Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007 October 26

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.

October 26

why does the wind blow??

its a question that i can't be able to solve —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.8.201.164 (talk) 01:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

For the same reason anything on Earth moves: because the Sun shines. The Sun heats some parts of the Earth more than others, hot air rises, and cool air blows in to displace it. Of course it's a lot more complicated than that, but the Sun is the ultimate source of energy. —Keenan Pepper 01:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want more detail, read our article Wind and the articles linked to it. Marco polo 01:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Suppose there were no Sun. Something tells me that there would still be wind due to Earth's rotation, but I can't think how that would happen. The air would become very cold and still, wouldn't it? DirkvdM 09:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Were there no Sun, the planet would too become cold and probably die sooner or later (but then again - no sun means no planetary system). Wind is caused by changes in air pressure, which are caused by many, many diverse factors. I think. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 11:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

If the sun 'went away' and assuming there was some kind of very even heat source preventing the atmosphere from freezing - yet not creating any hot-spots, the Coriolis effect would keep the atmosphere churning around and thus create wind. Even if the earth stopped rotating (hence no more coriolis), the moon would exert tidal forces on the atmosphere (the same as it does with the ocean) - which would manifest itself as wind. It's really quite hard to imagine a planet with a gaseous atmosphere but no wind! But in the real world, by far the biggest effect is that the sun heats one side of the planet while the other side cools and the oceans change temperature very little while the land heats up and cools down rapidly. Because hot air is less dense than cold air you get pressure differences between the air over areas of the earth that are at different temperatures. Thus you get winds blowing between areas of different temperature. Once the air gets moving, things like coriolis prevent it being a nice simple air flow and the shape of the land and ocean (which heat and cool at different rates) add more complexity. When cold air moves in to replace warm air, that changes precipitation and also cools the land - which results in even more temperature variations. When warm air moves in over water, it causes evaporation and the air becomes humid. If humid air subsequently cools down (eg when the sun sets) - that creates clouds which will later reflect more sunlight back out into space than the land does. So now you get yet more temperature variations. The result of is this "chaotic" (in the mathematical sense of 'chaos theory') swirling pattern of winds that are impossible to predict on a small scale over periods of more than a few days. SteveBaker 12:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Bzzt on the first point (and only that one). The Coriolis effect does not create wind, it only affects its direction once something else creates it. --Anon, 19:16 UTC, October 26, 2007.

Yes, that's what I thought too. Take a planet that is so far from the Sun (or whichever star) that the incoming light is negligible and which has no moon and is completely 'dead' (no internal heat source). Wouldn't the air, if it ever moved at all, come to a complete standstill (relative to the surface of course)? DirkvdM 08:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The air would not only come to a standstill, it would freeze solid! Unless it was helium, that is; in that case it would condense to liquid, and remain still. --Anon, 05:26 UTC, October 29.

Yes of course, silly me. But without any heat source, wouldn't the temperature drop to (close to) 0 K, and helium freeze too? The article says that would happen at 1.15 K, 66 atm. Oh, hold on, there's pressure too. With vacuum surrounding it, wouldn't there be a tiny layer of helium (and other gases) sitting on top the frozen (and probably perfectly flat) surface, even at (as close as possible to) 0 K? And who are we then to say that an atmosphere can not be, say. 1 mm thick? So would this atmosphere have any wind? DirkvdM 06:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The Earth's surface would come into equilibrium with the cosmic microwave background radiation at 2.7 K. This is not "as close as possible to" 0 K, but it is below the boiling point of helium at 4.2 K, so there would be liquid helium and no gases to speak of. Read the short story A Pail of Air for a vivid and more-or-less accurate description of such an Earth. —Keenan Pepper 03:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Odd question :)

Hello again! I believe that this is *ahem* a weird question, but I remember seeing something on the Wikihate talk page about two templates (the first was "This user has given you the finger" & the second was "This user has given you a blank stare") that I'd like to track down again. They were funny to see :) Just thought some wikipedians here might remember seeing them. Thanks again! --極地狼 ( 我是一头死的狼 ) 02:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I know User:The Hybrid/Finger. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 02:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

And I know User:The Hybrid/Blank. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 11:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys! --極地狼 ( 我是一头死的狼 ) 19:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Handguns of the 1950s USA

I'm working on a work of fiction (of sorts) set in the mid 1950s (Eisenhower era). I need the make and model of two guns that would have been common at the time. The first should be relatively low stopping power but high accuracy, and the sort of thing that a cop might have (e.g. the equivalent of a Glock 9mm today). The other is a much larger gun, less accuracy but high stopping power, ideally intimidating looking, as much for show and noise as for actual killing (e.g. the equivalent of maybe a Desert Eagle or something even larger today).

