Miscellaneous desk
< February 14	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 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.

February 15[edit]

meg white sex scandel[edit]

was there something that happened with the White Stripes drummber Meg? I heard rumors that there was something to do with a sex scandel and that is why shes off tour, but i wasnt sure.

Stretching tattoo?[edit]

If one gets a tattoo and undergoes physical dermal changes such as gaining or losing a lot of weight, will the tattoo get stretched? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acceptable (talk • contribs) 02:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Like drawing something on a balloon and blowing it up. :P FiggyBee (talk) 02:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why a tatoo on the stomach is a very bad idea. Especially for girls. Useight (talk) 04:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! Acceptable (talk) 00:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless they got one of a map of the world. Then they could be used as an illustrative model of continental drift! Poechalkdust (talk) 17:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dollar value of virginity[edit]

Is my virginity an asset or a liability? How much is it worth? On what schedule is it depreciating? Neon Merlin 03:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on whether your objective is to lose your virginity before or after marriage. If you want to wait, then it is appreciating, otherwise it may be depreciating. If you're under 20, it's definitely an asset, but if you're over 30, it's a liability. There are a lot of factors. However, I recommend waiting until you're married (and hopefully your spouse does the same) to avoid catching anything. Useight (talk) 04:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Useight, in your world nobody gets raped? --68.144.68.238 (talk) 05:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one shouldn't base their life on the hypothetical situation of them being raped. Hence, I didn't take it into consideration. And no, nobody in my world has been raped. Useight (talk) 05:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose there are no prostitutes in your world either, Useight? bibliomaniac 1 5 05:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I'm aware of. I'm sure there are some, somewhere, and I'm sure someone got raped, too, unfortunately, but now we're far from the original question, which only I tried to answer. Useight (talk) 06:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It also depends (a lot) on which sex you are. The going rate for a reasonably good looking 18-year-old woman in the UK seems to be £8,400. See Rosie Reid.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like mine back and would pay a nearly expired amazon voucher for £10 for it. hotclaws 08:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The closest thing to buying it back would be Hymenorrhaphy. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or become a movie star with a squeaky clean reputation. Lots of men "knew" Doris Day and Grace Kelly before they became virgins. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't work if hotclaws is male Nil Einne (talk) 17:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the self-appointed spokesperson for the minority perspective, I'm not so sure about that, NE. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily, Hotclaws is not male :P Skittle (talk) 20:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Clarityfiend (talk) 04:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a fan of American Pie,just look below at the next post ;) Lemon martini (talk) 12:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Average sizes for flutes and clarinets[edit]

Hi, can someone tell me average sizes for flutes and clarinets, please?

I know they can vary, but rough figures in centimeters will be very helpful. Thank you. --Kjoonlee 07:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

don't feel bad if yours isn't as many centimeters as other people's Flutes. It's not how long it is that matters, it's how you use it. I'd just stop worrying about it if I were you. It doesn't help you play any better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.23.221 (talk) 10:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The soprano clarinet tuned in B♭, the most common type of clarinet, measures about 60 cm (23.6 in) according to hyperphysics. The western concert flute tuned in C, the most common type of traverse flute, measures about 66 cm (26 in) according to hyperphysics again. Of course there are all sorts of other types of clarinets and flutes, longer and shorter, but I found no comprehensive list including measurements. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I did find A guide to the lengths of flutes (lengths given in mm) and:

E-flat clarinet (high) (length 19 inches or 48.3 cm) (really could be "soprano" member of the family)
B-flat clarinet (standard) (length 26.25 inches or 66.7 cm) (really could be "alto" member of the family)
E-flat alto clarinet (length 38 inches or 96.5 cm) (really could be "tenor" member of the family)
B-flat bass clarinet (length 55 inches or 139.7 cm) (really could be "bass" member of the family)"

(copied from Antandrus's answer over a year ago). ---Sluzzelin talk 10:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Balkans and conflicts[edit]

