Miscellaneous desk
< July 21	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 23 >

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.

July 22

Data mining and wikipedia.

Hi. I saw a prospective article on slashdot that mentioned the ability to get time series data on what topics were searched and when. The link to the page that would allow this was broken and apparently quite wrong.

I am a grad student doing research and I want to used this data. Sorry to bother you (whoever answers), but I haven't been able to find any other reference to this data. Can I get to it somehow through the Wikipedia dump?

Thank you!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Happyheretic (talk • contribs) 00:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Statistics has links to a number of potentially useful pages, though I don't know of any that lets you see what pages were searched for and when. You might also check out Wikipedia:Statistics Department, though they seem somewhat inactive. --24.147.86.187 17:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was it WikiCharts? This shows the most viewed pages, although it is a tad depressing; the biggest hits tend to be Naruto, sex, porn and list of Pokémon... Laïka 19:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do any of you other users have the name of someone with the wikiwisdom to be able to get that data?Happyheretic 21:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criminology-forensic science

Our local police is very slow in anlayzing finger prints. they are still using manual concept. My questions is " Is there possibility that our University can develop a school-specific forensic capability to solve campus crime? crimes like cellphone stealing, robbery and theft, other crimes against property?

Thanks

fire

There is certainly a possibility, though the probability of it being successful is low. The technological challenges notwithstanding, and depending on the jurisdiction of your school - a non-professional presenting fingerprints as evidence of a crime would probably be legally inadmissible. And, without access to a national database to compare a fingerprint to, persuading a suspect to give a sample for comparative purposes is unlikely (and may well be an infringement of their civil rights). Rockpocket 04:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the crime world is not like CSI where you just scan in a fingerprint and press a button and within minutes the fingerprint is compared to every single man or woman in the world's fingerprint. Sounds unlikely to me... -- Theunicyclegirl ^talk 16:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have fingerprints of the thief (say from recovered stolen property) and fingerprints of the suspect (or a small group of suspects), it's relatively simple to compare them. Some issues you may encounter is the suspect not wanting to give his prints and the object containing extraneous prints from the owner, the person who found it, and other's who've touched it. But, if you have a fingerprint on it from someone who swears he never touched it, that's fairly good evidence that he's the thief. StuRat 09:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dating

I am amashed to admit this, but am 21 and one-half years old and never been on a first date. I am curious to know if there are anyone has any suggestions for what to do or what not to do, and what to aviod on a first date. Thank you. 76.211.106.140 05:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't stab the man or woman you're on a date with. A Very Noisy Lolcat 07:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be light-hearted and fun, kind and thoughtful. Try to get them to talk about themselves, what they like what they do. Avoid conflict. Talk about things you like to do, if you think it is going well add in casual "we could do that some time" style comments about things they seem interested in. Above all try to enjoy yourself as that's when the natural you will shine through. ny156uk 10:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just don't make it a big, insurmountable challenge, a major event, etc. You will have more dates. This is just the first one. Try to have fun. Also, avoid non-words like amashed. ;-) And don't be ashamed, there's no shame in it. --24.147.86.187 14:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't try to impress the other person with how smart, or strong, or accomplished, or rich, or whatever you are. Don't boast or brag. Don't talk all the time about what you like, or what you have done. Ask questions about what the other person likes to do, or believes in, or what their background is. When they answer, listen! Don't be constantly thinking about what you are going to say next while they are talking--it's rude and insensitive. Laugh, smile, joke, but don't be crude or negative. Don't be critical. Don't whine or complain. Pretend you are with your best friend, or with your family. Make a joke about this being your first date, they probably won't believe you! If they don't like you, so what! Ask someone else out! Remember that we like those people best who give us their full attention, that make us feel smart and important.--Eriastrum 16:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How cliché is this, but: BE YOURSELF!!! Seriously, a lot of people who are on a first date are so nervous that they think it's much easier to make up a façade of a kind. You end up just tangled up in lies and when the other person finds out that you really aren't the way you acted, things can go wrong. Very wrong. =D Best of luck to ya! -- Theunicyclegirl ^talk 16:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice sensible and thoughtful answers.--88.109.207.20 19:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who, what, when and where questions help you learn the most about people. The biggest failure for someone without experience is probably coming on too strong. Happyheretic 21:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happyheretic is right. Don't start telling them "we HAVE to get together again!" or "I love you!" (BIG no brainer), that'll just scare them off. Be relaxed... --PolarWolf 23:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestions. I will keep these pointer in mind when (if?) I manage to get a date. The funny thing about this is that as an older sibling I always figured i'd be the one giving my little brother advice on dating, and here he's the one giving me pointers. I suppose thats what I get for being girl-shy. Oh well. 76.211.106.140 08:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lines you may choose to avoid to improve your chances:

Your sister is very attractive
Your brother is very attractive
Your dog is very attractive
The voices in my head tell me you are the one for me
Your hair is very attractive-particularly the left nostril
You don't sweat much for a big girl.

Happy to help Lemon martini 14:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here, from the perspective of slightly more than 50 years, are some important secrets:

If you ask someone out and they say "no", it could mean either of two things:

- For some reason, they don't want to date you, at least, not right now.

- For some reason, the date you proposed simply didn't appeal or wasn't logistically possible.

One of the keys to being successful in meeting a partner is to correctly distinguish the first case from the second. For the first case, move on (at least for now); as the saying goes, "there are plenty of fish in the sea". For the second case, perservere, at least a bit, especially if you felt some interest in return ("I'd like to, but I'm already booked for tonight...").

Generally speaking, a rejection from one person does not forecast how others will react. People react to all sorts of cues, some obvious, some not so obvious, some rational, some emotional. Maybe you remind someone of their mother/father/ex-/ex's lawyer. Maybe they know you adore sports but they'd rather sit home and read Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. But unless there's really something pathological going on, there's almost certainly a lot of people in the world who would be happy to meet you/date you/etc...

And when you get that date, if you want someone to think you're a brilliant conversationalist, listen. And if you want them to keep talking, ask them open-ended questions about themselves; people love to talk about themselves, even people who think they don't. And lots of people are actually pretty interesting to talk to...

Atlant 17:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all good answers, but I’m not so sure you should be asking a bunch of people who sit around at their computer answering questions on Wikipedia, about the best way to act on a date. :-) Just kidding. I’m sure Wikipedians are all very popular. “An ounce of love is worth a pound of knowledge.” –John Wesley (Don’t you just love Wikiquote!) --S.dedalus 04:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drawing

Is being able to draw something you're born with, or can you learn how to do it?

The answer is: both. Like most skills, drawing is part aptitude and a lot attitude. There is no question that some people just have to pick up a pencil and realistic objects pop off the page. For the rest of us, there are teachers and books. Everyone can be better at drawing than they are now. Most of the improvement is practice, and learning to look at things and see what is really there, and not what you think is there. Fortunately, even for those of us who never can meet our own standard of excellence, there is a lot of art that explores creativity, but doesn't require being able to draw. Bielle 08:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A huge amount of drawing is technique. You can learn these technique through courses, books, study. Understanding of things like perspective, distnace, balance, shadows etc. can be taught. There is an English artist called John WIlson who creates paintings that mix child-like art with adult-art (see here: http://www.artforall.co.uk/wilsonjohnd.htm). He notes that even the great masters painted like children once. What you are left with are these extremely detailed minatures of classics with very messy child-like drawings of people. Wonderful stuff. ny156uk 10:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like to think of it like a musical instrument. With a lot of practice you can get your hands to go through the movements you need to play piano, guitar, etc. You can memorize lots of convenient tricks and great sounding combinations. But at some level, there will be a line of mastery that separates out the really talented people from the less talented ones. Most people will never be on the "master" side of that line. But that doesn't mean you can't be good, can't have fun with it, can't make a career out of it. Most guitarists are not Jimi Hendrix but they're still happy to play in a band. Most artists are not Da Vinci but they still have fun with it. --24.147.86.187 14:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are interested in developing your ability to draw, it does take practice--as the posters above indicate. Get a sketch pad and take it with you everywhere--a small one to put in your pocket that you can carry everywhere you go, even at work and school, and a larger one to take with you when possible. Every spare second, take it out and draw, draw, draw. Whatever, whomever you see. Virtually every artist with good technique in the world does this, or has done it. Leonardo did it, Gerome did it, Henry Moore did it, and all the other artists you have never heard of. No matter how much "talent" you might have, you still need practice. Either pencil or pen will do fine.--Eriastrum 16:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to that, I just want to add that in general the belief in "natural talent" is almost always journalistic flair, not reality. People do not burst out of the womb knowing how to do very much. It takes a lot of hard work to train your hands to represent what you see with your eyes or imagine in your brain — a lot of it is just body-memory and coordination, getting the minimum physical ability before you can start doing anything really creative. There is an awful, particularly American trope that "expressive" arts (drawing, poetry, fiction writing, etc.) should be unmediated, unedited, "your first try is the most authentic and should always be preserved," an expression of some sort of latent talent in the artist. This is a horrible falsehood and has spawned much awful poetry and many awful books. Great artists try and try again. Great artists spend a lot of time learning. Great artists are not afraid to look at something they made and say, "eh, I could do this better, I'd better try again." In helping college students with their essay writing I have to really force them to "unlearn" this sort of idea, and learn the idea that their first drafts are probably going to be very flawed, and that their writing will improve over subsequent attempts and a lot of heavy editing. It is no different with drawing. These things can be learned, and these things can be taught. I am suspicious that there is no such thing as a natural ability which does not need practicing and improvement, but if there is, it is precariously rare and should not be held up as some sort of standard. --24.147.86.187 17:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inflating vacuums

