Miscellaneous desk
< January 3	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 5 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous 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.

January 4

Baby Teeth vs. Permanent Teeth

How can you tell the difference between Baby and Permenant teeth? - A MoM —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.154.167.139 (talk) 00:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

No idea. Our article on baby teeth is at Deciduous teeth, fwiw. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Presumably a child's tooth would be much smaller than an adult's tooth --⁪froth^{T C} 01:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually not that hard after you have looked in a few mouths. When looking in the mouth of an older child, the secondary incisors have serrated edges and the baby teeth do not. The baby teeth include 2 molars in each quadrant but they are noticeably smaller than the newer secondary molars. alteripse 04:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The size diff is quite dramatic. It's easy to tell based on the size. StuRat 06:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones are secondary incisors?

I'm guessing Maxillary lateral incisor and Mandibular lateral incisor, since these are distal from the midline of the jaw; rather than the Maxillary central incisor and the Mandibular central incisor. --Tagishsimon (talk)

My ones of them aren't serrated, but my teeth between them at the top are. Is this also normal?Hidden secret 7 21:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joker meanings

What is the description of a news reporter's joker?

Your question is incomprehensible to me. Can you explain what you mean? JackofOz 03:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently he's lost interest. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to have my user name removed?

Is it possible to have my user page deleted? --GMS508 02:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably better to ask on the help desk. WP:HD BenC7 03:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about deleting your user page but to answer your first question no it is not possible to have your user name deleted as it would violate terms of the GFDL. See m:Right to vanish. --⁪froth^{T C} 04:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can have your user page deleted - can't remember how.. This will leave your user name 'red' - however your user name will obviously still appear in edits - as it does above.87.102.23.89 04:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for a 'Delete article' for your page should do it.87.102.23.89 04:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems one can have their name and account banned and blocked and protected indefinitely, which seems to be an effective (permanent) deletion... V-Man737 07:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

see Wikipedia:User page#How do I delete my user and user talk pages?. Jon513 16:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. corral

Why was the O.K. corral called the O.K? does anyone know what the OK stands for? Thanks - from a curious girl

We had this question (and answer) before. Anchoress 03:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! From now on I am naming all of my sources "sauce." V-Man737 07:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting sidenote: "sauce plz" is a very common way to ask for sources in certain places on the Internet. --W o o ty Woot? contribs 08:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sometime, in the future, they'll have an argument on the tenth-generation Wikipedia why the hell we suddenly changed source for sauce. 213.161.190.228 10:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Cleopatra was known to her intimates as "The Sauce of the Nile". :) JackofOz 20:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oho, you're a saucy boy! V-Man737 20:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's a wiki?

why do they call this wikipedia? what's a Wiki?

The articles on wikipedia and wiki have what you are looking for. Vespine 03:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quote I can't quite remember

There is a quote I'm trying to remember but it's just out of reach. I have done some google searches, but I must not be close enough to the original quote to bring up any relevant hits. From what I remember, it goes something like "Someone who has all friends, actually has no friends at all." or something like that. I would appreciate it if someone could help me find the original quote. Thanks for the help. --71.117.43.72 04:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a saying: He who seeks friends without faults will have no friends at all. Since it's a proverb, there's no original wording, so feel free to modify to your own taste. There's also a quote attributed to Doris Lessing based on that proverb: "Trust no friend without faults, and love a woman, but no angel."--Rallette 07:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THere is something wrong with that last quote. Surely most people loving a woman would be men.172.189.77.244 19:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Funding

Does anyone know how the wikimedia foundation manages to stay afloat? I don't imagine they get many donations except during fundraising drives like the one right now, and this drive will cap at 1.5 million. This page says that right now WP costs 75,000 per month to operate, but they plan to buy 1.7 million dollars of hardware next year. They're looking to increase their bandwidth bill tenfold and their payroll threefold, and sponsor an additional 300,000 dollars in events.. how can they afford all of this?! --⁪froth^{T C} 04:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They must get a considerable amount of donations year-round; otherwise... the end of the wiki. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 13:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a forward looking & aspirational budget. Based on the Christmas donation-fest, the foundation will not have sufficient funds to carry through its plans. As I understand it, the foundation has raised $850k in the last few weeks, and had about $500k in the bank. It'll have to do any of three things: pare back its aspirations; get the donation can out more regularly; or try to shake down some more servers from the likes of Yahoo or Google. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Hey, look at this! Someone donated over $250,000! | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 22:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that was the input of some matched funding. Not sure if it was from one or more than one source. I saw a note about it somewhere on the funding site but can;t find it right now. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Wikipedia could obtain billions in funding just by allowing content-related ads to appear when you go to an article. If you look up Hammer and ad for a hardware store would appear. Current policy is contrary to this, but the recent ad is a step down the slippery slope. Edison 15:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And think of the funding if we let companies write their own articles about themselves xD --⁪froth^{T C} 06:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Love

Hi

I fall in love with someone which i don't know physically or facially. I know her only through online chat room.But i love her very much. Is there any term, like sight lovet,hat expresses this kind of love?