Is there a brief summary that explains the conflicts of the peoples of the Balkans? I seem to go blind on all the articles and Balkans itself, but it doesn't provide a very clear overview. Ie, what states sympathize with others, who hold grudges, who don't, et cetera? I know Russia is now supporting Serbia's claim to hold on to Kosovo (as I remember the Russian people was very disgruntled when Russia's government didn't side with Serbia under the NATO offensives), but I am interested in knowing about the relationships that Croatia, Slovenia, Serba, FYROM, Montenegro and, maybe Albania share with each other. Of course one can easily pull in Hungary and Bulgaria, but the westernmost countries of the Balkans are of my most immediate concern. Help will be appreciated like you don't know. 81.93.102.185 (talk) 15:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly can't explain it succinctly, not to mention from a neutral point of view, but I would point out the article on Yugoslav Wars, from which you can zoom in the articles on War in Slovenia (1991), Croatian War of Independence (1991-1995), Bosnian War (1992-1995), Kosovo War (1996-1999), Southern Serbia conflict (2000-2001), and Macedonia conflict (2001). And also check out History of the Balkans for more context. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for foreign relations, see Foreign relations of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Foreign relations of Croatia, Foreign relations of the Republic of Macedonia, Foreign relations of Montenegro, Foreign relations of Serbia, Foreign relations of Slovenia, Foreign relations of Albania and so forth. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to pay attention to ethnicities and religion. (Excuse the generalisations) Albania is Muslim and there are a lot of Muslim in Bosnia and Kosovo. Croatia, Bosnia and Slovenia are mostly Catholic, rest are mostly Orthodox. FYROM has its own problems with every country surrounding it wanting a piece of it, claiming centuries old right to it. Parts of Greece and Bulgaria are named "Macedonia". In Vojvodina (Serbia north of Belgrade) there are people of all ethnicities and religions, with sizeable comunities of Hungarians, Montenegrans, Croatians, Serbians from Kosovo and Bosnia and so on. — Shinhan < talk > 16:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnia-Herzegovina is not mostly Catholic. It is (according to the CIA) 40% Muslim, 31% Orthodox and 15% Catholic. Algebraist 18:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict] Bosnia is not mostly Catholic. No religious group forms a majority in Bosnia. Muslim Bosniaks are the largest group (but less than half the population) in Bosnia, followed by Orthodox Serbs and Catholic Croats. What especially complicates matters is that within the boundaries of each of these countries (except Slovenia), there are sizeable minority groups. In Croatia, there is a large Serb minority, though not as large as it was before the ethnic cleansing or parts of the Serbian Krajina. In Bosnia, there are the three large minorities mentioned above, and no majority group. In both Serbia and Montenegro, there are sizeable Bosniak populations in the Sandžak region and large Albanian populations in Kosovo and neighboring districts. Serbia also has a significant ethnic Hungarian population in the Vojvodina region. Finally, Macedonia has a large Albanian minority. In the context of this kaleidoscope of ethnic minorities, which was largely dispersed and not clustered in homogeneous territories before the Yugoslav wars, the politics of ethnic exclusivism that developed on all sides after 1989 brought deadly consequences. The dominant group in each region engaged in some degree of ethnic cleansing, though the Serbs and Croats did this on an especially massive scale. Because the ethnic minority subject to ethnic cleansing was often the dominant group with a military force somewhere else in the region, these forces often retaliated on behalf of their "cleansed" brethren or made the ethnic group that had engaged in "cleansing" victims of the same where they formed a minority. Marco polo (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answers so far. I've been trying to better understand all the different ethnicities and religions that are key to the conflicts. I'm just now starting to research Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH). I understand that the major source of aggression came from Serbia, since Yugoslavia-wide, high up officers were traditionally Serbian. Correct me if wrong. I would like to know about Neum, which has a clear majority of Croats in its population. Still it belongs to BiH, and it doesn't say that it was attacked during the wars '91-'95 (belonging to the Croatian republic of BiH). Am I to understand no attacks were carried out in this region? How come Croatia didn't use the time of unrest to secure the port? Indeed, the entire Croatian republic of BiH? 81.93.102.185 (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The brief answer to this question is that the international community would not have allowed such an annexation. NATO and the EU considered the republics' existing boundaries sacrosanct, partly because they feared that any annexation could unleash wars of conquest that might further destabilize the whole region, for example by involving Greece or Turkey. NATO used the stick of the threat of a military response to discourage pan-Croatian and pan-Serbian schemes, while EU offered the carrot of development assistance and access to the EU market to encourage compliance. See my comment above, written while you wrote your last post. You might also look at the Dayton Accords. Marco polo (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On your first point, I think it is fair to say that Serbian nationalism was the spark that set the Yugoslav Wars ablaze, but the other parties were far from innocent victims. Each group at a minimum violated the rights of minorities within its area of control, and most committed atrocities or war crimes. The Croats treated their Serb minority especially brutally. Marco polo (talk) 19:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict]Thank you Marco Polo, your comments and answers went far in regards of helping me understand the conflict, and/or assemble an overview. Particularly that of retribution happening elsewhere. I had also mistakenly believed a Bosniak to be just any Bosnian (thinking the noun a bit odd). I am aware that all parties were more or less guilty of warcrimes, none particularly innocent, so it was never the intention to make it seem as if I thought the blame lay on anyone special. Excuse also the mistake in saying Croatian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, when it is in truth Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia. A final question begs itself: What sets the Croats of BiH apart from the Croats of Croatia? 81.93.102.185 (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that the main difference between the Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina and those of Croatia is which side of the border they inhabit. However, there are some historic commonalities between the Croats and Bosniaks of Bosnia in that they are probably descended from the same pre-Turkish population. Like the Bosniaks, the Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina lived for much longer under Ottoman Turkish rule than did the Croats of Croatia, who before World War I were under Hungarian rule. Also, the Croats and Bosniaks (and for that matter, the Serbs) of Bosnia and Herzegovina share similar spoken dialects of Serbo-Croatian per this map. The spoken dialects of Bosnia and Herzegovina are distinct from those in most parts of Serbia and Croatia, even though the different Bosnian communities espouse different written standards (i.e. Bosnian language, Croatian language, and Serbian language). Marco polo (talk) 21:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geography[edit]