What brands of vacuums can be used to inflate things?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.190.135 (talk • contribs)

It's more to do with the configuration than the brand. All cylinder models have this facility, although sometimes it is not obvious, for example you might have to remove the filter to get to the "blow hole". And most modern uprights can do it (but not the lightweight models). I don't think wet/dry vacs (e.g. the Henry) have this facility.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Dream I had

In my dream that I had, the song I Surrender All (song) was the theme song to the entire series of Walker, Texas Ranger.

Why in my dreams do I think about Walker, Texas Ranger when I hear I Surrender All sung on KXBJ-FM, AFR or in a church? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.18.90.17 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 22 July 2007.

The song you linked to is a redlink - that means there's no article there. The other "I surrender all" you linked to is an album not a song. If you can point us some information about the song, maybe we can find a connection between it and the show. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 16:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

also, linking random words doesn't help. --PolarWolf 00:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Purchasing a bong

Is it illegal for a minor (under 18) to purchase a bong for smoking marijuana in Ontario, Canada? Acceptable 16:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but I do know that bongs can be used for tobacco, so clearly you'll want to say you want it for tobacco. Kuronue 17:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but Wikipedia cannot give legal opinions, and even if it could, you shouldn't trust them.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't ask for our opinions, they asked for a verifiable fact. A.Z. 19:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK let's put it this way: as far as I know it's perfectly legal, but the law is complex and you need to verify that fact with a lawyer or you could get into trouble.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Long term vandals and ISP

I have heard many long-term vandals in Wikipedia "have their ISP blocked" because of destructive vandalism. What does "having their ISP blocked" mean?--PrestonH 19:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If a sufficient amount of vandalism comes from one or more editors who are customers of a particular ISP (internet service provider), then Wikipedia may take more drastic steps. We may block the entire range of IP addresses belonging to that ISP from editing or from creating Wikipedia accounts. We may also contact the ISP directly—vandalising Wikipedia or creating accounts to harrass other editors usually violates that ISP's terms of service, and the ISP may terminate the account of the vandal(s) involved.

In deciding whether or not to block an entire ISP, we consider a number of factors:

What proportion of edits from that ISP are vandalism?
How many non-vandal editors are likely to be inconvenienced?
How large is the ISP?
Has the ISP responded favourably to our requests for assistance?