Thanks for your help! I know someone out there will know this sort of stuff quite easily... --24.147.86.187 03:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Cops of that era would have invariably used the S&W Model 10. For a "flashy" looking gun you could go with a tricked-out M1911 or even a Colt Python if you need something powerful (although the Python wasn't first manufactured until 1955, and was never common). FiggyBee 03:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Those both look perfect for the purpose. --24.147.86.187 13:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

If the character was a World War II veteran, he might have brought home a German gun. A Luger P08 pistol, maybe? Corvus cornix 17:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Or a Walther P38. But neither the Walther nor the Luger are a typical cop's gun, nor something powerful and intimidating looking. FiggyBee 17:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Transporting Blimps

How are blimps moved from venue to venue. Do they just fly them there, or do they deflate them load them on a truck and drive them?--ChesterMarcol 03:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

According to Goodyear, "when traveling cross-country the blimps fly wherever they go, and the crews try for an eight-hour day, or about 300 air miles." [1] Rockpocket 07:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

"they fly to wherever they go"? Good thing they don't end up somewhere else! (off to edit the blimp article ....) --LarryMac | Talk 14:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The Helium is too expensive to just let it out into the air and repressurise with new gas each time. The equipment to suck the helium out and repressurize it into easy-to-transport cylinders would be cumbersome. They fly at around 35mph - but because they can do that in a dead straight line without traffic delays - when you consider the time and effort to properly deflate them and reinflate them (that's not just a simple gas bag - it has lots of internal equipment and there are several 'ballonets' inside that actually contain the gas, it's certainly faster to fly them where they need to go. SteveBaker 13:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I saw the ground crew equipment for a Goodyear blimp years ago, and the trailer looked like it indeed had a pump for removing and storing the gas from the balloon. Edison 21:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I certainly would expect that they would occasionally need to deflate the blimp, during maintenance cycles, when transporting it in bad weather, etc. StuRat 21:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a blimp, but in 2005 the Zeppellin NT airship had to be dismantled and trucked across Russia because of some problem getting flight clearance. 69.95.50.15 15:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Some Questions about U.S. Politics

Hi, I have a few questions about politics in the United States. I am from Australia, and am confused with how it works. I am unable to find much information on the Internet (it all assumes you know a bit about U.S. politics), so I appreciate any answers you could give me. Sorry if these questions are a bit obvious.

1. In the US, you not only register to vote, but also can register with a party. What effect does it have? Why is it neccessary - it's not like it binds you to vote for that party, does it? If you register with that party, does that mean you can only vote for members of that party in elections?

2. What exactly is the electoral college?

3. Which house (the upper house or lower house) is the president part of?

4. Why do I never see footage of George W. Bush speaking in parliament like the prime minister does in Australia? You never see Bush arguing or answering questions posed from the opposition in parliament - I only ever see him make scripted speeches in other places.

5. And finally, why are people so passionate for certain parties in the US? I see whenever key politicians make a public speech there are streamers, balloons and crazed fans. People in Australia may prefer a certain party/politician, but they aren't like people are in the US.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.208.110.207 (talk) 12:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, here goes;

1) If you are a registered Democrat or Republican, you get to vote in Primary elections for candidates for that party.

2) The United States Electoral College is a group of representatives from each state who select the president. The article has much more detail.

3) Neither. The United States has a seperate executive and legislature, unlike the Westminster system used in Australia where the members of the executive are also members of the legislature.

4) because of 3.

5) Who knows? It's certainly getting more that way in Australia though. I'm sure that most Americans aren't quite as polarised as we see in the media though; it's always the partisan hacks that make the most noise, rather than the middle-of-the-roaders. FiggyBee 13:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me (as a Brit living in the US) have a shot at this one (it's good practice!):

1) I believe (and I'm not an American) that if you register with a party you also get to vote in the primaries to decide which of the guys in your party gets to stand for election. The final election vote is secret - so you could still vote for the other party's candidate if you wanted to.

2) The theory is that when you vote in the presidential election, all you are really doing is picking some guy in your area to become a part of the "electoral college" (which is nothing to do with a 'college' in the usual sense of the word). All of the people who are a part of the college then decide who gets to be president. (In theory they could pick someone other than the candidate you voted for!) What this does in practice is to change the system from simply counting the number of votes for each candidate (which would have lost the present president his first election by a significant margin) - to a system where each state gets some fixed number of seats in the electoral college. This means that some states have a disproportionately large number of electoral college seats and others disproportionately fewer. I have no clue why this might ever be considered a good idea...but that's how it is.

