Miscellaneous desk
< September 15	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 17 >

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.

September 16

Who commands an air squadron?

So, for whatever reason, it doesn't say in the article on air squadrons who (whih rank of officer) commands them. What is the typical rank of a squadron's commanding officer? Let's say a ground squadron, which I am actually interested in. Preferably in the Israeli Air Force, if one would be so kind. And I'd really love it to come from an Israeli who has served in the Air Force so I can get the most accurate info possible. :x Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 01:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is some relevant general information (not specific to the Israeli Air Force) in the article Squadron leader (which, as it says within, is now not always the answer you seek, although it would have been once.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.32 (talk) 02:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, well would make sense for it to be a captain. Here's a question, on what system are the rank setups and the errr... breakdown of unit structure (?) based on? Commonwealth? US? Or a unique Israeli one? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 03:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on the Israeli Air Force does not cover its rank structure (as you have doubtless already discovered). Glancing at the articled individals in the article List of flying aces in Arab–Israeli wars suggests that it uses standard army ranks such as Major and Colonel. Assuming that their equivalences to RAF-style rankings (which are used by a number of Commonwealth and non-Commonwealth countries' air forces) are similar to those in other air forces who do the same, the equivalent ranks to Squadron leader and Wing commander (the latter now the most usual rank for the commander of an RAF squadron, through I suppose a form of rank inflation) would indeed be Major and Colonel. A Captain in the usual army usage would therefore be too junior a rank for the commander of a squadron, being junior to a Major and a Colonel, while the RAF style Group captain is senior to a Wing commander (and hence to a conventional Colonel). However, this is all indirect deduction, pending an answer from someone who actually knows what they're talking about. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.154 (talk) 11:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did a little research on a few various USAF squadron sites and of the 3 squadrons I looked at, all had a Lt Col as the commander. It seems that Wings are generally run by full Cols. Googlemeister (talk) 16:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I might be stating the obyious, but we have a page called Israel Defense Forces ranks. It doesn't help much because it only relates the ranks to US Army equivelents, and then says "In the IDF, the same ranks are used throughout the military, including the Israeli Air Force and Israeli Navy. This contrasts with many other armed forces that have a separate rank system for different branches." Alansplodge (talk) 17:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did indeed check that page for ranks, and I am trying to find out what sort of command someone I know has, but I cannot of course ask them without getting them in trouble. :p I know the ranks (and I know their rank), it's more I am trying to find out what sort of group is actually commanded by people of the rank of say Segen mishne or Seren (I know they say Platoon Commander and all, but I want to know exactly what the commands are in terms of the IAF). Again, I basically want to know about someone I know's command (the type of command it is, the number of people commanded, etc.), but I cannot ask them because I have no desire to get them in trouble or even risk getting them in trouble (which would be quite rude). :p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 21:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Task List Software/Site

Does anyone know of a good piece of software (preferably free!) or Internet site that has good task list functionality? Thanks, --Think Fast (talk) 01:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google Tasks? Do you have any features in mind that makes one piece of software "good"? Dismas|^(talk) 01:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does "task list functionality" mean? -- Hoary (talk) 02:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, A good tool to make "to do" lists. I would use Google Tasks, but it's just an add-on for Calendar, and it erased all my lists one time. --Think Fast (talk) 02:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really need a specialized product for that ? Just make the list with your favorite word processor. That way you don't have to worry about Internet connectivity or proprietary formats. StuRat (talk) 04:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I email myself daily with a "to do list". Everything from household chores, to stuff for my job. At the end of the day, I copy/paste all the stuff I didn't get done into a new email. Works great :) Quinn ^{░ RAIN} 05:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS- if you have to add stuff in the mean time, just "forward" the most recent email with the additions. The great thing about emails is you simply go by the most recent time-stamp for the most updated list. It keeps it in order for you...AND you can go back and see when you got something done in case there is ever a question (like, as in a recent case for me, when my wife asked "when did you renew the auto insurance?). Quinn ^{░ RAIN} 05:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "sorting by date" option is also available for text files on your home computer, just show details, then pick on the column header, and again to sort in the reverse order. The email option, would, of course, be a good way to get the info from one computer or digital device to another. One potential annoyance with emailing to "To Do" list is it being mixed in with other emails, while text files, created in their own "To Do" directory, wouldn't have this problem. StuRat (talk) 18:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A hardware solution to all this has been invented and is called a Diary. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, this is the relevant but uninformative Wikipedia entry: Time management#Software applications. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For this type of functionality, many users extoll the virtues of emacs org-mode (see here: [1]) Certainly free and powerful ;) SemanticMantis (talk) 14:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Governmental powers is crisis situations