Who knows where this place is? (Image should moved to Commons with a corect name.) --GeorgHH (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Crater Lake, Oregon. --Milkbreath (talk) 21:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He he - "Shot myself August 2005"; I hope the injury was only a flesh wound and that you recovered quickly. :) PS. Sorry, but I don't recognise the scene. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that it is Crater Lake. (I've hiked to the top of Wizard Island, shown in the photo.) Marco polo (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another thing to put on my (really long) list of places to visit. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's Crater Lake, specifically Wizard Island as viewed from the southwest rim of the volcano. At a guess, I'd say the photograph was taken from the Watchman Peak viewpoint. --Carnildo (talk) 22:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your help! Image is now available on Commons as Image:Wizard Island, Crater Lake National Park 0001.jpg. --GeorgHH (talk) 00:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who kills the most Americans by gunfire?[edit]

Thinking only of people (of any nationality) who are killed in the USA illegally by any kind of gun whether held illegally or legally by their users/owners; versus the number of American Military Personnel who are killed by any means in foreign conflicts such as Iraq and Afghanistan (though not exclusively), both statistics to be in the same calendar year or 12 month period; which category claims the most victims? Any responses not to include survivors of gun or other attacks please - only the numbers of mortalities resulting directly from them. Thanks. 81.145.240.145 (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About 1 thousand US military are killed each year in Iraq, which is by far the most dangerous theatre. The FBI statistics page says about 8 or 9 thousand people are killed illegally with guns each year. Sources: Iraq deaths, US deaths (see table 2.9). --Sean 22:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Iraq Coalition Casualties lists 901 US Military fatalities for the 2007 calendar year in Iraq, and 117 for Afghanistan. According to this page, 80 people in the USA die from guns every day, which means 29,000 fatalities per year, give or take. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind of course you're still much more likely to die from a gun as a US military personnel overseas then you are as a person in the US. There are 300 million or so people in the US + all the tourists etc versus 300k? military personnel overseas Nil Einne (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that's not necessarily strictly true, as the military deaths are not all deaths from guns (many/most? are from explosives). --98.217.18.109 (talk) 15:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Writing as the OP I want to thank all above respondents for the prompt and carefully considered answers provided. It can be seen however that there are a few conflicts in the info. quoted such as Toto's statistic that some 8-9000 deaths accrue from illegal guns each year in the US when Mattbuck gives 29-30000 - a significant difference methinks, and definitely not one attributable to either of those 2 respondents. And whilst I can see some merit in 98.217.18.109's responseful challenge to Einne's response, I DID ask for deaths in conflict zones by ANY means so am quite content to accept the latter's comment. But, I have to say that as a Scottish tourist to the USA on many occasions, I have yet to see the merest hint of aggression or violence so am always shocked at news reports such as that of the recent slaughter of students in the Illinois university. And it might just seem to a casual outsider such as myself that a fully equipped, armed, trained and alert on-duty US soldier might actually stand a better chance of survival in his hostile deployment terrain than an unsuspecting, untrained, unarmed, unauthorised to retaliate, non-alert and trusting Joe Soap such as myself peacefully walking down Any Street USA, notwithstanding the numerical variances prevalent between those two wildly differing geographical scenarios. Thanks again for all interest shown. 81.145.240.98 (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]