Originally it was supposed to be a mixture of national and state power. As a federation, power lies in both the people in general and in each of the states. The two houses of Congress address these two issues -- the Senate is state-based, with 2 senators per state regardless of that state's population; the House is population-based. The electoral college was intended to be a mixture of the two -- the population votes in general, but each state votes wholly for one or another candidate, based (hopefully) on the state's popular vote. James Madison explained this mixture of national and federal voting in one of the Federalist Papers. I'm not sure whether the electoral college still works the way Madison intended however. Pfly 08:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

3) The US system has four branches of government - the two houses, the judiciary and the president. The president is not a part of either house.

Not quite. We have 3 branches of government. The two bodies of legislature are part of the same branch(because they fundamentally have the same set of powers with a few minor differences when it comes to things like wars, treaties, and taxes) i kan reed 03:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

4) The president may (on occasion) speak in front of one or other house - but because he's not a part of either of them, there is no special requirement to do that. (I think the annual "State of the Union" address may be an exception to that).

5) Americans are nuts. Live with it.

SteveBaker 13:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The House of Representatives and the Senate are usually considered as being two parts of the Legislature, rather than two seperate branches of government. Re the State of the Union Address being mandatory, Article II of the Constitution says "He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union", but exactly how (and how often) he must do that is not specified; as Toby observes on The West Wing, he could buy them a newspaper subscription and that would probably qualify. FiggyBee 13:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The State of the Union Address in the U.S. system is the nearest analog of the Speech from the Throne in the Westminster system: the chief of the executive branch (or her representative) addresses the legislative branch on policy issues. Of course, there is a big difference in that in the U.S. system the president and legislature may be adversaries, where in the Westminster system as it now exists in practice, the chief executive is a figurehead and it's the Parliament that determines which party forms a government (which in this sense corresponds to what the US calls an "administration"). The throne speech is actually written by the government and most of the time it can reasonably expect Parliament to carry out its program; not so with the State of the Union. --Anonymous, 16:39 UTC, October 26, 2007.

In certain states - Virginia being one - a voter is allowed to vote in a primary election of either party. i.e. a registered Democrat may vote in the Republican primary or vice-versa. I believe a non-affiliated voter may vote in either one as well. It looks like the 2008 Presidential primaries for both parties will occur on the same date, so a voter will need to select which ballot he will be voting upon arrival at the polling station. --LarryMac | Talk 14:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The Westminster system does have a separate executive, since the Governor General is the head of state. So you don't see Michael Jeffery, or in my case Michaelle Jean, arguing in the legislature, but you do see them giving scripted boring speeches on occasion. But it's not quite the same because the US President has considerable more power than the Governors General (I don't know what the Australian GG does, but Canada's, while she legally has enormous US-president-type powers, in reality has none at all). Adam Bishop 14:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The answer to question one varies a lot. From state to state and even sometimes the state parties change the rules. Some states may require registering, other don't but as far as I know everywhere you can only participate in the process for one party (In a primary you cannot vote for a Republican presidential candidate and then for a Democratic Senate candidate). Process rules change though - Michigan had a caucus in 2000, but a kind of primary in 2004 and, for 2008, the Michigan rescheduled its primary to a time not allow by the Democratic National Party and currently whatever delegates it chooses won't be seated at the National Convention. SteveBaker's answer to question one will not worl everywhere as there need not be any secrecy about which party you vote for (some places you have to take either the Democratic ballot or the Republican ballot, the votes may be on different days). If your state has a caucus even your choice of candidate within the party is public knowledge. Rmhermen 17:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: question number 1: In California, you can register as "Decline to State". This lets you choose which party's primary election you want to vote in. Even if you're not registered Republican, you can choose to take the Republican primary ballot. This is different from "Independent", in which you may only vote on non-partisan offices (judges, for example) and ballot measures in the primary. During the General Election, everybody votes on all of the issues and candidates, regardless of party. And re: Question 4: The Constitution of the Confederate States of America (Article 1, Section 6) called for the President's Cabinet to sit on the floor of the legislature so as to be available to answer questions by the representatives. But this has never been implemented in the US Constitution. Corvus cornix 17:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The reason why a straight popular vote isn't used to determine the US President is that the states were originally thought of as countries, which were in a loose union like the European Union. In the EU, I assume a popular vote would have the same effect, with less populous nations like Ireland losing almost all political power to large nations like Germany. StuRat 22:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Comic Books and Law

I am working on my senior thesis, which relates to legal issues within comic books. The most prominent issue that I am working on is the Mutant Registration Acts. If anyone else could suggest topics to explore, or legal issues that would arise, it would be most appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.238.69.103 (talk) 14:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

