Miscellaneous desk
< February 13	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 15 >

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.

February 14

Venus figurines

Dear Sir, Madam:

Can you add my idea to your Wiki page "Venus figurines".

I think Venus figurines were objects given to women who has given birth to twins.

You see, it is a big deal to have more kids during glacial period for survival sake.

They are rarely found in graves because they were proudly displayed.

Their facelessnes indicated that the figurines were passed from woman to woman.

Note: We see things based on our personal experiences, even if one is educated. This tendency is emphasized in our anthropologists when something we don't see nowadays show up in the ground.

Thank you very much.

Yours truly, John .Wang [personal information removed, see guidelines above.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.98.141.146 (talk) 18:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have various articles on the individual ones, such as Venus of Willendorf and Venus of Hohle Fels. If you read those articles, and check the categories they are in at the bottom of the pages, they will lead to other material. μηδείς (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that Wikipedia can't add your idea, because Wikipedia doesn't publish people's original ideas. Rather, every single thing written in Wikipedia is instead supposed to be a summary of existing published scholarship on a topic. I hope you can read up a bit on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in this area. If you have access to already published and reliable information which is not currently cited by Wikipedia,, we of course welcome those additions, but if this is just something you thought up yourself, I hope you can understand why this encyclopedia is not the correct place to write it. --Jayron32 18:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Business concepts

I have a feeling there’s a simple answer to this (so don’t look past a possible answer on the grounds it’s too obvious!), but I’m drawing a blank. Let’s say I have a warehouse and on Sunday I see that I have 100 cases in it. Over the week I sell 20 and receive in 24 more, so that by the time next Sunday rolled around I have 104 cases in stock. In basic terms, I could say that I had a “net gain” of 4 cases, but is there a standard way to measure/describe the swing of -20/+24? I don’t want to get bogged down in the basic arithmetic; I’m interested in the terms. For example, if a second warehouse also went from 100 cases to 104 cases, but sold 60 and received in 64, it would obviously be operating quite differently than the first warehouse, but what term would we use to describe the difference? Warehouse two has a larger… what? Throughput seems related, but the article makes it clear that it’s not the same thing at all (and in any case seems to deal more with production than warehousing). Any help? Matt Deres (talk) 19:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inventory turnover Marco polo (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! Thank you; I knew it was something obvious. :) Matt Deres (talk) 20:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, does McD's track their turnover turnover ? StuRat (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Question Regarding money taken out of paychecks

I don't understand taxes very well...

So, I know that I make 9 dollars an hour. I also know a portion is taken out of my paycheck for taxes. I also know that the government sends me a big check after I file that (I've been told I think) contains everything they took out.

So, at the end of everything, do I get the complete amount of 9 dollars an hour for all the hours I worked? 50.43.130.15 (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not usually, as that would mean you aren't paying any income tax. Assuming you are in the US, the withholding tax is normally a bit higher than the amount you are likely to actually owe in income tax, so they give you some back after you file. The reason the withholding is normally higher is to prevent you from owing extra tax at the end of the year, and paying a penalty on that.

Also note that other things might be withheld beyond income tax. In the US there can also be FICA (Social Security tax), medical/dental/vision insurance, union dues, contributions to retirement funds, etc. StuRat (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thank you. I've never understood the retirement funds either...so they force you to put money towards your retirement? I read that after a while, you are required to start putting money towards your retirement. I don't understand this; personally I don't plan to ever retire. I work the sort of job you can do the rest of your life. 50.43.130.15 (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're forced to pay taxes. Other deductions from your check(such as group insurance and company pensions) are usually voluntary. Keep in mind that FICA withholding likely goes to current retirees, and when or if you retire and start to draw social security, that will likely come from then-current employees. And as regards your plans, here's something I heard a long time ago: "If you want to make God laugh, tell Him your plans." Things have a way of not working out the way you expect them to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what Bugs is suggesting. Put something away for retirement. Even if it's just a percent or two of your pay. You can start pulling it out when you're past retirement age and you never know, maybe you'll you want to use the money to pay for trips to see your grandkids (and spoil them) during your vacations from this awesome job of yours. Dismas|^(talk) 13:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because of the power of compounded interest, retirement funds invested for a long time build up far more, especially if the employer matches the contributions. StuRat (talk) 19:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki article on Harold E Puthoff and my recent edit

yelling about content dispute--please continue this on the article's talk page

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

}} On 11 February I edited the "Background" paragraph and see that you have not accepted it. This concerns Puthoff's academic qualifications. The Wiki article now states that he has a PhD from Stanford and quotes as the source for this information, under footnote (1), the Gale Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology, although I remember EarthScience International, not this encyclopaedia, being quoted in the original Wiki article as the source for this information. Anyway, if you click on footnote (1) in your current version of the article, a page on answers.com opens up, with a page from the encyclopaedia, which gives NO source for the academic qualification information, and a Wiki article on Puthoff where the source for the academic qualification is EarthScience International, as I remember it being originally. NOW EARTHSCIENCE INTERNATIONAL IS A COMPANY SET UP BY PUTHOFF HIMSELF, AS IT SAYS IN THE "BACKGROUND" PARAGRAPH. THERE IS THEREFORE NO INDEPENDENT CORROBORATION OF THIS INFORMATION. This is what set my alarm bells going originally, and why I pursued the matter and edited in the way I did. I hope you still have that edit. I could find NO OTHER, i.e. INDEPENDENT, SOURCE FOR THIS INFORMATION. So I am very unhappy at the way the current Wiki article stands in this regard. Please contact me if you need to. P123cat1 (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to continue a content dispute. Please take it to the talk page. You can file an WP:RfC to get other people's opinions, and at WP:ANI if you face serious disruptive behavior. You can also go to the Wikipedia:Help Desk if you need further advice. Also, yelling in ALL CAPS is considered yelling, so please avoid it when unnecessary. μηδείς (talk) 23:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Please don't SHOUT at us, P123cat1. We have not "not accepted it". One other user, Goblin Face, has reverted your edits: this is commonplace in Wikipedia (see WP:BRD). The thing to do now is to engage with Goblin Face either on the article's talk page or Goblin Face's talk page and try to reach agreement. That is the first step in our Dispute resolution process. --ColinFine (talk) 23:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re my edit on 11 February on Wiki article on Harold E Puthoff

P123cat1 (talk) 23:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)Thank you for your reply and I apologise for "shouting"! It won't happen again. Thanks also for advising me how to carry the matter further. I have found "Goblin"'s page, but cannot see how to contact him, but will try again later.[reply]