Internet romance? Splintercellguy 08:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That term describes the situation, not the love. Long before the Internet, people fell in love while exchanging letters. You might call it "blind love", but most people will assume it means something else (such as senseless love). Additionally, I don't think that when you are in love, that what you're experiencing is love. Love and being-in-love are different things; each is possible without the other. --Lambiam ^Talk 17:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martial Art - Niyuddha-kride

I've seen 2 different descriptions of this martial art, where one describes it as a type of wrestling (http://www.pvv.org/~leirbakk/rpg/streetfighter/styles/sf_fightingartsofindiaandpakistan.html) and the other as a type of striking art (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Niyuddha-kride). As I have limited rsources, it would be muchly apprecited if someone could give me clear infomation or some links to this art, as much as possible too ;). Thankyou —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kachi (talk • contribs) 09:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Plymouth

How fast does a 1969 Plymouth Barracuda go?

Google is your friend. This sauce says that the top speed was 110 mph or 178 kmph depending on which part of the dial you're reading. Dismas|^(talk) 10:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This would depend on the engine and gearing. 110mph is a low top speed for a vehicle like that, but the source doesn't say anything about how they arrived at that number- it may be for a 6 cylinder engine rather than a v8. Friday (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

jan

where is jan 3?

Up there, just before America vs China. JackofOz 10:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of sounding obvious,have you tried looking between jan 2 and jan 4 :)? Lemon martini 17:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

on a calender. you're welcome.

London to New York via Royal Mail Airmail?

What are people's experiences with delivery time via the regular Royal Mail airmail London to NYC? is their official target of within 5 days more or less reliable? I'm curious... thanks! Bwithh 12:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The royal mail couldn't deliver something ten miles away in five days.172.189.77.244 20:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We got something from China to England in two days. Does this help?

I often experience 1 week timescales when dealing with the US (mostly Chicago). Considering it can be a week for mail to move inside the US, this isn't bad.Robovski 01:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three brains

what is it that is commonly mistaken for having 3 brains when it only has one?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.49.87.241 (talk • contribs)

Octopus?--Shantavira 15:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

three people172.189.77.244 20:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A vandal and his two sock puppets? V-Man737 21:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trademarking of colours

Whilst posting my parcels this morning,I saw this at the bottom of one of the leaflets 'ROYAL MAIL,the Royal Mail logo,the cruciform Royal Mail symbol AND THE COLOUR RED are trademarks of the Royal Mail and may not be used without their permission.'

Can someone please explain how on earth this is possible?How did they managed to convince someone legally that the colour red is their idea?Or is this statement just meaningless legally unenforceable gobbledegook?I'm curious as to how they'd even begin pursuing a case against someone for 'infringing their copyright on the colour red' :)

I've checked Trademark but nothing like this appeared there...

Lemon martini 17:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can register colour in a context as part of a trademark, such as Stelios' easyjet & easy???? orange (planes, car hire, cruise ships), none of which prevents Orange (phones) from sharing the colour. Looks like poor wording on the part of the royal mail. --Tagishsimon (talk)

There are trademarked colours out there. The specific colour make-up of the red of Royal Mail is probably what is trademarked (i.e. a specific pantone). The context of where it can be used is also key. Pantone 0607298 is a trademark of United parcel Service EDIT [ON READING THE BROWN PAGE I FIND THIS IS UNTRUE!]. Read trademark, patent, copyright for more insight, the rules vary and can be quite complex. ny156uk

(edit conflict!) "You can register a name, logo, slogan, domain name, shape, colour or sound.". Royal Mail haven't registered just any red, but the particular shade of red they use in that context. Cadbury have registered their purple colour. Harley Davidson have registered the sound produced by their engines. Orange would be prevented from using easyjet's orange, but free to use a different orange. I'm sure breaches would be dealt with as are any others. See non-conventional trademark for further info (which is linked right there in the introduction of trademark). Natgoo 17:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I was to do something in the same colours as were used in a book or film, could I be sued by its copywrite holder?