What's the thesis for? It makes a big difference if it's a cultural or a legal study (or whatever). Anyway, I think the legal issue that ties pretty much all superhero comics together is the issue of vigilantism. All superheroes are essentially unlawful. For most, the situation is so dire that normal law cannot maintain order, and their actions are condoned. But I think every series has dealt with the issue of where the line is, and how far a superhero can go, before the government steps in. Specifically X-men has always shown the tension between government and superheroes. risk 15:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose some interesting parallels might be made to real-world governments that have attempted to register members of undesirable sub-groups of their population, and the results of such registrations. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You might be interested in Alan Moore's comic Watchmen. It covers a lot of the same issues, quite in-depth as they are central to the storyline, regarding vigilantism and tension between superheroes and the government and might provide an interesting compare/conrast with those issues as covered in X-Men. Plus, it's just a good read period. Also, there is some content related to anonymity/privacy issues which could possibly be tied in. Anyways, sounds like it could be a very interesting paper, good luck. Azi Like a Fox 18:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Another legal issue that has been brought up in a recent story arc of X-Factor is the Endangered Species Act. The argument was that after M-Day where most of the mutants in the world lost their powers and left only a couple hundred remaining with powers, these mutants that were left were therefore endangered and entitled to government protection. The character that brought this up and wanted to have the remaining mutants rally in Washington, D.C. really just wanted to gather them together so that he could exterminate the remaining mutants but the point is still valid. Since there are so few mutants now (in universe of course) there is an argument to be made for classifying them as an endangered species. Dismas|^(talk) 20:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

For me the mutant registration act can be compared to other registration acts (most obviously Jews under the Nazis). In addition the 'mutant gene' is often used as an allegory for a number of other minority groups sometimes considered to be 'potentially harmful', for example, ethnic minorities, homosexuality, minority belief systems and so on. It also brings up issues of genetic normality and deviance (how different does one have to be before one is a mutant?), genetic manipulation, conformity and more. The legal aspects of the registration act would have to include scope, privacy, secrecy, medical privacy, restriction of movement, foreigners (do visiting mutants have to declare their genetic abnormality?).Steewi 02:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

For example, one of the issues that I am addressing are: 1. Does Superman require a warrant to use his x-ray vision when catching criminals? 2. Does a superhero have a right to a secret identity? 3. Is the MRA and SRA constitutional? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.24.210.17 (talk) 16:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

In Victoria, Australia, Workplace Safety acts (dont know exact name) require workers to keep themselves, other employees and the public safe. The power of the acts isnt circumscibed however, so if superman was at work he would be legally required to catch falling aircraft etc. Polypipe Wrangler 06:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Number of Amazon user accounts

How many people in the UK (or worldwide) hold accounts with Amazon? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.27.149 (talk) 15:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have an answer to your question. However, I think it's worth pointing out that Amazon allows you to buy things without actually creating an account (i.e. by entering your details for a particular purchase only). That means that many conclusions you could have hoped to draw from knowing the number of accounts may not be representative of the truth. /85.194.44.18 09:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Rock Candy

Our article on Rock candy states: "It was also used in Thailand as money, for it was easily accessed and distributed. You could bet the candy on many things, and bet pieces or pounds." Can anyone verify this? It seems dubious to me that something so common could be used as currency. One may as well use leaves. Dismas|^(talk) 15:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks very dubious to me too. I'd move it to the talk page until someone provides a citation. — Matt Eason ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 17:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Writing Articles for Money and being an Admin

I have been on Wikipeodia for a long time now; i know i haven't edited much actively but I do read it every day; even got fired for it at work (now I work as a bartender); but anyway I got a MA in English and have been writtin a lot so I heard about people who does writing articles for money on Ebay and Wukapedia; I was worndering how 2 Get involved in that bag, I good writer and wont charge as much as the rest of them.

Plus I obivously have bin reading a lot about it and think I am ready to Run for a REquest for Adminship; how do I start campaigning? Haute Fuzze 16:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, writing articles for money is highly frowned upon and is certainly at odds with Adminship. Your post above, MA in English aside, also suggests that this is a bad idea. If you wish to pursue the latter, WP:RFA is an excellent starting point. — Lomn 16:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

