Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous

Welcome to the miscellaneous section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

January 27

How hunter-gatherers spend most of their free time

What hunter-gatherers do during most of their free time? Is it playing games, singing, storytelling, or dancing? It makes you wonder. Does anyone know? Mattdillon87 (talk) 01:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Not a lot of them left, and I am not sure whether the remaining ones are really representative of hunter-gatherers in general and specifically historically (which is what I assume is what you are interested in). --Saddhiyama (talk) 01:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

There's war, sex, and playing cards. For the first two, see Before the Dawn by Nicholas Wade. μηδείς (talk) 01:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

doodling. --Jayron32 04:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, their cave paintings tell us something. They didn't paint dancing or singing. They tended to paint animals and hunters. So, it might be reasonable to assume they told stories about hunting. StuRat (talk) 04:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you'd paint singing. However, it's quite clear that ancient European hunter-gatherer cultures did depict dancing: [1]. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting choice of words, Alex. μηδείς (talk) 02:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't you paint singers with their mouths open, with maybe some lines radiating from them ? BTW, that link doesn't show the pic they describe as showing dancing. Do you have a pic ? StuRat (talk) 08:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

This will answer your question. According to "Frank Hole and Kent Kent V. Flannery. The Prehistory of Southwestern Iran: A Preliminary Report", "No group on earth has more leisure time than hunters and gatherers, who spend it primarily on games, conversation and relaxing." Rebel Yeh (talk) 06:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Marn Grook HiLo48 (talk) 06:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Check the full answer you got at the Straight Dope Message Board, where you posted the identical question. --NellieBly (talk) 07:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• I am not sure how they would have painted singing, but they certainly painted what looked like dancing and prancing. μηδείς (talk) 19:02, 27 January 2013‎

• Doesn't look like dancing to me, just standing or walking. StuRat (talk) 03:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Turns out you're wrong on both counts, StuRat. Primitive man preferentially painted in those portions of caves which provided the best reverb for singing. Music, The Brain, And Ecstasy, Jourdain, p 305. μηδείς (talk) 02:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Sounds iffy to me. What part of a cave doesn't reverberate ? Extremely narrow tunnels ? Well, those aren't good spots for painting and viewing paintings, either. StuRat (talk) 03:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I would think they might spend their leisure time reading Field and Stream. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

@ StuRat, really, just read the sources and study the science; all cave paintings are attributed and dated to behaviorally modern humans and music and dance are among the human universals. μηδείς (talk) 04:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

See Category:Petroglyphs in the United States, many or most of which were created by hunter-gatherers. Nyttend (talk) 21:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Average number of former senators?

I heard today on the radio a US senator was retiring. I imagined he would still be called Senator as an honorific. Then I wondered how many people that actually applied to at any one time. There are 100 sitting senators. Do we have a list of living ex-senators, or a way to make that calculation? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 01:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:WHAAOE. See the list at List_of_living_former_United_States_Senators RudolfRed (talk) 02:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, of course. 167 is quite a truckload. I had suspected it would be fewer than sitting senators. μηδείς (talk) 02:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Why? The Senate isn't a lifetime appointment in the US; and if you look at the list of Senators who have died in office, there have been a total of 298 of 'em, out of a total of 1945 senators so far. So we end up with a lot of ex-senators at any given time. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Jeez, it was just a gut feeling, damn. μηδείς (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

A nice cup of tea sometimes helps that. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Or a Maalox. I note that even just in Illinois there are 6 living former Senators (the list "as of" date is old, but all 6 are still living). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

All in jail, perhaps save one, presumably. μηδείς (talk) 03:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Cannon Rate of Fire

uncivil remark already answered
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I guess that all of you must be very well educated. Beacuse none of you know what civil war that I was talking about. So i will explain to all of you educated fools what I mean. The only Civil War that I have ever been a buff of was the CIVIL WAR that was fought during the years of 1861 th 1865. I am not interested in any other civil war. All the other wars that you are all talking about were not civil wars, they were wars to see who would rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.220.146.161 (talk) 05:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC) Now that you've told us what years, would you like to tell us what country? RudolfRed (talk) 05:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC) Is there another civil war aside from the American, which went from 1861 to 1865? As for the OP, "none of you know what civil war that I was talking about" is a) incorrect as most figured it was probably the US one and b) odd to have such an uncivil comment about the civil war. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC) There's certainly no reason to reopen this incivility to add OR nonsense after it. The OP's got his answer and if he has more he can ask them politely. μηδείς (talk) 04:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I will repeat my answer from above: :It appears the rate of fire was usually 12 rounds per hour normally for sustained barrages, perhaps 4 rounds a minute in dire emergencies. More than 1 round in 2 minute was sometimes a court-martial offense (either for wasting ammunition or for using up your supply quickly so you could withdraw and some other gunners would have to be in harm's way).[2][3] Rmhermen (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I question the claim that an artillerist firing too fast was a "court martial offense," and that the authorities would have greatly preferred to have the opposing force overrun and capture the battery. Balderdash! An extra dose of canister, fired by a zealous battery, might well have broken a charge which would otherwise have gained the opposition a victory. Refs advising re-enactors do not advise us as to actual US Civil War practice. The second ref , from the Civil War, mentions three rounds per minute when canister is being fired. Edison (talk) 01:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't there be a risk of overheating if the cannon was fired too rapidly? Looie496 (talk) 05:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Edison, Rmhermen said "sometimes", not 'always', and he did put some sources on the table. I don't see why disobeying orders to conserve ammunition for when it is needed couldn't or shouldn't result in a court martial. Rapidly firing canister to break up an infantry charge is a very different situation from wasting powder and shot on an enemy far across the field so that one's gun can withdraw prematurely to (relative) safety.