No. Trademark is not the same thing as copyright. --Carnildo 21:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

colours questions

Why is it that red means hot and blue means cold?

By association, I guess: because very hot things glow red, whilst ice tends to look a little blue?

Also cold causes people to go 'blue' due to blood flowing away from the skin (vasoconstriction) and turn red when they are hot (vasodilation).87.102.8.102 21:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the name for the shade of blue Copper Sulphate crystals are?

The anhydrous form of Copper(II) sulfate is a pale green or gray-white powder, while the hydrated form is bright blue. The archaic name for copper(II) sulfate is blue vitriol, which is possibly the answer you're looking for? --Tagishsimon (talk)

Why are pink things pink? Is it because they have less red colour in them, or an actual pink colour.

They reflect less red than a red thing that reflects more red. (the spectrum of reflected light contains a smaller spike of red than does the sp[ectrum reflected form a red thing) --Tagishsimon (talk)

There is no 'pink' as such - it's white with a little red - though near ultraviolet also appears pink.87.102.8.102 21:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is pink consedered inappropriate for boys?

Culture is an odd thing (and a thing, apropos nothing, that we appear to be blind to - at least, we're blind to the oddities our own culture). Our article Pink has this to say on the question:

The color pink is now associated with womanhood and little girls, just like light blue is associated with little boys and manhood. However, in 1918 "Infant's Department" (an industry publication) said the reverse was the "generally accepted rule", describing pink as "more decided and stronger" while blue was "more delicate and dainty" [1]. Pink continued to be used for both boys' and girls' clothing through the early 1960s, though it is becoming more and more associated with femininity.

--Tagishsimon (talk)

Why are white things white? Is there something in them that makes them appear this colour, or nothing in them to make them appear any other colour?

By & large, they reflect the whole spectrum of light without absorbing particular colours. It is the absorption of particular wavelengths in the spectrum that causes things to be coloured. I heartily commend our article Color to you. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Why are white things white? That's like asking why →this← word is a word. It just is. Vranak 22:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some white things (washing powder for instance) are white because the fluorescent chemicals inside them turn ultraviolet light into light in the visible spectrum; the famous advertising slogan "Washes whiter than white!" comes from these chemicals, which make the clothes glow in sunlight. Laïka 17:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

172.189.77.244 19:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So there is nothing in things like milk or white paint that makes them that colour?172.189.77.244 20:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is; there are proteins or pigments which reflect the whole spectrum of light. --Tagishsimon (talk)

White paint typical has chalk or titanium dioxide in which are both white.

Milk is white because it is an emulsion - the compounds in milk would be mostly colourless if they were not dispered.87.102.8.102 21:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what about white hair?Hidden secret 7 21:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current Purchase Cost of Future Pensions

Maybe this isn't the correct place to ask this, but I can't think of anywhere better, so here goes. My wife and I recently retired from the British Public Service, both aged 60, each with individual inflation-proof pensions, paid monthly; the survivor of either of us pre-deceasing the other will continue to collect 50% of the other's pension benefits for life thereafter. I get £12,000 pa, and my wife gets £9,000 pa, both before tax deductions (we also own our home and have several investments that will supplement our old-age over and above the pensions in question). And we will each collect the British State Pension at the relevant ages (Female 60 - Male 65), though that income should not affect the answer to my query. On the basis of the information given, I wonder if some clever and well-informed Wikipedian could tell me what the approximate cost in cash at today's predictable inflation rate would be to buy such pension benefits given whatever the current actuarial statistics might forecast as our relative ages at death? We both enjoy good health at present but that should not form part of the calculations. And neither of us would re-marry. Any information forthcoming will NOT be used or quoted in any financial discussions or planning exercises - I am genuinely just curious. Thanks in anticipation for any answers . CasualWikiUser 20:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Wikipedia would carry a liability if we gave an answer to this, much like legal and medical questions. That said, I'm now into those calculations myself, and they're a bitch! --Zeizmic 19:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Zeizmic, I appreciate your help. And I unreservedly and publicly exonerate and release you and Wikipedia from any responsibility or Liability in respect of any attempts to answer my foregoing pension-related question. Thanks again. CasualWikiUser 20:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Present Value calculation - if you use Excel there is even a built-in function for it: =PV(5%,20,-12000,0,1) where: 5% is the estimated inflation rate

      20 is the number of years you have left on the twig
      12000 is your yearly pension
      0 is the amount left when you drop of said twig
      1 is to do with when during the year you get the money

Get a good accountant and the numbers would be a little more precise, but with 5% inflation 12000pa = 157000 now. PS. Your cricket team is stuffed already. 12/2 after 5 overs!!!