If you are thinking of an request for adminship, campaigning is one thing you should not be doing, as it is not an election. There is the Wikipedia:Bounty board which permits one to edit for money, but the money goes to Wikipedia, not the editor. Rockpocket 18:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Editors are expected to have hundreds of good edits before they request adminship, you only have a handful. Admins also need to have a good understanding of wikipedia policies and procedures. You will need to improve your grammar and spelling signifigantly if you want to improve Wikipedia articles. -- Diletante 19:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

spelling signifigantly! :D FiggyBee 20:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm not editing for money so you get what you pay for. -- Diletante 21:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Rockpock:There is also the Wikipedia:Reward board, though the sums involved are rather small. Algebraist 21:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well there you go, I never knew about that. Thats the great thing with WP, you never stop finding new things. Rockpocket 21:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not talkinga bout editting only for money; it is just something i'd do when requessted; I would mostly stil be editting for fun (not for profet). How much do you think i could charge? by the word or artile? Haute Fuzze 00:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The question isn't how much you could charge; the question is who would be willing to pay? No one will pay for something unless they gain some value out of it; what value is there to someone to have a Wikipedia article written? The only way it would be worthwhile is if someone was paying to have articles written to achieve some off-Wiki aim: increasing sales by promoting a product, say, or making political gains by making one candidate look good or another bad. But any articles written in support of such an aim, and that would be effective in achieving it, would probably run afoul of neutral point of view policies pretty quickly. I really don't see a lot of future in it. - Eron ^Talk 00:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the user who asked the question, who was a trolling-only account, fyi. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Was that supposed to be funny or did he think he was being clever or? I don't get it... Vespine 00:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

He was just trolling trying to get people to react for his own amusement, unfortunately i took the bait and gave him a nice troll snack. -- Diletante —Preceding comment was added at 16:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Iran and the United States

Will someone please move this to the talk page?

The reference desk is not a place to debate controversial subjects. --Milkbreath 17:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

For reference, the question is here. He was asking if certain things he read somewhere were correct. I don't see what's wrong with that. DirkvdM 09:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - there are plenty of questions of fact posed in that post, and furthermore, I don't think it's appropriate to unilaterally remove a question on these grounds anyway. It should only be done if several editors object to the content of the question. I'm restoring it below, pending consensus not to do so. -Elmer Clark 04:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Problem is, I only notice this now because I search through the desk looking for my name, so I will skip the threads I have previously deemed not interesting enough for me. I suppose many others will do that too. Because the question has been gone for two days now, chances are that few will notice it anymore. For this reason we really have to clamp down on deletionists. I'm not saying that that was Milkbreath's intention, but this is a way for people to cripple discussions they don't like. So I have moved the question down as if it were a new question. See United States-Iran relations. And I deleted it here again, to avoid confusion. Alas, the questioneer may not (ever) return after having seen his question removed. DirkvdM 12:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. It's me who did ask those questions two days back. I've got to admit that my post was quite long. But all I can say is that all I was asking was some clarifications. I was not calling for a debate but rather some facts about what was being said on the BBC website. I feel so dumb now. :( The person who deleted it could have at least told me nicely to reconsider my post rather than rudely deleted it. Anyway, thanks for telling me that I was not all that wrong after all. 132.206.33.111 14:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, if you look at the start of my post, I did put it clearly that people wanting to debate the issue have to go on the BBC website rather than doing it here. Anyway, this is going to be my last post here because I feel having been bitten. 132.206.33.111 15:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You are right to complain that I didn't notify you. I offer no excuse for that, but I do apologize. I never bite. If I had wanted to bite, I would have answered instead of deleting. If you want to discuss this, we can open a new section on the talk page of this desk. I would hate to have anyone go away mad, and fortunately there is no need for that at Wikipedia. Editors are supposed to be bold, but we work by consensus (even though consensus sometimes comes after the fact). --Milkbreath 15:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the bold bit refers to the encyclopedia proper. There, it doesn't matter too much because if an erroneous deletion is restored, it has been but a little blip. But the ref desk is very essentially different. Not only is it more like a talk page, where one should in principle never edit someone else's posts, but even more importantly things happen very fast here. Questions disappear into the archives in a matter of days and as I explained above a question disappearing for even just a few hours can seriously cripple it. That's why I restored the question as a new one below.

This is why I object so strongly to the rampant unilateral deletionism. About half a year ago I warned that if it became common practice it would lead people to misunderstand the principle and result in problems like this one. I wonder how many questions are removed completely (so including the header) without anyone noticing. DirkvdM 12:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The term "deletionism" only has meaning in this context as opposed to its opposite, "inclusionism". They both seem to refer to practices having to do with the encyclopedia proper, and, further, to define cabals. You use a term that presupposes an agenda, one you yourself subscribe to, on the part of another editor whose only motivation is to keep the desk in line with policy. That kind of thinking runs counter to Wikipedia's spirit and has even less place on the Reference desk than in the encyclopedia. Here, there is no question of "inclusionism" or "exclusionism". No subject is taboo, but an attempt to spark political debate here is. Take off your ism-colored glasses. This is not a chat room. In fact, this exchange belongs not here but on the talk page. --Milkbreath 13:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the deletion was inappropriate, especially without consensus to do so. Inclusionism and deletionism still apply here in terms of being tolerant of as many posts as possible and being totally intolerant of any question which someone might interpret as violating some guideline somewhere. StuRat 22:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Applying the term deletionism here is indeed not quite right because the ref desk is essentially different from the encyclopedia proper. But deleting (without the ism) is even worse here, for the reasons I specified above. DirkvdM 09:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Chat