I happened across this order as a serendipitous Google find. While it was issued to mortars and not cannon, it certainly shows that artillerymen received explicit orders regarding rate of fire under at least some conditions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

"Mozart's Trumpet Concerto in A-flat major"

What is going on with this video? It's a transcription of the K. 314 Oboe Concerto in C, but what was the motive behind turning it into a trumpet concerto? It can't really be a reconstruction of some original version of the work, as I doubt Mozart would write a substantial work with movements based in very flat keys such as A-flat and D-flat major – he only appears to have used A♭ in K. 308 (a song), discounting two very small pieces in the London Sketchbook, and doesn't seem to have used D♭ at all. Double sharp (talk) 05:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The motive was someone felt like doing it, and wanted to see how it would turn out? --Jayron32 06:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Mozart wrote a fair bit in C minor and E-flat major, but rarely went beyond two sharps or three flats. There's a symphony and some well-known concertos in A major, but nothing I can think of in F-sharp minor, E major or C-sharp minor. So, A-flat and Mozart are rarely ever found in the same sentence; although I know of at least one sonata movement in F minor.

Trumpet concerto contains a "Selected list". However, it does reveal that Trumpet Concerto (Arutiunian) is written in A-flat. I know that the trumpet and the horn seem to prefer D major (2 sharps) and E-flat major (3 flats), but I've never quite understood why not B-flat major (2 flats) or A major (3 sharps). -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Looking a bit harder using the search function at the DME Mozarteum site (only including relatively substantial works):

E major

• K. 261
• K. 542
• K. 494a (unfinished, but very beautiful)

F minor

• K. 594
• K. 608
• K. 519

F-sharp minor

• K. 488, second movement (cheating, perhaps, but there is nothing else)

G-sharp minor(!!!)

• K. deest (not substantial, but included for the key alone)

A-flat major

• K. 308
• K. Anh. 205 (probably spurious, though)

Double sharp (talk) 13:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The G-sharp minor piece is K.519, listed above under F minor. I don't know what "deest" means. The F minor piece I had in mind is the Adagio movement from the Piano Sonata in F, K.280/189e. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry! Wrong link. Fixed now. Double sharp (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. What does "deest" mean? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

It means that the work does not appear in the catalogue. Double sharp (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Ta. Interesting that that G-sharp minor fragment is notated with 4 sharps rather than 5, and the A-sharps are hard coded as accidentals. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

It's also interesting how he appears not to have learned about double sharps yet when he wrote this. Double sharp (talk) 06:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Non-Chinese reviews of the Great Wall Haval H5 SUV?

According to the Wikipedia article, this SUV has been sold both in Australia and the EU. However, I cannot find any articles or reviews of this vehicle from those markets. Can someone please help me find some sources for performance reviews of the Great Wall Haval H5 (or H6) SUV that are not Chinese? The Masked Booby (talk) 06:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd expect it to have been "badge-engineered" with a different name in those markets. Maybe that's why you can't find it. Our article says that it's called "X240" in export markets. A google search on "X240 SUV review" produced a ton of English-language reviews. Beware though, the H3 and H5/6 SUV's are "different" vehicles in China - but in Europe and Australia, all three are called "X240" - so it's hard to distinguish which version is being discussed. SteveBaker (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Steve. I'll pay close attention to the article dates, that should clarify it a bit. The Masked Booby (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's a Malaysian review: [4]. StuRat (talk) 08:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Bee Gees

I am a fan of the Bee Gees. In articles - it reads that they resided at Redcliffe in Brisbane. They may have moved there at sometime after arrival in Australia. I feel they ' didn't grow up ' in Redcliffe - formative years were at Cribb Island. To my knowledge the family actually lived at Cribb Island - aka ' Cribby ' which was near Nudgee Beach - Queensland. Barry actually ' graduated ' from Cribb Island School class in 1961. Maurice, Barry and Robin Gibb were mentioned as also attending Cribb Island School. In an article it reads " The children of an English migrant family, in the late 1950's' sold soft drinks at Redcliffe Speedway between races and promoted sales by their singing act. " Another article mentions " Archerfield Raceway " whether this is a promotional name, I do not know.Archerfiled is many k's from Redcliffe. Cribby Island kids, known as " Cribby Kids ' were never well off - a poor area. Cribby Island was last in the Street Directory in 1981, the airport having taken the land over. When you have time oh volunteers :O) would you please clarify a few of these items. PS. We never hear about Lesley Gibb born 1945. Hugh Gibbs died in 1991, where did he die and where interred. With thanks Anne Morrisson Gumpie Queensland — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.250.220 (talk) 07:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

We do have some information in the articles on Andy Gibb, Barry Gibb, and Maurice Gibb. You are welcome to add this to the main article. It would be even better if you could find a reference that mentions Cribb Island. Rather strangely, this web-history (written by a member of the family?) doesn't mention Cribb Island. There are a couple of mentions of sister Lesley in the articles on her brothers, but she is probably not sufficiently notable to have her own article. Dbfirs 08:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

According to find-a-grave, Hughie Gibb is in Forest Lawn in Hollywood:[5] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

January 29

Rate of fire

moved [6] to the talk page

What name and number?

