Miscellaneous desk
< April 14	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 16 >

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.

April 15

Pilobolus Soundtrack

Can anyone tell me what the song used in this performance by Pilobolus is from? I have a vague feeling I've heard it being used somewhere else... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sX5AOkgxpqk&list=SPfLpFsUtJnOZX6_0uDjtIuSFq6v0EvbQl&index=3 La Alquim ista 02:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it Empire State of Mind (http://www.lyrics.com/empire-state-of-mind-lyrics-jay-z.html) by Jay-Z? Futurist110 (talk) 04:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

teenagers

i was wondering if there's any way of knowing how many teenagers edit wikipeade. if someone reading this is, and you say so, that would give me some idea. (p.s., feel free to remove this if it violates some rule. i'm used to having everything i put on the internet being taken down.) 70.114.248.114 (talk) 06:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No need to take the question down — it's an interesting question, but one to which there is no exact answer because editors do not usually disclose their age (though some do, either deliberately or by accident). I would estimate that at least a third of editors are teenagers (like yourself). Perhaps someone else can give a more accurate estimate. Dbfirs 06:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC) (no longer a teenager!)[reply]

It's a very interesting question. I would be surprised if it's as much as a third, but really I have no idea. I'm sure there have been surveys and studies about this, but this is the best I can find at the moment, which appears to be self-selecting. Maybe someone else could try digging a bit deeper.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some results of a 2011 survey. Deor (talk) 09:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if those are representative, then the fraction is less than a quarter, so I was possibly over-estimating. I was including the frequent anon edits from school pupils that are not always constructive. Dbfirs 11:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tough question because "people who edit wikipedia" might be people who spend 50 hours a week obsessively creating content - or people who occasionally see a typo in an article they were consulting - and just drop in to fix it. It might also include vandals, trolls and other malcontents. So this is a tough question to answer. I think the 2011 poll is the best information we have - but it's kinda thin. SteveBaker (talk) 14:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was accused of being a teenager here on Wikipedia the other day because of my alleged immaturity. As someone who is removed from those years by five decades, but as someone who also works with teenagers daily, taking immense delight in it, I could have taken it as a double insult, but I took it more as an indication of the intellectual capabilities of my accuser. HiLo48 (talk) 21:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dbfirs, why assume i'm a teenager? and SteveBaker, did you mistype "occasionally" on purpose? but you all have valid points. except, i wouldn't think it's more then five percent. my reasons are beyond my knowledge. 70.114.248.114 (talk) 21:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where I live, it's usually only teenagers who start sentences with a lower-case letter, and use lower case for the personal pronoun, but please tell me if my assumption was false. Things might be different where you live. (or praps u were delibratly fooling us?) Dbfirs 07:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of mistyping, are you aware there's no such thing as "wikipeade"? It's Wikipedia. In fact, that's the only spelling error in any of your posts in this thread, which leads me to ask "Was it deliberate?". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Wikipede though. Rmhermen (talk) 03:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. The take away from that iconic 20-year old cartoon is that there is no way to reliably verify the identity of anyone on the internet. This has not changed in 20 years. --Jayron32 04:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

being a teenager isn't something you should be "accused" of. yes, i did type "wikipeade" on perpose, to see if someone would say something. and jayray32, what the h are you talking about? 70.114.248.114 (talk) 05:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you type "perpose" on purpose as well? Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- There's no reliable way to answer your question, because we have no way to confirm who people say they are. --Jayron32 11:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

body language

if ppl call you fat enough, you start to believe it. that's known. but i was wondering if there body language can effect how fast this happens. (p.s., do the admins ever block an ip permanently? and what's with me being asked for a captcha do to external links when there were none?) 70.114.248.114 (talk) 06:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to your postscript: No, IPs are not usually blocked permanently. That's because they are not usually permanently assigned nowadays. We don't want to block other users that get the same IP by accident. You are being ask for a CAPTCHA to fend of link-spamming robots. Even when you only add a portion of the page and don't add a link, there may be an external link elsewhere in the page when you try to save it. It's not quite trivial to find out if an edit added a URL (consider a spam bot who edits the page 3 times, each time adding 1/3rd of the address), but it is easy to check if there is any URL in the text, so, AFAIK, that is what Wikipedia uses. The easy solution is to register an account. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you should start to believe that you're fat just because other people say so...and that's independent of whether it's their body language or what they call you. Science to the rescue...you can calculate it!

You can measure your weight versus your height and find out for yourself. When you know the answer, you don't have to care what other people are saying about you...you'll know for sure. It's really easy to weigh yourself and measure how tall you are and calculate your "Body mass index" (BMI) - which is the standard that lets you know whether you're overweight or not.