Hand to hand combat

In some martial arts, students are taught a "special move" that suppsedly kills the opponent in one hit. Usually when I hear about this, it is in the form of a palm-heel to the nose, ramming the ethmoid bone into the brain, causing immediate death. Is that really fatal the way combat enthusiasts insist it is? (The article on the ethmoid bone describes that injury, but does not say if it is fatal.) V-Man737 20:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the answer to that precise question but I have seen that blow being demonstrated when doing martial arts training myself - the only difference being that the instructor, a 6th Dan I think, continued sliding the palm of his hand up the face after striking the nose as described above, sufficiently high enough to permit him to grab a good handful of the recipient's hair and holding on tight, and then to drag the head downwards until the already damaged nose came into violent contact with the hair-grabber's raised and ascending knee. If not altogether fatal, the results would be indescribably dangerous, damaging, and painful.

This sounds like the 'handshake' I read about once, but then he shut the other guys nose in a book instead.

Evidence of the evolutionary value of a receding hairline. Indeed, I theorized with my friend that perhaps this single strike could be eventually fatal via loss of blood, but I was met with insistence that a bone enters the brain and causes immediate death. I asked for sauce, but for some reason the onus was put on me. V-Man737 20:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there also a way to strike the chest so as to stop the heart? | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 22:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like in Kill Bill? Doubt it :) --⁪froth^{T C} 08:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So far it's all sounding like urban legends to me. I NEED SAUCE!! V-Man737 22:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.Coolsnak3 22:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No, the nose bones are not strong enough to break through the skull, they would shatter. I would bve very painful, but not fatal.

Surely it would be much easier just to shoot them.Hidden secret 7 21:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would a penetrative wound to the brain (if possible) be fatal in that section of the brain? I don't get the impression that theres core brain mechanisms behind there which would be destroyed (unlike for example in the brain stem). And the shards wouldn't be that long, and would not be pushed further in than the surface of the face, which is already some distance from the interior cavity and the brain material itself. hard to see it being fatal unless you do a lot more damage, but thats me as a non-biologistt's thoughts. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that people routinely undergo a frontal lobotomy is what mostly drives my skepticism. V-Man737 00:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What most martial arts courses won't teach you is that there is a special move known to some as the "Touch of Death." I will not reveal the secrets of the Touch of Death here, because its power is too great. I will say though that a trained practitioner can use it to manipulate the life-force of his enemy, instantly killing them. At the very least, the target is put into unconsciousness. It's a vicious move, and is frowned upon even by the highest of martial arts masters. It's widely considered a "dark art", but some practice it for good purposes. However, many claim that using it leads to the very evil that they are trying to prevent. Because people who know the touch of death often kill others who know it as to secure their power, there isn't much documentation of the methods outside the windswept mountains of China and Japan, which house many of the old martial arts masters. I suppose that's a good thing; if the "Average Joe" knew how to perform the move, the results could be devastating. Even though the move takes years of practice to master, the idea that an average person could learn it is frightening to say the least. I hope that helped clear things up. .V. 07:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

;_;Sauce... V-Man737 20:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that link (Wikipedia as a press source.) If you're looking for a source, my friend, you may be biting off more than you can chew. Sure, walk the streets of cosmopolitan New York asking about this. Maybe among the business-suited crowd you can find some fellow who'll think about it for a few seconds, then dismiss it as fanciful. If you want to know the real story, you'll need to go to the only source that exists: the masters of the ancient unarmed fighting arts. Perhaps when you ask, you'll see a smile appear on their wrinkled face. Perhaps they'll say, "Young one, there is no touch of death. The touch itself is death" before escorting you to the exit of their dojo. Or maybe you'll stumble upon an aspiring practitioner of the dark arts, who might see you as just another instance to practice his death-touch. After all, how many lone travelers are discovered dead from unknown causes on a seldom-used mountain trail? More than you think. A lot more. Many have tried to learn the secret of the touch of death, but then again, many have failed... and in this case, failure means death. You can take the risk, but I caution you -- you may be meddling with forces that are beyond your comprehension. .V. 07:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me of Bullshido :o --⁪froth^{T C} 08:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to say that. Although it's best that people live in their own world, unaware of the power that lies beyond it. It's much easier that way, isn't it. .V. (talk) 09:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to put something here, but I think it will lead to lots of unwanted questions, so I will just say this. Learning 'martial arts' is mostly just a way of tricking people into thinking you can defend yourself.Hidden secret 7 20:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple sex partners