If an ISP is 'blocked', then none of that ISP's customers will be able to edit Wikipedia anonymously or create Wikipedia accounts. (In rare cases, we may even bar logged-in editors from editing Wikipedia, as well.) Blocking an entire ISP is usually a last resort. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, IPs get entire blocks of addresses (EG. AOL is infamously 172.0.0.0 - 172.255.255.255 I think, IE. Any IP that starts with 172 is an AOLer). If we get FLOODED with vandalisms from a certain IP, someone can block all the IPs registered to them, causing the effects listed above. Also note: This is mainly done for AOL and the like where the users don't have one IP and stick with it, but get a new one for every vandalism. 68.39.174.238 02:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're confusing issues here. AOL customers as a group are not currently and AFAIK never were blocked for any resonable length of time. However AOL customers usually go through a proxy which caused problems in trying to block vandals but the proxies were generally not blocked. But later though, AOL released their browser to the public whiche enabled people to use said proxies and so was effectively operating an open proxy (see here Wikipedia:AOL for details) and as such any addresses used by these open proxies were blocked in accordance with policy Wikipedia:No open proxies. This may have affected most of AOL's ISP customers although there were various ways IIRC to avoid using the open proxy for AOL customers. The actual AOL IP range used by AOL customers was AFAIK never blocked and so provided customers revealed their real IP rather then going through the open proxy, they were fine. Eventually, the problem was solved when AOL started to include a header which informed the wikimedia servers of the real IP of the person using the open proxy and therefore this problem was resolved. Certain ISPs or more likely, certain ranges within an ISP's range may have been blocked when there was excessive vandalism came from said range and there was no luck in convincing the ISP to help. I can't recall of any offhand though. Non ISP ranges or IPs like schools, libraries etc have definitely been blocked in some instances, sometimes on request of the network admin Nil Einne 13:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arzhaan & Zulkifil

what are origins and the meanings of words

Arzhaan (language of origin unknown) and Zulkifil( arabic word) in holY Quran (chapter of Prophets)

Check Wiktionary? 68.39.174.238 02:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dhul Kifil is apparently the prophet Ezekiel. Adam Bishop 07:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Determining the illegality of a drug

A while ago I asked a question " How come with some drugs (i.e. methamphetamine) society decides to outlaw their use instead of embracing them for their effects (such as employers for the work performance enhancement)?" and the gentleman who answered my question responded with the process in which society decides the pros and cons of a substance before outlawing it. Could someone please list that process again for me as I apparently forgot to sign it hence I can't retrieve it. Thank you-shredder0288

Try googling a particular phrase from the question or answer followed by "site:wiki.riteme.site" in the search field of Google. 68.39.174.238 02:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown coal/coke burning parlor stove

Awhile ago I purchased a parlor stove at a garage sale and for the life of my I cannot find any mention of the manufacturer any where on the web. What's cast into the front plate of the stove is this " Orbit Keystone No.22". The stove is about 4ft high. Any info will be helpful. Thank you-shredder0288

No idea if it's the same company, but Keystone Mfg. Co. of Pennsylvania still makes coalburning stoves [1]. Might write them with the info cast into the stove and a photo and ask for help dating it. Edison 22:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC) Edison 22:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1979 Chevrolet 1/2t 4wd "Chevy Sport" truck

Last question for today I promise you. I own a 1979 chevrolet 1/2 ton short bed 4 wheel drive truck. But it is a factory built special-order package truck with decals on the side saying " Chevy Sport " and I once again can't find any mention of the model other than the comparable one GMC made (sameyear) called the "Gentleman Jim" and the "Beau James". Any info would be great. Thanks-shredder0288

I don't have any info for you, but you might want to list the VIN on a site specializing in old Chevy trucks, and they may be able to help. StuRat 09:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drifting

Is drifting an actual technique used by professional race car drivers in races? Will it help them turn faster? I know this would obviously depend on the race, so im referring to the kind of races where production road cars are modified and raced. Acceptable 21:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking yes it is. However most cases a drift actually produces negative results, especially when cars that utilise latest technology on a tarmac circuit are involved. Usually the technolgy allows for a mechanical and aerodynamic grip sufficient to get you out of a corner in a much faster way than what you would do by throwing them away and start drifting. Professional drivers choose to drift only if the grip levels are very low, for example when racing on ice or gravel. --racergr 05:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find dirt-track racing on ESPN or Speed Channel, check it out. Gzuckier 17:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policies regarding articles about laws

Does Wikipedia have any policies regarding articles about laws? I have created one such article about a Brazilian law proposal, but I intend to create articles about laws, and I'd like to know whether there are guidelines, templates and such things about that. Also, I'd like to learn how to determine the notability of a law. A.Z. 22:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to ask this question at the Help Desk. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. A.Z. 22:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is. A.Z. 22:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hobbies

what's a good hobby other than vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.128.185 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 22 July 2007