I have not been online for a few years but now that I am bac on, I wish to do some chatting, However due to several IT issues, too complex to go into now, I have no email. What I wish to do is go to a free, informal web site and just have a chat with some people. I do notwant to become a member ect. Do such websites still exist? Or are all of them topic specific, register to use, email password verification required ect. please help me. Thancs¬¬¬¬ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.149.242 (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Were you in prison? I'm not trying to make a joke but for real, were you? Haute Fuzze 00:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

No, i have just had some mental and financial problems. can you help me chat? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.149.242 (talk) 00:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Try IRC. You'll need to download a client, but generally, those are free, and the chat channels cover any number of different topics (including Wikipedia). Chat rooms on websites nowadays, at least in my experience, are too overrun by spambots to be worthwhile -- I used to hit the yahoo chat rooms as little as five years ago, and it was a very different situation; you could have actual conversations with real people then. Now it seems impossible. Other people's mileage may vary... Deltopia 02:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Community Property

The present Wikipedia article 'Community Property' wrongly states that there are nine community property states in the US. There are ten; the article omits Wyoming.

Esquire

Are you sure? This page and this one don't list Wyoming. (Just so you know, the best place to discuss problems with articles is usually on their talk page - Community property's talk page is at Talk:Community property) — Matt Eason ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 21:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Question about relative age of religious texts

MY QUESTION IS SHORT and to the point. I heard that the QURAN was older than the Bible. If this is true can you tell me what was the specific dates of these two texts so I can find out which is older? In addition I was told that in Islam they believe that Judaism distorted the original text from as far back as Abraham and other prohets who were initially all Muslim is that true?

The modern standardised Qur'an was compiled in about 650. According to Bible#Canonization of the Old Testament and New Testament, the biblical canon was essentially established in the fourth century. Due to complications involving the apocrypha, however, the standard Protestant canon was not arrived at until the reformation, so I suppose it could (very speciously) be argued that the protestant bible is younger than the Qur'an. Algebraist 21:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

For your second question, Islam and Judaism might be of use. Algebraist 21:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking beyond the establishment of the biblical canon to the authorship of the various books contained in the Bible, it seems that the earliest books were written sometime between the 10th and 6th centuries B.C. - Eron ^Talk 21:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

generally speaking, Judaism came first, then Chrristianity, and the the islam, this is the order that the majority of the religions wisdow came to us from thier profets, who wrote what and when is still disputed to day. Interesting that they all use the same infoup until Abe, and therefore have the same God, yet such diversity.:-} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.149.242 (talk) 21:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Terror Release

Can somebody please tell me when silent hill origins is going to be released on the psp in the UK as i have been looking on various sites (including this one), and find a range from october 26th (i haven't seen it in shops yet)- November 17th. Does anybody know the definate realease date for the UK pls?

Thanks in advance - Sci-figod2k7

amazon.co.uk says that it will be released on November 16. -Elmer Clark 04:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Are Sweeney Todd and Mackie Messer (Mack the Knife) One and the same?

Is he like Santa Claus/St Nickolas/Father Christmas? Same character-diferent countries/culture?

Very doubtful. Brecht's Mack the Knife was a gangster based on the highwayman Macheath from Gay's The Beggar's Opera, written in the early 18th century. Sweeney Todd was a barber and serial killer who first appears in a 19th century penny dreadful and was possibly based partly on fact, or possibly an early example of an urban legend. Mack the Knife's weapon of choice is a knife, whereas Sweeney Todd uses a straight razor - not the same thing. Gandalf61 21:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The one was a thief, the other a murderer. STs victims ended up in pies that were judged very tasty.86.197.17.8 14:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)md

The Bombay Bicycle Club

I have heard that there is an organization called the Bombay Bicycle Club that is a kind of secret society akin to Bohemian Grove, the Masons or the Illuminati. Is this true? If so what are the alleged origins of the Bombay Bicycle Club? 206.188.56.88 —Preceding comment was added at 21:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