If you know your weight in kilograms and your height in meters, divide your weight by the square of your height and that's your BMI. If you know your weight in pounds and height in inches then divide weight by the square of your height and then multiply the result by 700.

If you're a child or a teenager, then you need to consult the chart in our Body mass index article.
If you're an adult, and the BMI result is below 25, then you're the right weight for your height - and definitely cannot be considered "fat". At a BMI of around 25 to 30, then you might want to consider losing a few pounds, but calling you "fat" is a bit excessive (the technical term would be "obese"...which, for adults means "a BMI over 30"). But if you're an adult and your BMI is over 30, then perhaps your friends are trying to tell you something important...but perhaps in not the most subtle of ways!

So for me, I'm 5'10" (which is 70 inches) and I weigh an unfortunate 210 lbs (down from 300lb a couple of years ago). So 700x210/(70x70)=30, so with my BMI of 30, I'm what you'd fairly call "fat" - and I'm working hard to do something about it. You can turn the math around and multiply your height squared by 25 (and divide by 700 if you're working in pounds and inches) and get your desired weight...which for me is 25x70x70/700 = 175lbs. So I've got to lose 35lbs...and since sustainable weight loss requires that you do it sensibly, I've been eating 1700 calories per day and dropping about one pound per week - so it'll take me another six or seven months to get where I need to be....sigh.

But if your BMI is below 30, and certainly if it's below 25, then you will know for sure that you aren't fat - and to hell with anyone who says otherwise!

SteveBaker (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know of anything specific but peer pressure or social exclusion or body language might be starting points. Most of the emotional impact of what's said comes from body language but people vary greatly in how they deal with negative opinions or taunts, I'd guess psychological resilience would say something about that. There are measures of how fat a person is like body mass index and they should be relied upon for factual information, if a person is dangerously obese then they should try to do something about it for the sake of their health. Personally I think one should depend on others for knowing how one appears as that is likely to be less biased than one's own opinion, but it should be viewed dispassionately as if one was another person and whether good or bad it should just be treated as evidence in figuring out the future rather than as an emotional subject to waste time on or rejected so one does things assuming an untruth. Dmcq (talk) 14:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Body dysmorphic disorder--TammyMoet (talk) 17:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

BTW, I think you meant body image. "Body language" is conveying information by nonverbal means, like sitting close to somebody you like. StuRat (talk) 17:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I’d say BMI could be used as a guide, but not that it should necessarily be relied upon. Better indicators are probably things like blood pressure and other things that could denote you are actually unhealthily overweight, rather than merely aesthetically imperfect. ¦ Reisio (talk) 23:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly - but we're not being asked about health - merely whether the epithet "fat" could reasonably be applied...and BMI is a pretty reasonable non-judgemental, numerically definite answer to that. If your BMI says that you're not fat - then whoever is saying this is just plain wrong. If it says that you are, then maybe they have a point...although they may be conveying it badly. SteveBaker (talk) 01:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be a contradiction in terms, Steve. As you point out, BMI Index is a non-judgmental indicator. It does not say that anyone is fat. and it does not say that anyone is not fat. It is just a number, on the basis of which an assessment can be made. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 06:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover it is not aesthetically (or medically) reliable (but could certainly be used as a generic goal post setter). ¦ Reisio (talk) 08:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

protect childhood innocense

I would like to learn about a group who proports to protect childhood innocense. My search yielded religious affiliations but I did not find the full extent their protection encompasses. Protecting childhood innocense seems an admirable goal, but my question is the definition of childhood innocense protection. Is this a back door method of promoting pro-life or pro-choice positions or really as simple as the name implies, protecting the innocense of children? Where is the source of funding and to whom has the funds gone? Who are recent recipients of the funding and what criteria needs to be met for funding to be dispersed?

This is the first time I have ever asked a question of Wikipedia so am not sure of the proper presentation or if I have provided enough information in order for Wikipedia to research my question and then provide a response. Upon your advise, I shall be happy to provide any information Wikipedia may require of me.

Thank you for your kind attention to this inquiry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.163.12 (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Usually when people talk about "protecting childhood innocence" (note the spelling), what they mean is preventing children from learning about sex. And usually it is religious-oriented people who care most about that. On the whole, though, your questions are so broad that they are almost impossible to answer in a meaningful way. Looie496 (talk) 17:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's short, but Children's interests (rhetoric) basically sums up how many people would interpret that phrase to be used. Think of the children! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't directly fit with either a pro-life or pro-choice position, but does go along with anti-condom and anti-birth-control philosophies. The idea is that if children know nothing about sex, then they won't have sex, so don't need such things. However, this argument is seriously flawed, as keeping children ignorant of sex in modern society would require total isolation from mass media and society. And, even if you could do that, children eventually figure out sex all on their own. So, the result of such policies is unprotected sex, leading to disease and unwanted pregnancies. Once the unwanted pregnancy occurs, then the pro-life bit comes in.