Any idea why it is that some college basketball teams, such as Kansas and Baylor, have adopted jerseys with an overlaying, semi-transparent fabric through which the names and numbers of the players are barely visible? --Halcatalyst (talk) 05:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

NC State had these on this past weekend as well. It's called fashion. That is, there is no functional or useful reason except that it looks "cool". --Jayron32 14:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Cop partners

Does anyone have information as to the general protocol in the United States regarding when police officers have partners and when they don't. As a somewhat thoroughly law abiding citizen of NJ, my most intimate relationship with policemen is that of having seen them on TV and in films, and I was wondering, when do cops have partners and when do they not? Does it relate to them being walking on foot vs. having a police cruiser? Do detectives get partners while regular officers do not? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I notice that traffic cops don't usually have partners. I imagine anyone going into a more dangerous situation, like going to make an arrest, does. StuRat (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

My understanding (sorry no references) is that it varies by police department. On the one hand, putting two officers in a patrol car makes them both safer (and more effective at dealing with situations). On the other hand, putting them in different cars means that more points in the city have a police car and officer nearby. So it's a trade-off. I can remember on various occasions reading that a police department was considering switching from one choice to the other. Duoduoduo (talk) 18:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

There might also be situations where there aren't enough cars to go around, so they double up for that reason. StuRat (talk) 04:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

In small towns, there is often only one officer on duty at a time.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 09:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

internet service providers default browsers

please give a link(s) that shows the default browsers for internet providers of the u.s.a.

I'm not sure that "default browsers of internet providers" is actually a meaningful discussion. Particularly now that internet access is virtually ubiquitous, every computer already comes with at least one browser already installed, and ISPs don't seem to make a big deal about installing browsers any longer (the various toolbar tie-ins are frequently multi-browser). I would guess that the majority of ISPs default their technical support illustrations to "how it looks in Internet Explorer", as that's still historically been the leading browser in terms of market share. Many, though, will also provide guidance for Mozilla Firefox, Apple Safari, Google Chrome, and maybe others. — Lomn 15:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. There are, however, a few ISP's which have/had their own browsers, such as AOL. StuRat (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, from Usage share of web browsers it looks like Chrome has overtaken IE in terms of market share, although it's a complicated thing to measure. --Viennese Waltz 16:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Huh. That curve has moved faster than I would have guessed. Anyway, details updated per your comment. — Lomn 22:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

How things have changed! When I got my first computer, it did not have a browser installed, and the owner of the local ISP came to my house to install one.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 09:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Phah! The youth of today have no idea! I built my own computer from scratch in 1978, wrote the 200 byte "operating system" by hand in hexadecimal and loaded software via paper tape from an ancient teletype at 10 bytes per second (My present computer loads software about a billion times faster). Not only did the Internet not exist but to connect to any other computer you needed a telephone modem...and not one of those fancy schmancy ones you plug into a wall socket...an acoustic coupler where you plugged the telephone handset into these rubber cups with microphone and speaker connected to the computer. SteveBaker (talk) 14:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

"And you try and tell the young people of today that, and they won't believe you".  :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

"Back when I was in school, we had to walk 10 miles to school, uphill ... both ways !". StuRat (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Comedian Larry Miller, speculating on a lecture to his future kids: "In my day, we didn't have jet-packs; we had to drive to school." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Odd how Opera is #1 browser in Belarus, according to File:Countries by most used web browser.svg. Astronaut (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

You're not the first one to notice that, apparently [7]. Something to do with the prevalence of highly restrictive download limits in Belarus, apparently. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 18:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

microbiology

i need the fullform of AST in microbiology and also i need explanation of AST. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.204.5.107 (talk) 15:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The most likely entry in our disambiguation page AST is to Aspartate transaminase. Is that what you're talking about, and have you read that article? Rojomoke (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

npo's and 1099's

Do you need to issue a 1099 to NPO's you have made payments to during the tax year? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.105.162 (talk) 16:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

We cannot give legal advice; consult your tax professional. I can, however, direct you to the IRS page on 1099-Misc, here [8] SemanticMantis (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

86.46.194.120

User talk:86.46.194.120: Revision history

I have never knowingly edited any wiki references or articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.194.120 (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

This just means that someone using that IP address edited an article, wasn't necessarily you. IP addresses are not always owned by people in the same way that phone numbers are - if i disconnect from my internet service provider then reconnect there is a chance i will be allocated a new ip address from their range, so someone tomorrow may be using the ip address that i was using today. It is possible to request a static ip address from your internet service provider, so that it will be constant, but this is often not done by default. In the days of dialup internet ip addresses would often be different everytime someone dialed in. ---- _nonsense ferret 17:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The other solution is just to register a screen name with Wikipedia, in which case no edits should be misattributed to you. StuRat (talk) 23:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

That Ireland-based IP has only 2 edits: The one above, and one from 3 years ago which drew a mild warning. Very unlikely to be the same guy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

January 30

Wikipedia pictures

Hello, I was wondering where Wikipedia gets your pictures from that are in your articles? Do you buy them from people or they all donated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.222.6.140 (talk) 02:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

They are all cost-free pics. Some we take ourselves, others are public domain, etc. StuRat (talk) 03:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Ignore StuRat's answer — it's impressively incorrect and not even a good simplification. He should really know better. I suspect he does. They are not "all free pics", at all, and such is a dangerous misconception.

Correct answer: the images on Wikipedia fall into roughly two categories. The first are images that are available under a free license. This means they may have terms attached to how they are used, but those terms are sufficiently broad to allow us to use them here without any possible copyright violation. Many of them are in the public domain, but a huge number of them are not. Many of them have been uploaded and licensed by users of Wikipedia, but a lot of them are taken from other webpages, Flickr, and places where people have indicated the licenses are sufficiently free for Wikipedia. To get an idea of the kinds of terms that can be attached to these, see our article on copyleft.

The second category are images that are in fact copyrighted by others. They are used under a clause of American copyright law known as fair use. It is complicated but basically it says that it isn't a copyright violation to use other people's images without their permission under certain conditions (such as scholarly analysis), and whomever uploaded the image to Wikipedia thinks it satisfies those conditions. Not everyone agrees about this and often such images are removed. The conditions are complicated by our article explains them as best it can. Our policy page at Wikipedia:Non-free content explains how this works in the context of Wikipedia.

