there other parameters? --213.168.72.198 (talk) 21:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe plain old fashioned alphabetical order is the primary sort criterion. Roger (talk) 06:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try entering "por". The suggestion Portugal is listed long before Pornography. It's clearly not alphabetical, at least not exclusively. --195.14.222.182 (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I 'think that article hits is the method in use. Mjroots (talk) 07:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Also, it just occured to me that I'm a dummy. I could have tested that by writing down ordered lists of suggestions and then crosschecking them with the hits for those articles. I'll do that now. --87.79.130.182 (talk) 11:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

skin pressure

I have been having problems in do behalf of air flow i believe it is flowing out of my body of my legs and my shoulder blade area and was not sure of what should be done and their is also alot of pressure feeling like fluids of some sort their as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.250.21.33 (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but we cannot offer medical advice. Monty ₈₄₅ 21:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not give medical advice. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this is just a general question about how the human body works, you should try posting at Wikipedia:Reference desk. Good luck. -Thibbs (talk) 21:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]