What is the exact proportion of population in the US, UK etc.. that have multiple sex partners? How is that different from treatment of marriage in Islam i.e. one man having a number of wives? 20:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)~~

Interesting question, I can't tell you the exact numbers of people who have multiple sex partners but I'll give my opinion on the second part of your question. Firstly, if you define multiple sex partners as having them during the same period of time, then I think it isn't really that high, not in my demographic anyway, most people in developed countries will have had more then one sex partner in their life but not at the same time. The people that do would be called promiscuous and the people who do it while raising a family at the same time would be cheaters, no doubt it does happen but it is not socially acceptable in the western world. Secondly, in the west, females are as free to have multiple sex partners as males, in my experience, where as it is my understanding a woman is likely to be stoned to death or otherwise murdered if she attempted anything of the sort in Muslim culture. Those are the differences immediately obvious to me at least. Vespine 21:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty bold statements there Vespine. I'd add the word "most" to a lot of your statements above. Most people that do would be called promiscuous and most people who do it while raising a family at the same time would be cheaters, no doubt it does happen but it is for the most part not socially acceptable in the western world. Though a small percentage of the overall population, there are people in consensual polygamous relationships, though this is largely frowned upon by both church and civil authorities. Grutness...wha? 23:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a good sub-question: Why do polygamous groups make the news, but people who merely engage in sexual activities with multiple partners don't? The intuition here is that marriage is a way to make sex legit, and extramarital sex is a less-than-legit thing. Better question: If the government makes polygamy illegal, why not multiple sex partners in general? V-Man737 23:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

V-Man737, the issues that make polygamy newsworthy and reprehensible in our part of the world (British Columbia) are not the legality or morality of multiple partners, but rather the human trafficking, incest, child sexual abuse, child abuse, neglect, and slavery that are corrolary. I speak, of course, of Bountiful, British Columbia. Anchoress 22:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course I agree Grutness!:) I try to speak in as general terms as I can and yes, most definitely fits into where you placed it. Typically I do not expect people to read things like what I have written to mean "absolutely every single person down to the last individual" just because I didn't say "most". Whenever you are describing any culture or group, you can only ever speak in generalities. Even to say humans have two eyes and ten fingers is only a generality, just as I am sure there would even be exceptions to monogamous women in Muslim culture, but those are exceptions. Vespine 00:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might find Polyamory interesting, as a starting point, although it describes a viewpoint on long term relationships that different people may or may not have. A lot depends what kind of "multiple sex partners" you count. Cheating, swinging, two long distance boyfriends (or one at college, one at home) when studying, holiday romances, things that happened once and not again... it varies so much. And of course, like you would expect, a great many are either not in a sexual relationship, or only have one partner.

Because it varies a lot, the "difference with Islam" will also vary a lot. I imagine people who follow Islam sometimes have multiple partners, or cheat, or are monogamous, and so on. So in a way what you are asking is, "how does this mixed up list vary from that mixed up list". I don't see that this question can be meaningfully answered until you make it clearer what exactly you are asking. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whats the difference between the attitude of one country exposing every weakness and the others who do things under the name of religion? Does the country that exposes thereafter takes the responsibility for the downtroden. 20:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)~

A question for anyone who has taken time to upload information to Wikipedia

Hi, I'm researching motivations for voluntary action and you guys have given time to upload information to this site. My questions how are: Why? What was your motivation? (no matter how weak any feeling was, there's probably some driving motivation) Do you volunteer for other causes? What do you think caused this site to create such a huge following? Thank you

About your first question, it's very simple: I think knowledge is the most important thing we (humans) have, so I try to perpetuate, distribute and achieve as much as I can of it. — Kieff 21:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If an article strikes me as both important and lacking, I will modify it. Vranak

If there is something I know that Wikipedia doesn't have, I'll add it, even though there isn't any personal gain. I personally don't volunteer for other causes. Finally, this site has a large following for one reason: most people like to contribute to something others can use; it's psychology from back in the caves. :-) | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 22:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like to show off and annoy other people with my superior knowledge

Lambian's link is interesting. Of the various possible motivations put forward in that article, the one that comes closest to describing my own reasons for contributing is Sense of Efficacy. But mostly I just contribute because it is fun. And no, I don't volunteer for other causes. Gandalf61 10:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think because I use Wikipedia for information the idea that I should update/improve the parts I know about makes me more confident that others will too (and thus when I use it it will be more accurate/in depth). The drive to volunteer is similar to the drive to work for money, the only difference is the return is not a monetary value. As Joey Tribbiani said in a Friends episode..."There are no good unselfish acts". I tend to agree (philosophically speaking) - there's more reward than money. Incidently I write a blog ocassionally, I post my photos on Flickr and i've even been known to submit an article to digg.com. They are, in a sense, volunteering, because I am provide site-viewers with content without being paid. ny156uk 17:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is content added?

