Miscellaneous desk
< October 4	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 6 >

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 5

Semaphore to English translator

Anyone know of a Semaphore to English translator? I have an image of dancing men (A bit like the ones in the Swallows and Amazons books) and I'd like to read the message. I'll probably just translate it a letter at a time manually in the end though. -- SGBailey (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article Flag semaphore mentions the Swallows and Amazons books and shows a character table. It seems that a video-based decoder has been planned or built but I have no experience of them to offer. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out the dancing men aren't semaphore - I'll have to attempt to decrypt it instead. But thanks. -- SGBailey (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could they be the Sherlock Holmes dancing men?Hotclaws (talk) 13:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help with correcting to the appropriate external link

Hello,

My name is listed as "notable people" of Springfield, Mass on the Springfield, MA webpage. But the link sends the reader to a website of the wrong David W. Evans. I would like to correct this. The "real" David Evans does not have a Wikipedia link, but one external to it.

Thank —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwevans44 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the other links at Springfield, Massachusetts seem to be to Wikipedia articles. However, there is some evidence of Professor Evans's notability here, and the C.V. on his website implies likely further notability once Oxford University Press publishes his forthcoming book, Children’s rituals, habits and routines. Does anyone want to create a stub and fix the link? John M Baker (talk) 18:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have delinked Professor Evans and re-inserted him unlinked. I have edited the details of the former US representative. There is now no ambiguity but John's suggestion will open the chance for a blue link. Richard Avery (talk) 18:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's good, but I don't think the former U.S. representative is a Springfield resident, so I've removed him from the list. John M Baker (talk) 18:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British aircraft

Do aircraft pilots in the UK sit in the right, or left seat when there is side by side seating in the cockpit? Googlemeister (talk) 19:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly certain that seating on British planes, or planes in Britain, is no different than seating on other planes. (Think about it for a second. The UK is a small country, so many flights leaving the UK will end up in other countries. How feasible would it be for pilots to shift their seating every time they left the UK? Conversely, many flights arriving in the UK will be coming from other countries. How feasible would it be for their pilots to get up and change seats as they approach British air space?) British airlines use the same kinds of planes as other airlines, and there is not the same issue at airports as you find on roads in the UK, where people drive on the left, unlike other European countries (except for Ireland), where they drive on the right. At airports, you basically have a small network of one-way thoroughfares: A given runway will be in use by only one plane at a time, and planes will be taking off and landing in the same direction (more or less into the wind). Likewise, taxiways tend to have one-way traffic. So there is no need for planes to keep to the right or left when passing oncoming traffic, since ground control sees to it that there is no oncoming traffic. (If there were, both planes would have to brake and one would have to back up to avoid a collision, since taxiways and runways are not made wide enough to allow two full-sized planes to fit side-by-side.) Marco polo (talk) 19:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where was the answer in that? 92.28.240.84 (talk) 22:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Google searches confirm that pilots of fixed-wing aircraft tend to sit on the left side of the cockpit, whereas pilots of rotary-wing aircraft tend to sit on the right side of the aircraft (with a co-pilot assumed opposite in each case). National origin doesn't appear to affect this. The possible reasons for left- or right-seat preference appear apocryphal at best. — Lomn 19:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since most people are right-handed, wouldn't it make sense for pilots to sit in the left seat so they could adjust the throttle with their right hand? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you assume that British cars have the gear shifter located next to the driver's door.

