Miscellaneous desk
< June 23	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 25 >

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.

June 24

Canadian Paypal question

I'm confused by the answer I've received from Paypal regarding being paid in US dollars. The support person says I can link to a Canadian bank account denominated in US dollars, but warns there will be some mysterious "conversion", unlike an account in a US bank. How have others in this situation dealt with it? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does THIS help? It seems to suggest that there won't be any mysterious conversions...but that description is dated Nov 2010 - so it's possible that the rules have changed. There is a more complicated HOW-TO here - but it's dated from 2011, so it could still be outdated. There is more discussion about it here. The crux of the problem seems to be that it's not enough to have a US-dollar account, it has to be physically situated in the USA. What I'm getting from reading these various posts is that the RBC (Royal Bank of Canada) has a way to set up an account in a branch that's situated in Florida - and you can do that by going to one of their branches in Canada. But it definitely looks like you're fighting a difficult and uphill battle. SteveBaker (talk) 13:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I answered something similar before although it may have been about different countries. Either way it's likely a dumb idea to use a US dollar Canadian bank account. AFAIK, PayPal does not allow you to choose the withdrawal currency, perhaps because amongst other things, some bank accounts may simply reject foreign currencies. (It's possible the transfer method they use doesn't even allow different currencies.) And while I don't know about Canadian bank accounts, I suspect like many countries there's no standard indication from the account number that it's not denominated in Canadian dollars. Therefore, what's likely to happen is your withdrawal of USD will be changed to Canadian dollars by PayPal, and the receiving bank account will either deposit it in Canadian dollars (in which case there's no advantage to the bank account having some currency in US dollars) or convert it to US dollars and deposit it as that (i.e. a double conversion). What SteveBaker and the refs he provided seems to be suggesting is a US dollar US bank account, perhaps with the US arm of a Canadian bank (who may be able to help you set one up from within Canada). Note that because it's a US account not a Canadian one, you'd have to comply with whatever the legal requirements are in the US for such an account and any problems would likely be dealt with under US law. This would probably work, from memory PayPal generally let's people tie US bank accounts to their PayPal account even if their PayPal registered address is not in the US so you probably won't have problems linking your bank account even though you don't live in the US. (At least they seemed to for NZ.) Nil Einne (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thought so, see Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2012 December 5#international payments Nil Einne (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can flight SU150 avoid flying over US airspace so that US authorities cannot blacklist its passengers?

Count Iblis (talk) 19:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the USA has seen fit on multiple occasions to ignore the 'in transit' provisions of what I dimly recall as international law (maybe a treaty?) by nabbing passengers who were changing planes and thus only very technically on US soil (airports don't quite enjoy extraterritorial status in the way e.g. embassies do, but historically passengers who were merely changing planes were never considered to actually be 'on' the soil of X nation. I seem to recall that there were exceptions carved out--they must remain within the security cordon, for example, but there are plenty of examples of technically stateless persons who have lived in airports. Tom Hanks did a movie based on this concept I think), I highly doubt the red white and blue would give much of a fuck. Kind of the same way that if a cop shows up and asks to come into your home and you say no, they'll not infrequently go "hey I smell marijuana" thus having probable cause. I'm quite sure if airlines started doing this sort of thing they would suddenly have difficulties being registered and/or landing on US territory. — The Potato Hose 19:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused by both the question and the response. I don't think there was ever any suggestion the flight was intending to land in the US, which considering it's intended destination is Cuba, seems fairly unlikely. So I don't get the relevance of airports. I also don't get what blacklist the OP is talking about. It would seem fairly strange for the US to blacklist people simply for being in a flight also booked by someone wanted for espionage (which he didn't even get on). Most of them may be journalists who booked the flight under the assumption Edward Snowden would be on it, so the US may not be happy about that although blacklisting journalists simply for following the story would seem a bit extreme (after all, they could be unsympathetic to him). And there is the United States embargo against Cuba, so any US citizens on the flight may run some risks depending on the purpose of their travel to Cuba. But in either case, I don't see why the US is going to care whether or not the flight happened to travel over their territory. Now of course if Edward Snowden actually got on the flight, there is a risk of the US ordering it to land if it entered US territory, probably under some pretext and then after it landed arresting Snowden. [1] [2] Those sources suggested it was going to (whether it did or not I don't know) fly over US territory but could have avoided it. But I don't get the relevance of this to the US blacklisting other passengers, or the US's handling of 'in transit' provision in airports. Nil Einne (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, exactly, the No Fly List is in my opinion something with huge potential for abuse and an enormous temptation for overweening government, and something needs to be done about it — BUT I would not expect any US administration to be so clumsy as to use it in such a blatant way. All hell would break loose, and they would probably end up losing its potential for subtle intimidation. But if they did decide to use it in that way, it's not clear how a plane's avoiding US airspace would prevent it. --Trovatore (talk) 21:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we drop the editorializing? The OP has offered no evidence that anything will happen to people on this flight, or even defined what is meant by blacklisting. It's not our place to comment on what we think might or should happen based on an ill-formed request, not for references, but for opinion. Until the OP asks a coherent question, no response should be given, and even then, they should be in the form of links and references as opposed to "shoulds". μηδείς (talk) 22:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not inclined to take instructions from you on how to respond. --Trovatore (talk) 22:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't addressing only you, Trovatore, but if my asking you to pay attention to the guidelines makes you feel empowered to ignore them, then you go girl. μηδείς (talk) 22:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems many people require a visa if transiting through a US airport, but not if "transiting" through US airspace. I don't see how the US could legitimately blacklist (add to the no-fly list?) other passengers simply for being on the same flight as a fugitive, whether or not the flight enters US airspace. However, I do think the US could order any aircraft entering its airspace to land at a US airport, and could easily scramble military jets to enforce that order if necessary (something similar happened recently in the UK). Astronaut (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to this article:

"One million British travellers planning to fly to Canada, the Caribbean and Mexico this year face the risk of being turned away at the airport – at the insistence of the US Department of Homeland Security.

New rules require British Airways and other airlines flying to certain airports outside America to submit passengers' personal data to US authorities. The information is checked against a "No Fly" list containing tens of thousands of names. Even if the flight plan steers well clear of US territory, travellers whom the Americans regard as suspicious will be denied boarding."

Count Iblis (talk) 19:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You reply seems to confuse further rather than explain what your question is. The text you quote and the link you provide talks about checking names against the existing blacklist not adding people to it (and as me and others have mentioned it seems unlikely the US is going to add people to that blacklist just because they happened to be on the flght booked by a person the US wants for espionage whom according to reports at the time and as seems confirmed now wasn't even on it). And while the practice may be controversial I don't get the relevance here. I have no idea if Aeroflot is made to follow it, the article doesn't seem to specify precisely who is made to follow it nor how it is enforced although I presume anyone who refuses may find themselves unwelcome in US airports or even air space. But even if it does, it doesn't seem it will have an effect here. The text you quoted says the US doesn't care whether the flight is flying over US territory so avoiding it won't help. And it's not like the US is likely to add Edward Snowden to the list, they want him back in the US, not away from it. I guess it's possible they're hoping to stop him flying completely in the hope Russia will get bored of him hanging out in their transit lounge or he'd get bored but this seems a slim hope and it's unlikely it will achieve that anyway, rather just keep him away from the US. (They've perhaps already made it difficult for him out of the fear he may end up somewhere unsympathetic.) If he is flying somewhere it seems more likely they'd prefer him to fly over the US not try to keep him away, that way they can choose whether or not to force the plane to land (it seems unlikely they'd need to do much, unless the pilot is working for the FSB or something if they're asked to land for a good reason they're likely to land even if they suspect the real reason). I guess the US could try to use the list later, by finding someone on the flight is on it when it's over the US but there are plenty of other ways they could plausibly get the plane to land so no particular reason to think they'd choose this. And the point of avoiding US territory would be to discourage them from finding a way to make it land in the US not because the blacklist can come in to play.Nil Einne (talk) 17:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'm not suggesting the US will definitely try to get any plane carrying Edward Snowden over the US to land. Simply that if they wanted to they could surely do so without resorting to actions as extreme as suggested in various places. And also that if they really cared that much, it would be rather dumb for them to add him to any blacklist particularly not one which is only going to stop him flying over their territory, which as I also, noted doesn't seem to apply to the No fly list which the US applies to some planes not flying over their territory. Nil Einne (talk) 13:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roy E. Gray fly fishing rod

I have 2 great looking fly fishing rods, both poles have painted on "Rods by Roy E. Gray" "8' for #5. line" any info of value? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwr8206 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For a reliable idea of the market value, you need to 'show them' to a dealer. --Aspro (talk) 00:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can do an eBay search to get a rough idea. I see used ones with bids around $10 to $80 - then "Buy It Now" prices up in the $100 to $300 range for new ones. It's not clear whether anyone is buying at the high prices - and it's possible that those low bids aren't making the reserve. But it looks like these things aren't hugely valuable. SteveBaker (talk) 16:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A better way of price-checking on eBay to to only search auctions that have ended. There should be an option if you are logged in to your eBay account. Then you can see what they actually sold for, and what ones don't sell. 209.131.76.183 (talk) 19:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]