My question is:

Is all of the information on Wikipedia manually typed in by the volunteers and users, or are there other methods used such as scanning in text, importing text from electronic encyclopedias, etc?

Thank you

Mostly by users, though there was once a bot that added in a series of geographic locations automatically - see User:rambot. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly typed in by volunteers, but cut & paste plagiarism from copyright and non-copyright sources does happen.--Measure 21:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anata wa jitensha dewa arimasen. V-Man737 21:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but was I supposed to understand? In other words, what does that mean, and what does it have to do with the question? | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 22:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ARGH. That was the result of an edit conflict... Someone had made a post in Japanese, and I responded (in Romaji). They were asking if they were a bicycle, and I reassured them of their non-bicycle nature. V-Man737 23:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

V-Man737さん、ありがと。わたしはむしんろんしゃですか。わたしはいちじはんですか。　＜＿＜　＞＿＞　すみません。

BJAODN, anyone? Grutness...wha? 23:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Almost, but not quite. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 16:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

V-man-san nan desu ka kudasai? Wintermut3 07:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watashi wa Engrish desu. V-Man737 21:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica was imported. Superm401 - Talk 00:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sup and sub on top of each other

Is it possible to have a section directly on top of a section? I don't think it is, but it would fit. Thanks! Reywas92^Talk_Sigs 22:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it would work. I've got them pretty close together here: User:Measure/test and the words look like they would overlap if they were any closer. --Measure 22:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like this:?

Do you mean Like this ???

Do ^{_{you mean}} _{^{Like this}} ???

It just seems to shrink the font - -87.102.23.224 22:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or you mean like this ???

Or ^{you mean _likethis} ???>

???87.102.23.224 22:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't this question do better at the help desk? | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 22:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It did reasonably well here. --Tagishsimon (talk)

I think he/she meant it like:

Is this what

you're looking for?

... But that's probably not practical enough. — Kieff 23:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That is a lotta sandboxin' under your belt. Props! V-Man737 23:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand now - sorry you must have meant C¹⁴₆ - but with the 6 under the 14 - didn't get it. Sorry I don't know how - the help desk is probably the place to ask about wiki syntax and markup.87.102.19.164 01:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

C_{n}^{k}

. like this - but more generally - does any one know?87.102.19.164 01:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about this: $_{Under}^{Over}$ ? StuRat 04:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or, we can also use the and tags to alter the height slightly: _{$_{Under}^{Over}$} $_{Under}^{Over}$ ^{$_{Under}^{Over}$}. StuRat 04:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University/college

In Canada, we generaly use the term university to refer to major educational institutions that grant bachelor (or higher) degrees. The term college is more loosly defined but usually refers to institutions that grant diplomas after 2-4 years of study. Two things that bug me: A) why do Americans use the term college (esp. college sports) to refer to even the most prestigious educational institutions? Why do so many institutions in Canada that offer only technical or trade training (as opposed to academics) call themselves a "college" or even "university"? Isn't there (or shouldn't there be) a legal definition of college/university? One more thing, can anyone tell me if ther are other "real" universities or colleges in the Greater Vancouver area other than the following: University of BC, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver Comunity College, BC Institute of Technology, Capilano College.

You may wish to review our article College#The_origin_of_the_U.S._usage, which contains your answer as to the US/Brit usage of the word! Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between "college" and "university" in U.S. usage. A university is generally made up of one or more colleges. For example, Harvard College is the undergraduate part of Harvard University. If Bard College had more than one college, it would be "Bard University." Americans use "college" to refer to higher education in general because not all higher-education institutions in the country are universities. The Commonwealth English expression "I'm going to university" sounds awkward to American ears. -- Mwalcoff 00:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and to Pittsburghese ears, anything other than "caw-edge" sounds strange. V-Man737 00:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Others in the area: Kwantlen University College, Langara College, University College of the Fraser Valley (slightly outside in Abbotsford, but there). Tony Fox (arf!)

