Entertainment desk
< November 18	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 20 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference 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 reference desk pages.

November 19[edit]

Where to find clear sound effects preview of dot matrix police station sound effects[edit]

Where can i find a clear preview of the a dot matrix police station sound effects? Sounddogs and Audionetwork have them like they are crappy recordings, anywhere other then audiosparx, which is not working for me where i can find those? for instence, police station detectives department spiratic activity..., every time i try other sights, it brings up things like police cars and stuff like that. Can you help me here? I don't wanna download anything until i hear a clear clear recording of it. N.I.M. (talk) 02:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything unusual about the sound of the dot matrix printers that they have in police stations compared with other dot matrix printers? If not, maybe something like this would suffice? --Frumpo (talk) 14:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you perhaps thinking of the old Teleprinter (teletype) machines? Rmhermen (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson Replaced-Lisa Marie Presley Married Replacement-Part 2[edit]

That's enough of that

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

My question is why does Wikipedia assume that is Michael Jackson when there is lots of information out there and people who question if that was Michael Jackson. Why isn't the concern addressed in the article? If that was not Michael Jackson then the entire article is a lie. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is responsible for reporting factual history as all encyclopedias are. One hundred years from now how will the people of that time know people questioned who the man was who died June 25, 2009, married twice and has three children.

If that is not Michael Jackson, where is he, is he married and does he have any children? Many questions arise requiring answers if that was not Michael Jackson. And just because Onion News is satire doesn't mean the information is not accurate anymore than when you read something in a tabloid, that doesn't mean it's not true because it's in a tabloid. I find it surprising that Onion News was brave enough to discuss the subject and ask why other members of the news media did not say something as well.

Obviously, a man who goes from being black to being white and looking totally different at the end of the thing requires some investigation. I mean that's just good law enforcement to make sure you're burying the guy you say you're burying. I don't think it's been answered yet that that is Michael Jackson and my point is I don't think encyclopedias should stand solid on an article about Michael Jackson until they know that is him they're talking about. From my reading of Wikipedia's article they are stating as fact that was Michael Jackson. There are questions out there about who that was, I don't think any encyclopedia at this point can stand solidly on an article about Michael Jackson to say that was him.

The real facts of Michael Jackson's life are being discussed in reference to someone who looked nothing like him. Are Michael Jackson's early days that man's history or someone else's? Are his achievements those of the man who died in 2009 or are those the achievements of another man? What if the real Michael Jackson shows up someday asking why history recorded this man under his name? My question: Your article reads as if you are sure that is Michael Jackson, was that Michael Jackson? Was Michael Jackson accused of child sexual abuse or was that someone else? Did Michael Jackson die from cardiac arrest or was that someone else? Was Dr. Murray Michael Jackson's physician or was he someone else's physician? Does Michael Jackson have three white children or does someone else, a white man living as Michael Jackson have three white children? When things like this happen someone has to care enough to ask questions. If that was not Michael Jackson, wherever he is, I hope he knows some people care enough to demand answers.

I am saying there is an investigation concerning the identity of Michael Jackson and encyclopedias need to be aware of that. I know Michael Jackson personally and had just seen him looking as he always looked when a few days later another man who looked nothing like him was saying he was Michael Jackson. I reported it to law enforcement who started an investigation. I know the man who died in 2009 was not Michael Jackson. I also know the man who married Lisa Marie Presley and Debbie Rowe was not Michael Jackson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.145.222.142 (talk) 04:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look, lets make this real simple. There are all sorts of people who believe all sorts of really insane things. Occasionally, some of the insane things become themselves notable, but are not covered as being possibly true, but rather as being insane, but notable, things. Consider Flat Earth Society, or Paul is dead, or Moon landing conspiracy theories. No one outside of the lunatic fringe believes that the world is flat, or that Paul McCartney died and was replaced by a body double in the mid 1960's, or that NASA faked the moon landings. However, the fact that enough people believe this stuff means that Wikipedia reports on that belief. The deal with the "Michael Jackson died a long time ago and was replaced by a white guy" is that it is neither possibly true, NOR is it a significant conspiracy theory. It's such a minor issue that it isn't even worth reporting on. That's because, outside of you here, and some really wacky blogs, no one else is reporting on the phenomenon, "or on the belief in the phenomenon either". --Jayron32 04:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32, I am shocked you are sure that was Michael Jackson. You are an editor for Wikipedia? I am part of the news media, I don't think your opinion as a writer for an encyclopedia should enter into this. I mention my own eyewitness account and a law enforcement investigation and you throw it aside as tabloid fodder? Perhaps Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia but a tabloid. I withdraw the question, Wikipedia is not qualified to answer it they have writers and editors who state their opinions as facts.