Not sure where to put this, so I'm putting it here. Just saw the movie "Contagion" (fair to good IMO), but one of the main things that struck me in this film was how quickly, in a crisis situation like a world-wide epidemic, societal norms and infrastructure might break down. So I wonder specifically about electrical utilities and phone service. In the case that shit really hit the fan, like in this film, could/would the U.S. government have the power to "take over" the power plants, phone companies, and other utilities to "keep the lights on" as it were. Or if all the power plant workers went on strike to be home with their families, would we just be "in the dark." Quinn ^{░ RAIN} 03:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And when I say "take over" I mean the military. I guess the root of this question is exactly how far can the military extend its powers in a national crisis? And is there a constitutional, congressional, or otherwise "legal" basis for this. Quinn ^{░ RAIN} 04:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, pretty much. See Martial law, but more specifically for this case Martial law#United States of America. This is also interesting Readiness Exercise 1984. He iro 04:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These also seem interesting: Critical infrastructure protection and Emergency management (FEMA) He iro 04:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to see what powers the British government could take, they are in the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 and the full text is here. Basically in an emergency, Governments think they need catch-all power to take over anything; we know from released papers that in the Second World War the Government was not limited by the powers it had and was prepared to contemplate acting outside the law and then passing a retrospective Act to indemnify itself. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's also Unitary executive theory which George W. Bush used to justify a wide range of activities that would otherwise be illegal. It depends on an interpretation of the US constitution. In its extreme versions, it says the president can do anything he likes to protect national security. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look at Abraham Lincoln's actions during the U.S. Civil War for examples. Having the military seize newspapers, suspending habeas corpus, declaring martial law, emancipating some slaves. I also think the whole Continuity of Operations Plan developed for the Cold War but used on 9/11 are outside the norm of the Constitution. Rmhermen (talk) 12:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Taking over" the phone service is a rather vague notion. I can tell you this, the management of the local providers is pretty hard put just to maintain local service when the workers strike. They cannot establish any new service at that time. Should the government try to establish a hostile takeover of the phone service, or just to run it without significant help from the workers, it would be a swift or swifter disaster. That being said, what happened in NYC on 9/11 happened with the willing cooperation of the local phone provider, who were capable of providing emergency phone service on what might be seen as a miraculously swift basis--precisely because the local government asked politely for what the local providers (who lost employees and phone switches in the attacks) were quite happy to provide. The essential fact was not that Giuliani commanded Verizon (until then Bell Atlantic) to do what he wanted, but that Giuliani got out of Verizon's way and let them do what they were happy to do without all the usual paralytic regulatory BS. The notion that the government would step in and take over or command the utilities is leftist nonsense of the most ignorant and naive sort. Indeed, what actually happens in such emergency situations is that the heavy hand of government is lifted, not applied more strongly. People readily do their jobs and even die heroically under such circumstances, as any actual local non-comatose witness of 9/11 can tell you. μηδείς (talk) 02:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Country ID bumper stickers in Europe