University of Toronto is also made up of colleges. See The College System on their website. I'm guessing other large universities in Canada have colleges as well. I think the distinction you're thinking is for 'community colleges,' which are more oriented to diploma programs, and as the names above indicate, BC has university colleges to complicate matters. See here for the BC government's definitions and a listing of them all. Bobanny 04:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, our accepted usage differs again. An institute that teaches to degree level (and near-equivalents) may not have university status, but may instead be a college of higher education. Anyone of at least 18 yrs old (prodigies excepted, of course) would study there. Below that, 16-18 yr olds (and mature students, of course) attend colleges of further education. They are equivalent to the UK's sixth form system. Adrian M. H. 17:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

does the earth really rotate?? or is it a myth??

The earth is approx 24000 miles in circumference, which means if it does rotate once in 24 hours it should be travelling at roughly 1000 MPH from west to east.

Which means if a plane is travelling at say 600 MPH from west to east it would never get to its destination, likewise if it was travelling from east to west it would be travelling faster (ie) 600 MPH plane speed + 1000 MPH rotation = 1600 MPH.

Lets say the earth does rotate this means if I were to jump up in the air when i landed I would land further away from where I jumped this surely meand that the earth is static and the sun moon & stars rotate around it. stars

YES, it rotates that fast. NO, you'll land in the same spot because you will also be moving that fast, and since the air is also moving with you two, there's no resistance to slow you down. In the case of airplanes, (probably because of their high altitutude) it does make a difference, but not as big as you think. Crossing the Atlantic ocean in one direction only takes about an hour more than the other direction.

The only reason there's a difference at all is due to winds. For crossings between Europe and North America, eastbound flights can often take advantage of the eastbound jet stream, giving them an advantage in speed. The fact that the Earth is rotating and the bulk of the atmosphere along with it makes no difference to a plane. --Anonymous, January 5, 01:42 (UTC).

Question for science desk, but in a nutshell I'd say your issue deals with frame of reference. Fully reading that article should qualm your fears about the earth-rotation conspiracy theory. V-Man737 22:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a little experiment you can do. Get in a car, get someone to drive it along quite fast (the faster the better, well the more fun) Now through a ball up in the air. According to your argument above the ball should stay still relative to the ground which means that it should travel backwards inside the car. Try it! You can easily catch the ball. It does not travel backwards. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to impovise on this experiment. Try it in a train. Since the air inside the train is also moving with the ball and the train, it does not "slow the ball down" and make it land further back. Now, if you dare, try this experiment ON TOP of a moving train. Since the air OUTSIDE the train is NOT moving with the ball, it WILL slow the ball and make it land way farther back.

Of course the atmosphere does rotate along with the Earth. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would that be because of pressurization? | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 22:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be due to friction, that the atmosphere is carried along in rotation? If it weren't carried along, there would be a heck of a lot of friction between the ground and the air. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it weren't carried along there would be one hell of a wind at the equator. Whereas in actual fact we have the doldrums Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, when we launch rockets into space, we take advantage of the velocity imparted by Earth's rotation, and launch them eastward from points in lower latitudes, where available. That's why the US launches shuttles from Florida instead of New York or something, and why the Europeans launch rockets from French Guiana - see Escape velocity for more on this point. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. It's so much more plausible that the entire rest of the universe revolves and the Earth stands still. Of course, the more distant objects would have to travel faster than the speed of light, but that's just a minor detail. Clarityfiend 02:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The train examples may be misleading if the person throws the ball while the train is accelerating or decelerating or turning, which is quite frequent in metro trains, you should specify that the train has to be going at a constant rate, like the earth, for the experiment to work properly. Vespine 04:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Objective evidence that it is the Earth that is rotating and not the rest of the universe comes from the Coriolis effect and Foucault's pendulum. However, according to certain interpretations of Mach's principle, it may not make sense to ask whether the Earth is "really" rotating - all we can say is that the Earth is rotating relative to the fixed stars. Gandalf61 10:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silly law

There's a sign in my appartment building (in Vancouver, BC, Canada) that says: "Lighting and blackout regulations: all blinds must be drawn between dusk and sunrise" Is this stupid or what? The government can't tell me when to open and close my blinds! What about privacy? I'm not sure if this is set by the municipal, provincial, or federal gov't. Please tell me this law/regulation is one of the silly old ones that are never enforced...;;

It's to protect others from seeing you engaging in your preferred bedtime activities with the lights on silly!!!!!!!!