The bottom line is that Wikipedia pays no one for its images, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are being used with permission, or even free for other people to use. You will have to view the individual license pages for any images on here (just click on it) to see what the terms of its use on Wikipedia are, and what implications that has for its copyright status. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

You apparently misunderstood what I meant by "free". In the context of a Q about whether we pay for them, this means no, we don't: "They are cost-free". You must have thought "free" meant something else. StuRat (talk) 04:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The personal attack portion of 98's comments could justifiably be zapped. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

That is still completely incorrect. They are not all offered up "free". We take them and use them and don't pay anyone but that doesn't make them free. Under that definition, anything is "free" if you didn't pay for it — whether you got it legitimately or not. It's not really "free" if the reason you didn't pay for something is because you figure you probably won't get sued over it,a and if you did, you might be able to claim that it its into a legal loophole. (There is a reason that the relevant policy page is called Wikipedia:Non-free content.) Bugs, personal attacks? Where? "He should really know better. I suspect he does." Do you really think that's a personal attack? Again, Bugs — grow up. Some of us are trying to help people get correct answers, here. You tell me how your contribution above does that. Assuming that a long-time user like StuRat would have at least a passing familiarity with how images work here on Wikipedia is not a personal attack. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Saying "that is incorrect" would have sufficed. Attacking the other user's integrity in front of the OP is not appropriate, and you should know better than to do that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

All Wikipedia pics are free as in free beer. Some are free as in free speech. See Gratis versus libre. --Jayron32 04:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Not all are free as in free beer. Some are stolen as in stolen beer. Things people steal may not cost them any money, but that doesn't make them free. The flowers in my garden are pickable by any passing stranger, but that doesn't mean they have the right to just take them without my permission. They might be freely accessible, like many of the photos we're using, but they are not free. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

True, but no money exchanged hands to cause the pictures to be displayed here. Stolen beer still doesn't require any outlay of funds. Stolen is merely a subset of free. --Jayron32 13:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not. Free means the thing is morally available to you, whether you take it or not. Stolen means it may be physically available, but not morally available - but you take it anyway. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 14:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

That would be free as in speech, free as in freedom as in liberty. Free as in beer only refers to outlay of money. --Jayron32 20:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that calling fair use images "free" confuses things more than it clarifies them, even under a lay (and not legal) definition of "free." --Mr.98 (talk) 18:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought the word was clear enough, based on the context of the Q, but apparently not. I've now clarified my response. Are you going to remove your personal attack, which was based on your misunderstanding of what I said ? StuRat (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I have to back up StuRat on this one. The questioner asked whether Wikipedia paid for pictures. Stu responded that, no, Wikipedia does not pay for pictures, which as far as I know is perfectly true (though I suppose there is no absolute bar on the Foundation paying a photographer to create a work under an acceptable license, if it would be of sufficient value to the encyclopedia). I'm somewhat at a loss to explain why the reaction has been so harsh, unless it's coming from the anti-fair-use POV. --Trovatore (talk) 04:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• All entertainment at wikipedia such as that above ��is free. μηδείς (talk) 12:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

There are many sources of images within Wikipedia.

• Pictures donated by the people who took them under a variety of licenses that allow free use by anyone.
• Pictures that are so old that copyright on them has expired.
• Pictures from sources such as the US government that are in the public domain.
• Pictures that ARE copyrighted - but which Wikipedia uses under the tricky "fair use" provisions of copyright law. Generally we can only do this if there is no other photograph available, and there is no reasonable possibility of getting a replacement, and we make no profit on it, and we don't compete against the owner of the copyright for business, and if we use a reduced resolution version, and if we only use it as an essential part of an article about the subject (ie, not just as decoration). The precise details of what allows us to use such images can be tricky.
• Pictures that really shouldn't be here - people upload photos without the legal right to do so all the time. We try to get rid of them as fast as we can - but if people lie about the status of an image, then it can be very hard for us to find and remove them.

When you re-use a picture that you find on Wikipedia, you should be especially aware of the last two possibilities. Just because Wikipedia can claim excemption under the "fair use" provision of the copyright law, doesn't mean that you can! You can find out what rights we have to the image by clicking on it and reading the information on that page.

If you need pictures for your own use that are NOT "fair use" - I'd suggest you use Wiki Commons which is where Wikipedians put pictures that are believed to be truly free for anyone to use.

SteveBaker (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Steve, that's a pretty good summary, but I think the bit about "make no profit on it" is not quite right. Of course the Foundation doesn't make a "profit" per se on anything in Wikipedia, but there is no general prohibition against claiming fair use in a context where you do make a profit. That a use is noncommercial can be one aspect of a fair-use defense, but it is not in general required. (Otherwise, for example, you couldn't quote from another book, in a book you're planning to sell.) --Trovatore (talk) 04:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, also, you're somewhat conflating fair-use law with the internal requirements English Wikipedia has set up for the use of fair-use media. The Wikipedia requirements, in my non-expert view, appear to be rather conservative, probably because there is a large contingent here that is hostile to allowing them at all. I do not think, for example, that the "essential part of an article" thingie corresponds to anything in the law, though I'm willing to be corrected by anyone who actually has expertise in the area. --Trovatore (talk) 04:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