The new vaccine against HPV given to girls to prevent cervical cancer might also be targeted in the name of "preserving childhood innocence", thus increasing the rates of cervical cancer. StuRat (talk) 17:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given to boys and girls these days. Turns out if you just give it to girls the incidence of oral cancer in males goes up. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about gun safety lessons, shouldn't these start as soon as children are coordinated enough to pull a trigger? It's rather naive to think they won't shoot each other if we don't talk about it. μηδείς (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The NRA would argue precisely that. StuRat (talk) 22:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My sister works in Boston. My niece and nephews will be shielded from news of today's events, just as they are shielded from overt adult sexuality. Has nothing to do with a maudlin religion, as both she and my Brother-in-law are atheists. The innocence of children is an issue of the decency of adults. Not some silly superstition. μηδείς (talk) 01:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The idea or theory is to prevent or minimize kids' exposure to stuff they may not be ready to handle yet, to keep them from getting traumatized. It's a tough call, because every kid is different. The parents have to know their kids' maturity levels. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you identify this city?

See this picture. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[1] got via google images Dmcq (talk) 18:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same as Dmcq, but I used tineye. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Duh, I was pushing the wrong button at Google. μηδείς (talk) 18:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an aside, see Los Angeles City Hall which is probably the most famous building in the downtown L.A. skyline, for a city not known for its iconic tall buildings this is probably the most famous one. --Jayron32 20:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, excuuuse me, but except for Texas and Salzburg I have not been west of the Mississippi. μηδείς (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Austria is west of the Mississippi? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha. Saltzburg is in Eastreach, but you can get there by going west. I am always flattered when people actually pay attention to what I write. Thanks, Bugs. μηδείς (talk) 02:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you write with the general expectation you will be ignored, your standards will slip grievously in order to fulfill your internal prophecy. Conversely, if you generally write in order to be noticed, you'll become a crass show-off, a literary Liberace. In between those two poles is the place to be. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Me neither. But I'm aware of the existence of things I have not personally been in the presence of. --Jayron32 21:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The L.A. city hall has been used for everything from a staple background image on L.A. cop shows to a stand-in for The Daily Planet building in the 1950s Adventures of Superman TV series.[2] It has appeared on every episode or film of Dragnet, as it is the icon on the police badge.File:Dragnet title screen.jpg File:Dragnet movie.jpg ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't U.S. Bank Tower more famous/iconic? (It's the one the aliens blew up in Independence Day, at least.) Adam Bishop (talk) 01:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a structure, but a lot more recent. Which were more iconic in New York, the WTC towers, or the Empire State and Chrysler buildings? My money's on the latter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ Baseball Bugs: Sure, it's west and east, though going west takes a little longer. Bielle (talk) 02:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. μηδείς (talk) 03:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and similarly you can get to Texas by way of Salzburg. So you actually are west of the Mississippi - many thousands of miles west of it. Who said geography was mundane? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Geography is mundane exactly - "of the earth". Bielle (talk) 04:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And thus you win today's alertness prize. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting to see novomundane persons discussing the word "mundane". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 06:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]

According to the biblical account, we're all members of homomundane, Jack. --Dweller (talk) 09:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can see what μηδείς means if Texas in Mexico is the farthest west they've gone. ;-) Dmcq (talk) 08:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have never been that far north in North America, the furthest being extreme N.E. MA, and Niagra, Ontario. μηδείς (talk) 19:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Learner's License Ontario appointment required for test

Do I have to make an appointment for taking Learner's License test?--Donmust90 (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)Donmust90[reply]

The main site is not very useful for this question. There is a comment, however, that says "oral knowledge tests" require an appointment, so perhaps one can deduce from that that other tests do not. Better still would be to call the number given for Drive Test Centre information, and ask: 1-888-570-6110 Bielle (talk) 23:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to the G1 written knowledge test, simply visit a drivetest centre along with some sort of legal identification papers that allow your legal name, date of birth (month day and year) and signature to be verified. These can include a passport, citizenship card, or immigration documents. Birth certificates are also acceptable as proof of date of birth. signatures can be from OHIP cards, and other such things. Also, bring some cash. No appointment is necessary. On the other hand, if you are referring to the G1 exit test (which grants a G2 licence), you would need to make an appointment. Consider purchasing a copy of The Official MTO Driver's Handbook, which is where I got all the information from, or look through a copy at the library or bookstore. Bramble claw x 01:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]