(Granted that the owner of your building might be the government) the rule is probably one set by the building owner, not by government. And there's probably a reason for it. As to whether it is enforced I couldn't conjecture. --Tagishsimon (talk)

The impending questions would then be: what about free speech? What if I WANT people to see me engaged in my preferred bedtime activities? V-Man737 22:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be advised not to have entered into a contract (e.g. a lease) with a covenant up with which you could not put. --Tagishsimon (talk)

The rule probably dates from WWII. I doubt that the building owner set it, and I doubt that it is enforceable. If you live in a condominium, check your bylaws. Anchoress 23:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You really should take a picture of that sign! It's a classic! --Zeizmic 23:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are not on the right track, the rule is probably made by the body corporate, or UK equivalent. What you can and can't do with windows is actually not uncommon in shared buildings like apartments and high rises, especially within a CBD. You may own office space within a high rise but what you can put in the windows and how you affect the outside appearance of the building you reside in is definitely subject to rules and regulations, sometimes quite strict. I worked in an office once where we wanted a panel of window tinted from the inside and the building wouldn't allow it because only the middle row of windows was allowed to be tinted due to the way it affected the architectural design of the building. You may own your apartment but you do not own the building or the façade, you couldn't also for example remove your apartment, even if you didn't structurally weaken the building. Ok, that's a far cry from using blinds during the night but I think it's along the same lines… Also, as to free speech, there was a case not long ago in Australia where someone was exercising their free speech by watching a porno on their in car DVD player, a youngster in a car beside him at the lights saw the screen and what was on it, the parent driving the car was alerted to what had happened and reported the other driver and they were fined for public indecent display or whatever it is called. Vespine 00:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, what would the Canadian equivalent to the 'body corporate' be? You're right about common property in buildings, but (I was on the strata council for my building for four years, and I am very familiar with rental rules in British Columbia) to my knowledge a law requiring residents to 'black out' their windows at night would be unenforceable. Your examples about free speech and modifying building exteriors are not applicable, because one is related to an act (watching porno), and the other is related to common property (the actual windows, as opposed to the interior window coverings). I did a bit of a search and I wasn't able to come up with anything definitive about Vancouver bylaws. Anchoress 01:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that the intention is to reduce the hazard to birds. Many birds are killed by flying into buildings at night, because they associate light with open sky. --Anonymous, January 5, 01:44 (UTC).

Or perhaps it's to prevent light pollution in general, so people have some hope of seeing the stars at night. StuRat 04:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not bloody likely around here; Vancouver's one big light dome. We're lucky to see the Sun most of the time... As to the question: my building has regulations about the window coverings that can be used (only the ones they supply), but that's mostly targeted at ensuring a consistent visual quality for the place from the outside. Nothing in my lease says anything about keeping the blinds closed at night, though, and I've never heard about that before, so I'm quite certain that's not a blanket regulation in the city. As for birds flying into the windows, I don't believe Vancouver's got any kind of bylaws about that either. This sounds building-specific. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accurate websites needed for english food crop/ornamentals growing conditions.

Hello,

I am trying to locate good English websites as mentioned in the subject line. I am trying to find sites with optimum growing temps/frost damage threshold temps/ chilling injury temps etc as well as the durations of the frost etc. Even if there a book available, that would be handy. As long as I have a place to start, I do not mind doing the research myself.

I have looked on many sites but it's handy if just one or two sites or a book could supply the necessary information.

The most important crops are the expensive ornamentals and other commercially valuable fruits/salad crops. (Especially peppers, tomatoes with their delicate nature towards chilling/frost.)

Thank you for helping,

Andy123451 22:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Andy123451[reply]

Picture of an old Parker pen.

Hello
I would really appreciate it if anyone could find the picture of a Parker pen I'm looking for. I can not find it on the Parker website (I assume its out of production), and I can't see to find a picture anywhere else either. The picture I have found so far that has been the best fit is this: http://www.luxus.cz/obchod_pic/nahledy/pen_5267237_velikost_x256.jpg
However, the pen I am looking for is silver where this pen is gold. Licensing of the picture does not matter, as the most I will be doing with the picture is linking people to it. Really appreciate it. Clq 22:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joker

In the world of television and news reports, What is a joker? Are they the fill in presenter for when the main presenter is away?

I haven't heard that term, but that sounds like a reasonable guess to me. StuRat 03:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What time does Newcastle run to South Shields?

When is this?

Do you mean the Great North Run? If so, then this year it is on Sunday 30th September. JMiall 00:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]