Jayron32's Wikipedia user page: Welcome to my userpage. I am an administrator and editor here at Wikipedia. My main interests are geography (especially places I have lived, like New Hampshire and North Carolina), sports (especially American football), chemistry, history, and music. If you have any questions or comments, please leave them at my talk page.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.145.222.142 (talk) 05:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I've already told you. This is an open encyclopedia. Anyone is free to edit and change Wikipedia articles if they want to, but any changes they make have to be backed up by verifiable sources. You can, if you so wish, add all your speculation to the Michael Jackson article. But I can guarantee you it'll be removed by someone else within a few minutes. Why? Not because there's some kind of conspiracy of silence against your theories, but because you have nothing to back them up. You say you have "information". Fine, let's hear where you got it from. --Viennese Waltz 05:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your question, Viennese Waltz, I don't intend to add anything to the article and I never said that. I had a question of Wikipedia as to their content, there is nothing I want to add to the article. And why do you editors get so snap-fire angry, or is it just when questions are asked about Michael Jackson? I've not been rude to anyone but I keep getting these snap-fire comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.145.222.142 (talk) 06:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Please note that not every comment needs a new section.)

You don't intend to add anything to the article. That's great. What exactly is your question? The reference desk isn't for random speculating about stuff...especially stuff that no reliable source has given any significant attention to. It's for asking questions. You seem to be using it for a generic conspiracy forum. --Onorem ♠Dil 06:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) First off, you don't need to keep making a new section on this page every time you want to say something. Just carry on writing in the existing section. Secondly, what you wrote above doesn't make sense. Wikipedia content is not "theirs", it's yours. You're an editor just as much as anyone else. If you don't like the article because you don't think it reflects the true story of Michael Jackson, then you're free to change it. If there's nothing you want to add, what point are you really making? --Viennese Waltz 06:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did ask the question and more than once, nevermind, misunderstood what this reference desk is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.145.222.142 (talk) 06:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I did miss that there were questions to start off the original section #2.

Why does Wikipedia assume that is Michael Jackson when there is lots of information out there and people who question if that was Michael Jackson?

Because there isn't a lot of 'reliable' information out there and the people who question it seem to have no actual evidence to back it up.

Why isn't the concern addressed in the article?

Because the concern isn't covered by any reliable sources. Until it's covered in actual sources, it doesn't belong in the articles here. --Onorem ♠Dil 06:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I already answered these questions in part 1 of the thread up above. --Viennese Waltz 06:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to take my questions to the founder of Wikipedia, Mr. Wales, but I think you answered what I was asking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.145.222.142 (talk) 06:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The original poster's comment about The Onion gives an 85% probability that he or she is a troll, but in case you are not, original poster, see Wikipedia:Verifiability. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Wikipedia is not a real encyclopedia. I will let the professional community know that. Support from the professional business community has been responsible for much of Wikipedia's success. I'm sure Mr. Wales will be happy to know you put him out of business. You should also note Mr. Wales' words at Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks.

Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.145.222.142 (talk) 06:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Closer TNT Series[edit]

Where can we find gifts or merchandise related to this show other than DVDs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.51.80.127 (talk) 09:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

video host sites[edit]

3 or 4 years ago subscribed to a video host site whose name I cannot remember. It was similar to Mr Skin, but it dealt only with sexy scenes from movies,and it showed complete scenes rather than short clips. It also had an extensive list of actresses names which could be researched. Can you name this or any similar sites???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cm2219mm (talk • contribs) 14:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You asking the Wikipedia reference desk for help finding nudity/porn on the Internet? Seriously? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is that pathetic or just sad? HalfShadow 18:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both comments, but in particular the 2nd are out of line - please withdraw them. The OP is not asking for help in finding general sources of this sort of content but a particular website - this is a legitimate enquiry. Labels such as "pathetic" or "sad" are not cool - WP:NPA applies - if you don't have anything constructive to add, don't reply to the question. I will do some research and attempt an answer shortly. Exxolon (talk) 21:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CM2219mm - try copying and pasting 'related:www.mrskin.com' into a google search - this might bring up the site you are looking for, dig through the results. Exxolon (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand perfectly what the person is asking for. I wholeheartedly believe this is not the proper forum for doing so, though. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 23:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? If he'd subsituted "Mr CarChase" for "Mr Skin" and "car chase scenes from movies" for "sexy scenes from movies" would that have made it more acceptable? Exxolon (talk) 00:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology in Zork[edit]

Reading the pages about the series, but there's still something I don't get about it. All I know about the continuity and chronolgy in the series is that Zork Zero takes place before the Zork trilogy. I want to know more about which game takes place when. Could someone be nice and make something like Template:Metroid chronology or Template:Kingdom Hearts chronology in the series page, or somewhere else? Grey ghost (talk) 15:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There may not have been a consistant internal canonical chronology beyond the numbered games. The unnumbered Zorks were probably set "in the Zork universe" at an ideterminate time. --Jayron32 16:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must say that that is not entirely true. On The Open Directory Project, there is a few pages about Zork, including the chronology in the series. However, the lists about the chronology are incomplete and/or unclear. So that's why I'm asking about help here, instead. Grey ghost (talk) 07:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How can I play "Hot In Herre" with a soccer horn?[edit]

I saw one user use a vuvuzela (while no one else was using it, therefore, no cacaphony of noises), and the way he played it reminded me of the beat of Hot In Herre. I could almost swear that this Vuvuzela sound had something in common with Nelly's hit.

So how do I actually play Hot In Herre with the soccer horn? --129.130.252.148 (talk) 18:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A vuvuzela is basically plastic bugle, that is a valveless trumpet. You'd play it pretty much exactly as you'd play a bugle; the term for the technique of playing instruments like vuvuzela, bugle, and trumpet is called embouchure. Basically, by carefully controlling the tension on your lips and mouth as you vibrate your lips, you can generate different notes. Since Hot in Herre contains something like 5 different notes over a very small range, it should be easily playable on a vuvuzela. --Jayron32 20:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. Valveless "brass instruments" (which don't need to be made of brass), controlled only by the embrochure, have only a limited note control. As the article bugle notes, such instruments are limited to a particular harmonic series, and, unless you are very, very good with it, the lower, widely spaced end of it. Depending on how skilled you are, you can also bend each pitch a bit, perhaps a semitone or so. Pieces for bugles (such as Taps, see section Music) are written with this in mind, and only hit the notes in that series. Arbitrary intervals (especially closely spaced notes) aren't possible on valveless instruments - this is the reason for the valves: to change the length of the instrument, and hence which harmonic series you're choosing your notes from. -- 174.24.198.158 (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beatles now on iTunes, AC/DC not[edit]

I looked in the iTunes article but saw no obvious place to put this. iTunes Store comes closest, I guess, but I'm not quite sure what to do. I've seen headlines of several news articles online though I haven't actually read them there. Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thousands of artists are availible on iTunes, and probably thousands of others are not. I'm not sure its worth mentioning two of them specifically. --Jayron32 20:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Huckabee listed a number of people today on his radio show. Those are just examples. I'll see what the articles say.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made a discovery looking at the history. It turns out the artists are mentioned, but not in the text. There is a fancy footnote. And a comment that only appears to editors about not listing everyone.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]