According to their website, "The Bombay Bicycle Club is the oldest men's club in the World... founded during the War of the Roses by the British riding team of Bombay and sanctioned by Queen Mary. Although many directors and members of the club have had connections to the Masons and Knights Templar, these organizations have never been associated with the Bombay Bicycle Club." We don't have an article on it (yet): Bombay Bicycle Club (probably because its a bit of a challenge to find reliable sources establishing notability and verifiability) Rockpocket 21:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Did the British even have a riding team in Bombay back in 1487? A bicycle riding team? 206.188.56.24 23:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, as the British didn't get hold of Bombay until the 17th century, and the bicycle wasn't invented until 18th or 19th, I'd say someone is having a bit of fun. - Eron ^Talk 00:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Mary Magdalene, a disciple of Christ, about 45 A.D., came through Epheseus and converted the leaders of our Women's Club to Christianity. - methinks the historicity of the Bombay Bicycle Club is as accurate as that of E Clampus Vitus. Corvus cornix 01:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

mental Bloc/ copeing with PTSD

Hiya, about 6 years ago I was having a drinK in my local with some friends when i was ordered outside, as some one had a problem with me. Now I dont Know why, but i was unable to hit bacK, even though I was given ample oppertunity, such as "get up and fight liKe a man...ill give you a free shot...why wont you hit me?" yada yada yada, i got my arse KicKed, several of my friends were watching, I assume they did not want the same treatment, and so did not jump in, any how theyre not my friends any more. Now, what I would liKe to Know is firstly, why could I not fight bacK? As teenage boys we always used to joKe about what we would do if we got into a fight, but when it came to the crunch, i got "bitch slapped" for 2 or 3 hours, it was a whole nights entertainment for the drinKers. and no one did anything to help. So, the questions: why could I not protect my self? And also, 6 years on why i am still thinKing about it? How can I cope with this? It has changed my social life considerably, I can no longer feel comfortable in a pub or club and this irritates my friends who just dont understand. How can i picK up a girl in a club and have a meaningful relationship, if everytime i go near a pub or club i panic? Your help is greatly appreciated. ThanK you. Dough —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.149.242 (talk) 21:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey there. 1) Please do not double post. 2) Sounds like you could use a therapist, or at least someone more qualified than strangers on the internet. 3) What is up with your 'k' key? 161.222.160.8 23:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like you went through a very serious and humiliating ordeal. Your pride was challenged, and your fear got the better of you. You had an image of yourself, and how you would deal with this kind of assault on your status, and the tension of the moment was greater than you'd imagined, so you were essentially taken by surprise. You hadn't expected your basic instincts to take hold of you like they did, so you were unable to overcome them. If your self-image gets shattered like that, it can permeate through the rest of your life. You weren't as 'cool' as you expected, so how can you be sure the rest of you pride is justified? I think that not acknowledging this blow to you self-esteem has meant that you haven't allowed yourself to cope with it fully.

You can rebuild your pride and your self image. Your decision to turn away from the friends that didn't help you is a very positive one, as it's an assertion of pride. You're asking questions here, which means you've acknowledged it as a problem that you need to work through. Again, a positive step. I think it would be good to seek some therapy. Any professional therapist will know exactly how to deal with this, and they can help you to get back on your feet in (I think) a relatively short time.

Finally, there are plenty of ways to start meaningful relationships without visiting bars and clubs. Birthday parties, the internet, work, social activities like theater. I read a study recently that showed that most relationships start in public transportation (this was in the Netherlands). The main ingredient to meeting someone is not going into a bar, it's self-confidence. Yours has taken a blow, and there's no shame in getting some professional help with that. risk 00:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to add that the reason your friends didn't step in, was probably the same reason you couldn't fight back. Their basic instinctive response to the situation was far stringer than they'd expected. Their fear caught them by surprise. So they could not do what they would have wanted to do rationally. Just like you couldn't hit back, they couldn't step in. I said that blaming them was a positive step, but only initially. Forgiving them for not stepping in, means forgiving yourself for not being able to fight. So maybe that's a place to start. risk 00:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

than you, really and truelly, than you and sorry about my HIJ LMn ey, it is no longer part of my eyboard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.149.242 (talk) 00:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Sounds exactly like the third incident in The Fall (novel). It's a turning point in Jean-Baptiste's life- by recognizing his preoccupation with the incident he realizes that his entire life had been based on a search for recognition and honor, and since the 2nd incident convinced him of his selfishness and dishonor he began a downward spiral of self-loathing! See a therapist, or read the book. --ffroth 00:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

This would be a good question for the Psychology desk, if we only had one. A.Z. 06:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

IMO, this particular question would be even better for an actual psychologist, if only I was one. Oh well, dunno, maybe you're a pacifist. 38.112.225.84 19:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

And the below question would be a good question for the skiing reference desk, if only we had one...just because we have the occasional question about psychology doesn't mean it needs its own devoted desk. -Elmer Clark 04:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