While you're correct we go beyond the fair use requirements for a number of reasons, a well acknowledged fact, I think the example you chose isn't great. Steve specific wording included the phrase i.e. not just for decoration so it's clear they're not thinking of a middle ground. While as with most things in law, you should never say never the fair use requirements make it far more difficult to sustain a claim of fair use if your use is solely decorative as in that case there's no good reason why you have to use the copyrighted work and it's harder to be 'transformative'. You don't have to take my word for it [9] [10] basically say he same thing. We do generally require a far greater importance the is likely to be needed for a fair use claim, but as I said Steve didn't seem to be thinking of a middle ground. A better example would be excluding fair use images from anywhere besides the encyclopaedia proper, including here and somewhat controversially the main page. In some of these and other cases, a fair use case could be easily sustained. We also generally disallow images of living people although I

think the use of fair use is complicated, in real life it often doesn't come to it becuase people often se publicity photos and similar where they have limited permission. Nil Einne (talk) 18:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, fair use is a tricky matter. The problem is that the law doesn't define specific steps you have to take in order to take advantage of the fair use provision. You're left with a pile of semi-requirements that are taken together by a judge, weighed and balanced, and an opinion formed. For a site like Wikipedia, that's horrible! In cases where we're on the margins, we rely on editors and admins to weigh that same evidence and (hopefully) come to the same decision that a judge would. That's really unlikely to produce good results! Hence we over-compensate. If you want to see how messy and complicated this can be, check out the image being discussed in our Lenna article and the fuss that this created on the talk page, and on the talk page of the image itself. The image was uploaded here in 2005, discussion over whether we can use the image under fair use started in 2007 and flared up again several times later - culminating in a huge debate in 2011 - and still ongoing as contributory evidence for the possible de-sysopping of one of the Wikipedia admins!

Given that level of difficulty, you can see why there is considerable call for the banning of all such "fair use" images on English-language Wikipedia. The practice of using "fair use" images has already been banned from German-language Wikipedia (the http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lena_%28Testbild%29 article has no picture of "Lenna"). On the other hand, the result of that blanket ban can be some fairly ridiculous problems. Take, for example, the Andy Warhol article. The English-language version includes a low-resolution photograph of Warhol's famous soup-can painting...under "fair use", we are allowed to show this picture as an aid to discussion of Warhol's art. It's not there anymore - but for a long time the German article had a photograph of an actual can of soup instead! I believe that that image was removed because the actual soup can label is also copyrighted and a close-up photograph of it would have to be used under fair use too! However, Wikipedia articles about copyrighted works of art are considerably diminished by not being able to show the reader a picture of the artwork being discussed! The German article about the "Lenna" image is a fairly useless stub because of that.

Hence this remains an open battleground within Wikipedia with good arguments on both sides. The idea that failing to display images that we're legally allowed to display makes for a much worse encyclopedia is in direct conflict with the idea that Wikipedia may be legally copied and mirrored, quoted and re-used by other sites - where those same images might not be legal as fair use. The balance between Wikipedia's "openness" and it's usefulness as an encyclopedia is a difficult one.

That's why our OP has to be careful when re-using images from English-language Wikipedia - they are not all freely usable for just any purpose. If you took the picture of the soup can from Andy Warhol, printed it out, framed it, and sold it in a store - I'm fairly sure that you'd be sued for copyright infringement - and you'd be unable to claim "fair use" as Wikipedia could if it were to be sued for displaying it in that article. On the other hand, the photograph of Warhol's childhood home from the same article can be printed, framed and sold perfectly legally.

SteveBaker (talk) 13:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Clinical trials funded by pharmaceutical companies

Are clinical trials funded by pharmaceutical companies but conducted by reputed universities reliable? I mean is it possible for a company to manipulate the result in their favor? What are the measures taken to prevent this? --PlanetEditor (talk) 03:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

It's probably not easy for them to overtly influence the outcome, as that could get them in major trouble. On the other hand, they might tend to select universities, which, in the past, have provided results favorable to their company. Knowing this, universities might tend to subtly alter their results to accommodate the companies. StuRat (talk) 03:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

They can exert pressure, most easily by digging up flaws in the methodology if the result comes out in a way they don't like. That happened in the lab where I was a graduate student, and it was a pretty unpleasant experience for my advisor (who didn't give in to the pressure, by the way). Looie496 (talk) 03:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, a fine example of a StuRat-makes-stuff-up answer. References, who needs 'em? --Mr.98 (talk) 03:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

"Another really famous case was where an investigator did a clinical study that was sponsored by a manufacturer of a thyroid hormone, a drug called Synthroid, and the university didn't have publication rights. When the investigator submitted to a medical journal, the sponsor made him pull it." [11]. (It doesn't sound like the paper submitted was sufficiently positive.) StuRat (talk) 04:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The full quote is "When the investigator submitted to a medical journal, the sponsor made him pull it. I think that was a case where the university really learned the importance of protecting the academic freedom of investigators." It's not talking about submitting faulty information to the FDA. To be clear, I'm not defending the actions made in the allegation... but I'm just saying, that snippet from a TV interview is out of context given the OPs question. Shadowjams (talk) 08:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. This is one example of how the relationship between a university and pharma led to the suppression of a study by the uni. The question wasn't limited to the FDA, it didn't even mention it. One way to "manipulate results in your favor" is to publish favorable studies and suppress the rest. Also see Richard Avery's comment below. StuRat (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

"They found that there was a statistically significant relationship between funding source and qualitative conclusion. Unfavourable conclusions were reached by only 5% (1/20) of drug company-sponsored studies, compared with 38% (9/24) of non-profit sponsored studies." [12]. StuRat (talk) 04:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, this makes sense. --PlanetEditor (talk) 06:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Add to that the fact that hundreds of trials are undertaken each year the results of which are never published because the results are unfavourable to the pharmaceutical companies. This hidden information is an international disgrace, Ref: Bad Pharma. Richard Avery (talk) 08:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The FDA requires extensive testing in what are known as clinical trials, which have distinct phases. The drug companies themselves pay for those trials. The vast majority of them end in failure. We have at least 300,000 articles on soccer, but we don't apparently have an article on FDA drug trials, which we should, which would go into detail about the specific steps. New Drug Application appears to be the closest we have to that procedure.