Resolved

The SF/FIN question above got me to think about the current status of the laws across Europe for these country identifying bumper stickers. Are these still mandatory in most EU countries? I drove a British car through France and Italy without a GB sticker and hardly worried about breaking the law, but could I have been breaking the law? --Lgriot (talk) 09:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to List of international vehicle registration codes: In the European Union, vehicles from one member state do not need to display the oval while within another state, provided the number plate is in the common EU standard format, which includes the international vehicle registration code on the plate. - which seems to imply that you do need to display the IVR country code in some form. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(E/C) I think it depends whether your fixed number plate is of the old type, or the new type incorporating a flag. The UK guidance is here, and states (p.11) that "You may, if you wish, display a GB national flag with letters on the number plate at the extreme left of the plate. The flags you can choose from are: Union Flag, the Cross of St George, the Scottish Saltire, the Red Dragon of Wales. The letters you can choose from are: Great Britain or GB; United Kingdom or UK; ENGLAND or England or ENG or Eng; SCOTLAND or Scotland or SCO or Sco; CYMRU or Cymru or CYM or Cym; WALES or Wales. Although number plates displaying these national flags and letters would be legal when travelling outside the United Kingdom they are not acceptable for identification purposes. To meet international circulation requirements the oval GB Sticker would also need to be displayed when travelling outside the United Kingdom. Alternatively number plates displaying the European symbol may be used when travelling within Europe." Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, anecdotal only, but I was once stopped at a frontier going into, iirc, Denmark, and told in no uncertain terms that my UK registered vehicle with old style plates needed a country ID sticker (and would I like to buy one there & then, or else turn back...) So there is some evidence of enforcement (or else of a rather nice racket...) --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That PDF seems to say, essentially: You are permitted to decorate your number plate with this or that British flag and name, but this is mere decoration. Alternatively you can get a plate with the EU flag and "GB", doing so will avoid the need for a separate oval "GB" sticker while you're in the EU. ¶ Incidentally, I was recently in a European nation (Belarus) that's firmly outside the EU but that gets vehicles from it; I was also in an EU nation (Lithuania) that gets vehicles from outside the EU (Belarus, Russia, etc); although I wasn't concentrating on such vehicular trivia for most of the time, I did look during trips to and from airports, etc, and the only oval stickers I noticed were the small ones saying "CD". In practice, a "LT", "BY", "RUS" or whatever at one corner of the plate is enough. -- Hoary (talk) 12:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: CD does not stand for a country - it's the diplomatic corps. Same with CC for the consular corps. --Ouro (blah blah) 12:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone. --Lgriot (talk) 23:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a related point chaps, it's not just the sticker you need to worry about. A fair number of our fine european neighbours have different regs about what you need to carry in your horseless carriage - if I recall correctly there are things such as spare bulbs for your lamps, a warning triangle, one of those ghastly yellow vests construction fellows are often seen in and so forth. The old boys in blue over there often have the right to levy on the spot fines too for failure to do so - so make sure you do your homework before setting off on your continental tour! Quintessential British Gentleman (talk) 22:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

photograph of prophet mohammed P.B.U.H,,, is strictly prohibited

hi,

the wikipedia/encyclopedia of ISLAMIC CALENDER contains a picture depicting prophet mohammed P.B.U.H,,, sitting with followers has been showed, but according to islamic rules no photo should be created or even imagined of prophet mohammed P.B.U.H,,,. so my request to the site owner/chairman,, is to delete all the pictures of prophet mohammed P.B.U.H,,, from wikipedia/encyclopedia websites, otherwise it can be a very sensitive issue of hurting the feelings of religion.