It's worth noting that on commercial aircraft, the co-pilot tends to fly the thing, and the captain supervises. This arrangement arises out of a crash report (I forget which one) of a case in which the pilot flew his plane into the ground, and the co-pilot was thought to have been too timid to tell the captain that he was cocking things up. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. The Captain and First Officer typically alternate legs; one flies the first leg, and the other the second, etc. The non-flying pilot handles non-flying duties such as communicating with air traffic control. anonymous6494 15:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Throttles where always on the left. Well in Europe they were.--Aspro (talk) 23:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy bombers such as the Wellington first had the throttle and pitch situated on starboard so that the flight engineer could control the power plants, leaving the pilot to concentrate on getting the kite to separate away from and off terra firma. By the time whirlybirds arrived, the throttle and 'collective' were combined in one dual control on the port side. --Aspro (talk) 23:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, in pre-WWII French aircraft, the throttles opened by pulling back and closed by pushing forwards (ie the other way to everyone else). My source for this is the | Mouchette Diaries. Alansplodge (talk) 09:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. Also, during the WW2 Britain managed to get some American built Hawks which were originally destined for France. So they had them converted for their own use, as briefly touched upon in the Curtiss P-36 Hawk article. --Aspro (talk) 16:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I flew shotgun in this Cessna down to here in Tasmania, Australia the pilot ~~sat on the right, I sat on the left~~ (correction - see below). The Brits have the driver seat on the right in cars like we do, so could follow the same pattern. Now not saying this is the usual arrangement, but it didn't strike me as unusual, but also worth noting there were also active controls in front of me. Of course arrangements in small planes could also be different than in large aircraft. --jjron (talk) 15:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, perhaps Australia is a better example since they have right hand drive cars and are more likely for their flights to remain in country. Googlemeister (talk) 16:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I was on the right, the pilot was on the left - shows how you can't rely on your memory. I firmly remember sitting on the left, but it must be an altered memory coming out of decades of having the passenger sitting on the left in the car. This photograph taken in-flight clearly shows I was sitting on the right, and other photos taken out the window confirm this. So there you go... --jjron (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The traditional seating arrangement in civil (and military) aviation is in this article: First Officer (civil aviation). I can throw some light on the reason for this tradition. The prop rotation (from the pilot's position) has nearly always been clockwise. The reaction from the torque therefore, tends to want to roll the aircraft to the left (lower the left wing). On top of that, there is more thrust developed on the right hand side of the prop (asymmetric loading). This leads to the aircraft to wanting to yaw, also to the left. Therefore, if one was merrily flying along in a single engine aircraft, in less than good viability, when suddenly, right ahead, a ruddy great barrage balloon appears out of the haze, it is much easier to perform an emergence turn by banking to the left. Also, one has the very important benefit of better left-hand viability to watch out for other aircraft in your proximity (an important point if flying in formation). If on the other-hand, one was to force the aircraft to go against the reaction of the prop, the aircraft will start to fight back according to how fast you are going and how hard you turn. At speed this could put you at greater risk of collision with nearby aircraft. The brighter of you will have also realized by now, that if all other pilots know what avoiding action all other pilots will take, and one should suddenly see an aircraft coming straight at them, they can take avoiding action by banking left, knowing that should the other pilot take avoiding action as well, they shan't bank to the right and thus straight into them. Some modern single engined aircraft have their engines slightly angled to reduce the effects of asymmetric loading but the effect should still be noticeable. However, in normal flight one should always keep the aircraft away from getting into any situation that would require such a drastic manoeuvre.--Aspro (talk) 18:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strange phone numbers

Had a couple of strange phone numbers trying to call me, they didn't leave any message when I let the answerphone take it. One was 001017, the other was +1028. Am on Virgin Mobile. Anyone know who is behind these numbers? Thanks. 188.28.128.146 (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check the dial plan in a second, but in the mean time don't call back. There are some scammers who call, don't leave a message, and when you return you're calling some premium service. Unfortunately, particularly for mobiles, the UK call dial plan (what number prefixes mean what) is rather complex. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 21:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To the Original Poster: there are some clues in your message that you are in the UK, but it would be helpful if you said so: this is an international medium. --ColinFine (talk) 23:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, yes I'm in the UK. 92.40.194.220 (talk) 23:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't make sense of the number. Superficially it appears like a fragment of a dial-internationally-to-the-US number, but the US part is incomplete. It's the wrong format for a UK short code. All I can find is a few other people complaining either of hang-up calls from it, or of getting nonsensical call-centre calls from it. I still think it's unlikely to be anything good. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 12:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the number that appears to be from the US or Canada has a format that could not occur in the United States or Canada. (The "area codes" that would follow "001" cannot begin with "0".) My guess would be that the caller has found a way to mask the number from which the call originates, or how that number displays. Marco polo (talk) 14:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"+" is a synonym for the local "international dialling prefix", in the UK, "+" is "00", so your two numbers are very similar: 001017 and 001028. The 001 will get you to North America, what happens then... -- SGBailey (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Similar phone calls have been reported in other cases: http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Number.aspx/001017, http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Number.aspx/1028

Caller-Id can be spoofed using Voice over IP (VoIP) programs and Networks: http://www.securityfocus.com/news/9061 A caller can make their phone calls appear to come from any number, or unmask the number of a masked incoming call. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zobelleboz (talk • contribs) 21:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the calls were from call-centers whose phone switch equipment is misconfigured to send the caller's internal extension number as the outgoing caller ID. (Perhaps the 00 or + was added by your phone or somewhere else along the line.) If this is the case, then it's unlikely to tell who was calling from the number alone. --Bavi H (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

APA

I need to do APA citations but EasyBib only does MLA for free. What's a good free APA citation generator? --70.245.189.11 (talk) 21:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Google Search turns up BibMe as the first result. 76.120.174.82 (talk) 23:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Word can do it for you automatically, if you're using that. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very low-tech approach, but as someone who does citations daily, I found it was easier to just memorize how to cite the one or two major sources you will be using (e.g. journal articles and books), and not rely on software to try and approximate it (which it often does badly anyway). Just a suggestion. Usually once you do a few of them with some attention to getting them right, you can just "pattern match" in your head and fill out the rest pretty quickly. It is not rocket science, and memorizing it once is, I think, faster in the long-run than all of the copying and pasting you'll be doing otherwise. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]