Long story short, clinical trials are necessarily funded by the drug companies, and no, those, under the supervision of the FDA show very little evidence of being biased. The penalties for falsifying data are high, and the benefits are slim (because it won't take long to find out). You might look at Vioxx to see an extreme example... one in which the process wasn't perfect. The FDA gets as much criticism btw for not approving drugs that are approved in other areas (mainly Europe). Shadowjams (talk) 08:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Not that I disagree with the gist of your statement, but I think there's been evidence of a problem in the way clinical trials were done, namely while drug companies may not have much influence over the outcome of the trials, they frequently have had the choice whether and when to publish them, even in cases where it's an approved drug. This has been an issue in the Vioxx case but is also generally considered a wider issue. [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]. Some of the data from the trials may be provided to the FDA (and other regulatory agencies), but this still makes it difficult for others to evaluate the available data such as in a systematic review, for example when deciding which drug is the best choice. Things have changed a lot in the past few years so things aren't quite so bad although many still think we have some way to go. Nil Einne (talk) 11:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The publication bias is an under-recognized (until recently) phenomena and it creates a serious problem in all kinds of research. But... and I don't know enough to answer this... does that apply to FDA trials? My gut instinct is that they have to disclose (maybe not publish) everything they find. I know that's true for adverse effects. Vioxx got pulled I believe because of post-approval testing like that. So I guess I question if publication bias has bearing directly on FDA trials. Shadowjams (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

First, this question isn't about FDA trials, where did you get that from ? If doctors become aware that an FDA approved drug has problems, due to published negative results, they will be less likely to prescribe it. This is why suppression of those studies is so important. And, even if we limit the discussion to the FDA approval process, which for some reason you want to do, such studies could affect that, too. That is, even if they aren't submitted to the FDA, if the FDA becomes aware that there are studies out there showing alarming results, this might make them ask for additional studies and slow down the approval process. StuRat (talk) 17:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

It is about clinical trials, as opposed to clinical studies. The term "trials" has a particular meaning, and I use the FDA as an example. Perhaps China and Europe have other approval processes that are worth mentioning, but I'm unfamiliar with those. Approved drugs often (if not always) have a post-approval process that requires monitoring of them, so publication is hardly an issue. If the drug starts having serious side effects (or even unserious ones) they have to be reported. Failing to do so sends people to prison. Shadowjams (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Trials doesn't automatically mean FDA trials. We just had another Q on how side-effects often go unreported. As was stated there, doctors who find possible side effects are not required by law to report them, and often don't. StuRat (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

One of the things I tried to emphasise, but perhaps failed to, is that while I'm not saying that the FDA, or any of the major regulatory bodies do bad work, most people recognise it's a bad idea to just rely on the FDA. An important part of science is the ability for random other people to review the results, where they may for example catch things that may have missed, or simply disagree with the conclusions. The same for the FDA. And in fact, it's not just about disagreeing but having the best information available. As I did mention, if there are multiple drugs you have to decide somehow which one to use. I suspect often the decision isn't actually that well considered, but when it is, it's difficult to make a good decision if for one drug you're considering there are a bunch of studies which showed it didn't do much, but these were never published. (I don't think relying on the fact most drugs have some studies which were never published so it balances out works.) The conclusions of any meta-review is far more likely to be somewhat flawed if it's only reviewing half or less of the data. You'd note that most of the sources concentrate on negative results but the safety aspect can come in to it as well. If the studies suggesting side effects are common for one drug were never published, the decision process on which drug to use is also likely to be flawed. While the FDA (and other such bodies) do require safety information in particular to be distributed and also have some role in gauging effectiveness and of course in making sure claims by manufacturers are accurate, it's best if professionals can actually see the data. Just for emphasis, this doesn't have to mean the FDA or whoever made a mistake in the approval or post approval process (although there was some suggestion they were too slow in the Vioxx case). It's possible the drug should be on the market even if far fewer people are likely to choose it. P.S. In case it isn't obvious, I'm primarily referring to post approval. P.P.S. I mentioned there being multiple candidates but of course in some cases the decision might be a drug vs surgery, or treatment with a drug vs no treatment (or perhaps just palliative). Nil Einne (talk) 12:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Or the case that bothers me most, where they prescribe a drug with potentially lethal side-effects, rather than getting the patient to eat right and exercise, say to lower their blood pressure. StuRat (talk) 07:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I think two things are being mixed up here. Big pharma can fund pre-clinincal research in universities, where bias and pressure are most definitely a risk and have happened, as StuRat has correctly cited. Then there are Phase 1 and further clinical trials, which are done under the authority of the local drug regulation agency, eg FDA. Those are generally very well done, although this being science, something can always go wrong. And Shadowjam, why would we need an FDA specific trial article when we have the perfectly fine clinical trial article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgf10 (talk • contribs) 09:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Because the largest pharmaceutical producing nation in the world has a very specific procedure for drug approval that involves literally billions of dollars on important drugs, let alone in aggregate. For all the articles we have on miscellaneous topics, this one seems rather important. But it's a lot harder to write than copy pasting in box scores. Shadowjams (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the FDA trials are necessarily done well: a company wants to get approval as soon as possible, so they go for short trials that would suffice the FDA criteria. That's why in the case of SSRI's for example, the difference with placebos is small, but enough for the FDA. Others have used these as proof that SSRIs don't work,, which I think is a misrepresentation. If the FDA had set higher standards, the companies would have chosen trials of longer duration. Four weeks for an antidepressant like prozac, that has such a long half-life it takes weeks to reach a steady state is too short for good results. Ssscienccce (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

That's a bold statement to base on one case, a case that our article on the subject dispels within the lead ("For patients with very severe depression, the benefit of medications over placebo is substantial"). There's way more than one 4 week study done on an approved drug. To characterize prozac's approval as a 4 week study is incorrect. Shadowjams (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