syed subhan ali— Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.237.81.122 (talk) 13:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This issue has come up many times, and the result is always the same. Wikipedia is not bound by Islamic law, and is not censored. There is no wish to offend anybody, but those pictures will not be removed. I'm not speaking as an authority, I'm just telling you the decision that many other people have reached. (I have removed your email address from your message to avoid causing trouble for you.) Looie496 (talk) 13:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Wikipedia is not censored. In particular, "Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers, or that they will adhere to general social or religious norms," as this conflicts with our primary mission of the free distribution of knowledge. We strive not to use sensitive images flippantly or excessively, but illustrations of Mohammed in articles on Islamic topics should not be unexpected. Note that we do provide technical advice on avoiding viewing unwanted images, though at this point the available solution is functionally "avoid seeing any images". — Lomn 13:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, since cameras were not around in the 7th century, I don't think there are any photographs of him anywhere. Googlemeister (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One should also note that viewing pictures of Mohammed is prohibited for 123.237.81.122, but it isn't prohibited for me... --Jayron32 14:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hence, the OP is free to not look at it. Also, don't real Muslims usually say "Muhammed (pbuh)" instead of the odd way the OP typed it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Peace be upon him (Islam). PBUH is the English written short hand for this formula, which some Muslims will say after speaking the name of the Prophet. --Jayron32 19:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I'm just surprised at the OP's spelling. If he reveres Muhammed, why did he spell his name the obsolete way and also fail to capitalize it? Not that it matters, as the answer is NO, either way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would venture a guess that English is not their first language. —Akrabbim^talk 20:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth noting that 123.237.81.122 is from India, therefore the next person using that IP address may not be offended. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that Wikipedia is not censored is, of course, absurd. WP will not knowingly host images which are illegal in the US, those that are contrary to Foundation policy and those that are found unsuitable by policy-based consensus. Moreover, it will not knowingly host images that are "obviously inappropriate" but the result of that varies depending on the culture of who is deciding it. Thincat (talk) 19:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's because Wikipedia's servers (which are located in the U.S. State of Florida) are bound by the laws that apply to the State of Florida and cannot violate them. It is otherwise uncensored though (though things like goatse are not shown so as to deny people precious lulz). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 21:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this whole "images are prohibited" thing relatively new to Islam? If not, how come we have these drawings of Muhammad which seem to stem from Islamic sources (Abū al-Rayḥān Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad al-Bīrūnī, in this case)? ElMa-sa (talk) 21:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty certain it goes back to the type that the Prophet smashed the icons in the Ka'aba. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 21:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's about the same thing as no meat on Fridays, no work on the Sabbath (try telling that to WalMart), no graven images, and not taking my name in vain - i.e. at different times, different people have found different interpretations of the same religious strictures that fit into their time and place. There is plenty of Islamic art showing people, although it is much less prevalent than in Christian art (which also has the "graven images" interpretation that was interpreted similarly at times - see iconoclasm). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on that: Depictions of Muhammad. Dragons flight (talk) 04:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also Aniconism in Islam. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 11:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are these: File:Jyllands-Posten-pg3-article-in-Sept-30-2005-edition-of-KulturWeekend-entitled-Muhammeds-ansigt.png

the sort of images to which the OP objects?

Or does this:

also offend? μηδείς (talk) 02:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ríomhphost

Dia duit,

Fuaireas an ríomhphost seo a leanas ó wiki@wikimedia.org:

"D'iarr duine éigin (tusa de réir cosúlachta, ón seoladh IP 109.255.150.233) go sheolfaimis focal faire Vicipéide nua (http://ga.wikipedia.org/w/index.php). "---" an focal faire don úsáideoir "Ruadhanogliosain" anois. Ba chóir duit lógail isteach anois agus d'fhocal faire a athrú.

Rachaidh d'fhocail faire sealadach as feidhm i gceann 7 lae."

Go raibh maith agat.

An bhféadfaí "go sheolfaimis focal faire..." a athrú go "go seolfaimis focal faire..."? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruadhanogliosain (talk • contribs) 13:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That e-mail came from the Irish-language edition of Wikipedia. They will be able to discuss wording and, if agreed, change the wording of that message. Warofdreams talk 14:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the English Wikipedia. If you have a question in Irish about the Irish Wikipedia, you could ask it here. Marco polo (talk) 14:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or, since just about everybody who speaks Irish also speaks English, they could rewrite it in English. If the question is about the Irish language, ask that over at out Language Ref Desk. StuRat (talk) 16:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's about changing the wording of an automated e-mail sent from the Irish-language edition; that's why I advised asking there, rather than requesting a translation or that it be asked on a different reference desk. Warofdreams talk 00:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chocolate teabags

I was recently at a conference where they served delicious chocolate tea in teabags. It was literally black tea (as in PG Tips type black tea) with a beautiful chocolate flavour. Because I was in an uncaffeinated haze at the time, I foolishly failed to check out what brand it was. Can anyone suggest the answer? I live in the UK. ╟─Treasury Tag►pikuach nefesh─╢ 15:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Googling chocolate tea gives lots of results, e.g.[2][3] --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One reason it might have been "delicious" is if it had sugar already in the tea bag, unlike normal tea bags. So, be careful about how much sugar you are getting. StuRat (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Final Amazon questions