You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that vandalism is a hobby; it is not. You will find a list of reasonable and socially acceptable hobbies in Category:Hobbies, and linked from our article on hobbies. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism may have various motives but I can't believe that they never include those that would qualify it as a hobby under any reasonable definition. —Tamfang 06:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to Wiki(pedia) hobbies (other then vandalism), try hitting easily fixable backlogs, like Category:Uncategorized articles, or other things at WP:BACKLOG. Try researching for an Category:Unreferenced articles, etc. You'll eventually find something you like (Assuming that's your intent). 68.39.174.238 02:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

painters

who was the earliest documented pornographic painter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.128.185 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 22 July 2007

It's hard to say, and the answer will depend on your definition of 'pornography'. You may, however, find our article on the History of erotic depictions useful. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

car fuel consumption

Assume a car is driving in a straight line on a road. It is travelling along at an unknown speed at 8,000 RPM on second gear. Eventually the car accelerates to a higher unknown speed and is travelling at 8,000 RPM on fifth gear. Assume that this is the only variable and all other external factors remain the same for both speeds (including wind resistance), is the car consuming the same amount of fuel at those two different speeds, but identical engine speeds? Thanks. Acceptable 22:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you exclude ALL the frictional forces (including those from the gears, the bearings, the tyres, the wind etc) then yes the engine is consuming exactly the same amount of fuel but this is NEVER a real case. --racergr 05:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So actually, when the car is travelling at fifth gear at a higher speed, it's using more fuel right? Acceptable 16:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's using more fuel from an absolute standpoint, yes -- it's overcoming more wind resistance (which increases exponentially faster than speed, and so is probably the biggest consideration). The most fuel-efficient speed (meaning the most speed per gallon of fuel) is usually the lowest maintainable speed in the highest gear without lugging or stalling. This is of course limited to a thought experiment, though, because the only way to equalize wind resistance would be to race in an air-free environment, where an internal combustion engine wouldn't work. Deltopia 17:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean including internal car frictions, but excluding wind resistance; in second gear the throttle will have to much less open to deliver 8000 rpm than in fifth gear; this causes a lot of pumping loss that uses more fuel. One reason why cars are geared higher to deliver higher fuel economy. On the other hand, the transmission output, rear end, wheel bearings etc. will be spinning faster in fifth gear than second gear, and therefore have more friction. I think, but it's sort of just a guess, that the pumping losses are bigger, and therefore consume more fuel in second gear even though the speed is lower.Gzuckier 17:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the pumping loss is that much... The reason that switching to a higher gear increases fuel economy is because it runs at lower rpm to maintain the same speed to lower gears, reducing friction within the engine and therefore use less fuel. --antilived^{T | C | G} 06:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Almost good football club

Who are the best football club never to play in the Premiership, or before 1992 the First Division? — Michael J 23:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a good question. What is the "best" football club is subjective, but an objective measure might be to ask which club has the best average performance in the English football league system without ever being promoted to the top division. Well, you can rule out all of the teams that have played in the Premiership, you can also rule out the teams that played in the old first division, when it was the top tier, but not the Premiership:

Accrington (the original, not today's Accrington Stanley), Blackpool, Bradford Park Avenue, Brentford, Brighton & Hove Albion, Bristol City, Burnley, Bury, Cardiff City, Carlisle United, Darwen, Glossop North End, Grimsby Town, Huddersfield Town, Leyton Orient, Luton Town, Millwall, Northampton Town, Notts County, Oxford United, Preston North End, Stoke City, and Swansea City.

I guess if you then go through the Seasons in English football and see who finished in the top few non-promotion spots in the second tier each season and order them by how many times they have done so. Remove any team noted above from that list, and the one left at the top is the winner! Good luck with that. Rockpocket 02:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't done a thorough analysis like I suggested above, but I think Hull City F.C. might be among the best contenders. They have spent a significant proportion of their early history in the the top half of the second tier, and their best ever finish is 3rd in the old second division - missing promotion on goal average by the tiny margin of 0.29 of a goal. Most of their modern history has been spend up and down between the 2rd and 3rd tiers. I reckon there can't be many clubs that can beat that record without ever having played at the top. Rockpocket 03:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Rockpocket. From a slightly different angle, I have heard in various places (although I can't find any good citations at the moment, other than this and this) that Kingston upon Hull is in fact the largest city in England (or possibly Europe, depending on your source) whose football club has never played in their country's top division. (But maybe not!) Hassocks5489 07:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]