My theory is that the number of psychology-related questions would increase. A.Z. 04:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but again, why wouldn't that apply to skiing, or any other subject for which we made a reference desk, as well? -Elmer Clark 05:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. It wouldn't harm anyone to run a test by creating a test desk for a few months. A.Z. 16:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Why would we create a desk that would explicitly invite questions that are against policy? As it says in the page header "Do not request regulated professional advice. If you want to ask advice that "offline" would only be given by a member of a licensed and regulated profession (medical, legal, veterinary, etc.), do not ask it here. Any such questions may be removed. See Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer and/or Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer. Ask a doctor, dentist, veterinarian or lawyer instead." Psychology is a licensed and regulated profession. - Eron ^Talk 16:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Many valid questions would be possible on such a Desk, like the differences between the theories of Freud and Jung. StuRat 01:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

That just sounds like change for the sake of change, and it would multiply the desks (which are already at about the limit of wieldiness). What about if I wished more people would ask questions about cats; should I create a Cat reference desk? I'm sure there are valid questions that could be asked, and having a cat reference desk would encourage more of them. But we're not trying to encourage people to think of questions to ask, we're trying to provide answers to people who already have a question... Aren't we? Skittle 09:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Ski Boots

Hi, I'm trying to buy a used pair of downhill ski boots and was wondering if someone could help me translate the sizings (I'm in the U.S. if that matters). A lot of the sizes given are in cm or something. So, I wear 10.5 +/- depending on brand, what would be the equivalent of that in ski boot jargon? Oh also maybe a ballpark figure for the appropriate length/size of the actual skis, am 5'10" male. Thanks. 38.112.225.84 22:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Both this table, and this table, suggests a US 10.5 (mens) is equivalent to 28.5cm on the mondopoint system. A ballpark figure on ski length depends on your height, weight and the type of ski you are interested in. However, you are probably looking at something between 180cm and 200cm. Rockpocket 22:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec)The conversion for a US size 10.5 is going to be a 28-29cm ski boot, it will of course depend on the socks you wear while on the mountain. I have to urge you not to buy used boots though, in my experience the boots are the sngle most important piece of gear. You can adapt to skis that are too long or short and same with poles, but the boot has to fit or your experience will be miserable i.e. painful. Trust me, it is worth the extra money. As far as ski length goes, I am as tall as you and I ride a 170cm; but I am also quite thin and weight plays a large part in sizing skis. Your skill level will also play a part, generally higher skill allows for a longer, stiffer ski, which in turn means more speed and a larger turn radius when carving. Really the only way to find out is to try a bunch out and find what suits your style and skill. Most hills have a demo shop where you give them some money (usually something similar to their rental fee) and get to ride on a bunch of different brand new skis. Some have boots you can try out too. Good luck and have fun! 161.222.160.8 23:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to both, I'll definitely be taking into consideration your suggestion regarding boots 161.222. For the record, I'm low-intermediate skill (or was 4 years ago) and as sleek and trim as a jungle cat. 38.112.225.84 19:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Stumped

I am fairly good with pictures ,but I cannot figure out how to make a picture into a smaller form. If anyone could help me put it in a small box on my user page It would help out a lot.--DarkZorro 23:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Easy peasy :)

[[Image:NicePic.jpg|200px]] ie. 200 pixels wide

Or if you want a caption too...

[[Image:NicePic.jpg|200px|thumb|Caption here]] ---- WebHamster 23:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You rock!--DarkZorro 23:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Who owns soccer teams?

I would like to know whether soccer teams are generally owned by a single person, or by a small group of people, or by a lot of people. A.Z. 23:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

That all depends, sometimes they are owned by a consortium, but mostly, they are owned by one person, who usually acts as the chairmen. There are some owners that stay out of the running completely, such as Roman Abramovich. Hope that helps! Ryan Postlethwaite 23:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks a lot! A.Z. 00:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

In the UK, some clubs are public limited companys and so are owned by many shareholders (e.g. Celtic F.C.), others are Privately held companies (e.g. Manchester United F.C.) often formed as a proxy for a single person or small consortium. Others are owned by Industrial and Provident Societies in the form of a Supporters' trust (e.g. A.F.C. Wimbledon) and, soon perhaps, one club will be owned by a website on behalf of its members [2] Rockpocket 01:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

In Spain, some major clubs such as Real Madrid or FC Barcelona are owned by tens of thousands of their supporters, or socios, which makes the election of the club President an intensely political affair, as the president gets to appoint the team manager and direct policy -- you may remember the last FC Barcelona presidential election when the successful candidate Joan Laporta promised to buy David Beckham, but couldn't follow through when Beckham went to Madrid so he bought Ronaldinho and installed Frank Rijkaard as coach instead. -- Arwel (talk) 08:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)