Supposing I were to order something on amazon.co.uk when i get home late this evening, what would be the earliest that it would be delivered? Would it take them some hours once the office starts again tomorrow morning for them to process the order, or is there a chance they might be working all night, or at least have the computer system organising things all the time, and just happen to send it out at some silly hour and have it just by chance being one of those packages to arrive early tomorrow? And if not, do they work on Sundays? I have never ordered anything from them before, and would be interested in others' experience on how long things take to get to their destination. And finally, would I be right in thinking that ordering two things at once, the postage costs would be exactly the same as if I ordered them separately?

79.66.98.163 (talk) 17:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This depends on the type of delivery service you use; whether you go with free shipping, or some faster service. Since you are ordering a product late on Friday evening, it is likely that your order will not be processed and shipped until Monday, as the vast majority of mail carriers do not carry out orders on weekends (with the exception of USPS, which is considering the removal of this plan). Your package will most likely arrive between next Wednesday and Friday if you carry out your order with free shipping. As for whether or not your postage costs will be the same, this also depends on whether or not you ordered something via Amazon.co.uk itself, or through one of its authorized dealers. You will pay a flat delivery rate, plus an additional fee for each item you process in the same order.--WaltCip (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For Amazon and "fulfilled by Amazon", I have known free delivery things arrive the next day but not when I have ordered late evening. You certainly could not count on this. Tuesday might be a safeish bet but it depends. Why not place an order, see when they expect delivery, assume it will arrive at the early end of this, and cancel if this will not do? Cancelling works very well. Thincat (talk) 19:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I ordered a DVD and a book from Amazon.co.uk just last Saturday evening (or maybe it was Sunday morning). One email arrived later Sunday afternoon saying Amazon's Jersey Merchant (Indigostarfish) had dispatched the DVD. Another email arrived early Monday morning saying Amazon EU had dispatched the book. I was away all week so I don't know which day they actually arrived, but they were here waiting for me when I got back yesterday. I did pay for 1st class postage so I would have a better chance they arrived by this weekend, but I could have probably got away with the free supersaver delivery and still got them in time. Looking back at my previous orders, I see it typically takes a day or two for the order to be processed then there is however long the post takes. It might be different for things that aren't books/CDs/DVDs. Astronaut (talk) 03:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience with UK Amazon, if you order Friday night and it's in stock it'll probably be despatched either at the weekend or on Monday and arrive Tuesday or Wednesday. (Even though they say orders have been despatched at the weekend, they don't move far enough that they'll be delivered Monday.) If you order on e.g. a Monday night it will probably be sent Tuesday and arrive Wednesday or Thursday. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ww2 statue looking to find information on

i have in my possession what looks to be a ww2 paratrooper figure. It was given to me by my great grandmother about in about 95 and she had no information about it. it is about 9 inches tall. What looks to be bronze. standing on a wooden base that has small place for a personal plaque..the soldier is standing straight up with gun over shoulder equipment in front and chute on the back.. a single screw holds that chute on and when unscrewed and chute is taken off a compartment is in the soldiers back.. i have no idea what i have in my possession any help is appreciated. it has some good weight to it, i would also like to know what it is made of if possible. This is link to photo::

<img>http://www.justanswer.com/view_image.aspx?href=http://s3.amazonaws.com/f01.justanswer.com/sshadoww05/2011-09-15_073800_911_022.jpg</img>--Sshadow05 (talk) 21:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)sshadoww05[reply]

That looks to me like pewter rather than bronze. The item is still being sold by this site -- I don't know how long they have been selling it. Looie496 (talk) 01:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the 'Customers who bought this also bought....' bit, you'll see the paratrooper, and it says 'bronze' there. Why it doesn't say that in the article itself is a mystery, though. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[EDIT] - Sorry, there is a pewter version, too. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]