That's not what I meant, prozac was just an example. Of course there was more than one trial, and also trials longer than four weeks; but because the FDA disregards negative results (or did so in the 80s), there's no harm in trying to get a positive result with a short trial, one can always get lucky. My point was that if you want to know how good or bad SSRIs work, these FDA approval trials won't give you that information because they were not designed for that, all they had to do was show a statistically significant effect. That meta-study mentioned in the lead did exactly that, use the data to measure something that the tests weren't designed for. Ssscienccce (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok I see your point... I think I had a different conception of what you meant by "done well." I think they're done quite well as far as accomplishing their stated goals, like safety, and having at least some efficacy. But you're probably right in a broader picture about them falling short of some other goals. Our publication bias article's pretty good--pre-registering studies for instance--but my ultimate point in this discussion is that drug-approval clinical trials are designed to avoid this as best possible by requiring all collected data to be revealed. Shadowjams (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Ben Goldacre has written Bad Pharma, in which he pretty clearly dislikes this apparent conflict of interest. You might want to give it a read if you after some references (I'm assuming he has them in there at least!) 80.254.147.164 (talk) 12:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I did a graduate level study last year on dental implants sponsored by an implant company -- we put over a hundred implants into 18 dogs and those dogs were special purpose-bred (about $700) and had to be maintained in an veterinary OR kennel under appropriate supervision for 18-37 weeks, like special diet, oral hygiene regimen, etc. I think the cost was somewhere in the ballpark of $200K, which did not include the write-off for all the implants/components donated by the company. This information I give you just so you can get an idea of the fees that can be associated with clinical research, and this is just dogs. Primates can run $5K each and the housing and care is likely more expensive. So this gives research, as a whole, the strong motivation to obtain corporate sponsorship -- much like the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety will run crash and safety tests on any vehicle type as long as the vehicle company provides 2 or 3 free specimens for running the various tests. I'd speculate that the best way companies can interfere with research is with some form of promoting publication bias in that only a favorable result will be published. Now, this didn't happen with my study, and one can't say for sure when it does occur, but if publication is delayed or altogether averted post-hoc because of bad findings, only the good news gets out. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

That's a good point. I think an important point that's easy to gloss over is that "publication" in a journal is not the same as a study, and a lot of things are reported to the FDA (or whatever governing body) outside of just "publications," which take months if not more to get reviewed and published. Because you're familiar with the process, do you think that's a valid distinction? Shadowjams (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't speak for drug studies, because that's not my field, but for dental implants and periodontal surgery -- which are the leading disciplines that contribute the corpus of dental literature -- unpublished papers are nearly meaningless. In fact, even published papers in unrespected or sub-par journals garner sniggers. I mean, if you have some important new findings on cloning cell metabolism, you don't publish in Popular Mechanics, and if you do, academics wonder about your methods, your data or your findings. So, too, if there's some great new finding (or even a mediocre new finding) that's important, why publish in the Australian Dental Journal if you could have bee published in Journal or Clinical Periodontology. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

You might all be interested in the graph at the bottom of this page (as it's a British Medical Journal site I feel confident in its figures!). --TammyMoet (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Turbo tax ownership

who owns turbo tax — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hopper6713 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Intuit Consumer Tax Group. In the future check the Turbo Tax article first. Shadowjams (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

January 31

NOBEL PRIZE

Has wikipedia or wiki foundation ever been proposed for the Nobel peace prize ? 118.93.116.134 (talk) 03:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

According to Nobel_Peace_Prize#Nomination, the prize can only go to people, and the names of nominees are held secret for 50 years. So, Wikipedia or the Foundation cannot be nominated, and there is no way to know if Jimmy Wales was. RudolfRed (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere there where it says it can only go to people. The committee's most recent lunacy was, in fact, giving it to the European Union, which, while it's composed of people, hardly counts as "people" — it's a political body. Now that they've started down the road of awarding the prize to abstract objects, I don't know what's to stop them from awarding it to the number 17 or the color blue. --Trovatore (talk) 03:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Ooops. Misread the list in the section. I thought it was a list of eligible nominees, not nominators. RudolfRed (talk) 03:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Note that the Nobel Peace prize was awarded to an organisation or something similar many times before the EU, the first time in 1904. The EU was the first time since 1999 that it was awarded solely to an organisation (it has been awarded to an organisation a few times after 1999 but always together with a person associated with that organisation). Nil Einne (talk) 12:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Umm, are you calling the EU an abstract object? Now i would find it amusing if they really did go abstract, as in, the 2013 Nobel Peace Prize is awarded to "Peace", since the other nominees, 17 and blue, were considered unworthy. IBE (talk) 01:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The question arises, which is more peaceful: The EU? Or Wikipedia? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The precise wording used by Nobel was that the winner "shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.". It's not about how peaceful the nominees are - it's about how their actions have made the world in general more peaceful.

For example, in 1953, the award was given to General George Marshall because he was General President American Red Cross; Former Secretary of State and of Defense; Delegate U.N.; Originator of [the] Marshall Plan. However, Marshall was instrumental in many miliary actions - personally responsible for all manner of warlike events. You couldn't describe him as an entirely "peaceful" person...but he got the award because his actions resulted in much peace.

I'd say it's not much of a stretch to say that Wikipedia has aided "fraternity between nations"...but perhaps not sufficiently to beat out the competition. SteveBaker (talk) 14:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Given that nominations aren't revealed until fifty years later, we don't know whether Wikipedia has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. The Peace Research Institute Oslo notes a rumour that the site was nominated in 2012. Warofdreams talk 16:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, simply being nominated for the Peace Prize isn't all that special. There's a pretty long list (probably in the tens of thousands, if not more) of people eligible to make a nomination: members of national assemblies or governments; university professors of history, social sciences, or law; and a bunch of other smaller groups. Nominations aren't pre-screened, nominators aren't further pre-qualified, and it only takes one nominator to make a nomination. In other words, if you want to just be nominated for the prize you only need to persuade one doddering old professor, or one nutjob politician.

Looking at the database of old nominations, one can find a nomination for Hitler (in 1939) and two separate nominations for Stalin (1945, 1948). In the alternative-medicine field, there are a number of proponents of ineffective magical cancer treatments who claim to have been nominated for a Peace Prize, as if it were some sort of meaningful credential or endorsement. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo

Does Mr. Jim Wales draw a salary from Wiki or wiki foundation ?

118.93.116.134 (talk) 03:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

No. Jimmy Wales#Wikimedia Foundation says: His work for the foundation, including his appearances to promote it at computer and educational conferences, has always been unpaid. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Geography

Why is the extraction of limestone so important to industry and agriculture in Pakistan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.48.204.25 (talk) 15:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. What does your textbook say? AlexTiefling (talk) 15:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you could look at our Wikipedia Limestone#Uses article and let us know if you have any questions afterwards. Alansplodge (talk) 15:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Because Fred Flintstoni Khan can't make a daiquarry without it. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

February 1

Who is my father?

My name is ...[removed]

Removed per WP:BLP We do not identify non-notable people or their relatives, especially not without verifiable sources. Editors who want to offer resources for such searches can do so without reference to personal information.

My Google search for find your biological father online reported about 2,220,000 results, including this one.

• I Found My Biological Parents, and Wish I Hadn’t - NYTimes.com (May 4, 2012)

—Wavelength (talk) 03:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

ETHICS

IN ETHICS, DO DEAD PEOPLE HAVE RIGHTS OVER THEIR PROPERTY-INCLUDING INTELLECTUAL ONES- AND PRIVACY? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.52.145.100 (talk) 09:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Your caps-lock key is over there, at the left hand side of your keyboard. 'Ethics' is not a set of universal standards. However, as a rule of thumb:

• 'Rights' are granted by law to natural persons. They are at least as much a matter of law as of ethics.
• Someone dead is no longer a natural person under the law, so they have no rights as such.
• Dead people also own no property, and enjoy no privacy. ("The grave's a fine and private place...")
• Whether or not the wishes of people now dead, expressed while they were alive, ought to be respected varies between legal systems, and between ethical systems. Your answer to this question depends on your other assumptions in lots of ways.

If you can tell us more about what legal and ethical systems you're interested in, we may be able to help you more. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Although a deceased person's Estate passes to their next of kin, who inherit intellectual as well as physical property (usually for a limited amount of time). Alansplodge (talk) 13:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Is that necessarily true in the Phillipines? I wouldn't count on it. If the OP wants to know, he needs to consult a lawyer licensed to practice in the Phillipines, assuming his IP geolocates to where he actually is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you're bracket may be in a confusing position or alternatively your statement must only apply to limited area. AFAIK in most places inheritance of physical property lasts indefinitely, baring exceptions when stuff like fraud is involved, or any laws which limit how long you can hold certain forms of property or which otherwise allow your property to be taken by someone else without your agreement. But as said, in most cases these are exceptions. (Various taxes may also arise which may make it difficult for you to keep your property in some cases.) Of course once that person dies, their estate will be handed over to whoever their beneficiaries are including any stuff remaining from their inheritance. Intellectual property is generally time limited and in some cases, the limit may be shorter after death of the original creator (or perhaps there is no limit until death), although you do generally keep whatever you rightfully inherited until any expiry when the rights cease (or you die). Nil Einne (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a very interesting question. Difficult to know where you want to go with this though without more information. A question came up recently on the humanities reference desk concerning the german legal theory (with their normal level of civil law precision) notion of 'Rechtsfähigkeit' which is as a natural person, the ability to be a holder/subject of rights and obligations. Both civil and common law legal systems, I believe, tend to recognise that the ability of a person to be a holder of rights ends at death - there are notable exceptions to this in terms of things like copyright and personality rights; and the recognition of these exceptions seems to vary a bit from one jurisidiction to another.---- _nonsense ferret 20:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Death does not retroactively destroy one's rights. The right to have a will is simply the right to make a gift and to make legal arrangements contingent on future dates just as with commodities futures and insurance. Likewise someone who is murdered doesn't therefore lose his right to life, leaving the killer scott free because his victim no longer has rights. The point about dead bodies is they can no longer pursue or engage in new rights or rightful acts after their deaths. Dead people can't write new wills after they are dead. Living people can write wills that take effect upon their death. μηδείς (talk) 01:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Strange military vehicles in London

This morning, I saw two [civilian type] transporter lorries carrying military vehicles in London. Although the vehicles were mostly covered with tarpaulins, I could make out that they each had the acronym "UDF" printed on it, along with a stylised globe logo. Additionally, I saw no sign of the usual British flag one normally sees on UK forces vehicles, although, like I say, the tarpaulin may have obscured it. Assuming the Ulster Defence Force isn't on active service in London, does anyone have an idea who these vehicles belong to? --Dweller (talk) 11:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

My first guess would be that they belong to a film crew, and that 'UDF' will prove to be some kind of ersatz-UN organisation in some action movie in the next 18 months. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

And here [19] is a picture, and here [20] a news story indicating that this is Tom Cruise's forthcoming SF feature All You Need Is Kill. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Great sleuthing. Thank you. I imagine that choice of acronym may cause some box office anomalies in Northern Ireland and Eire. --Dweller (talk) 12:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! And yes - a Hollywood action film, based on Japanese source material, being insensitive about the Troubles? Who'd have guessed? AlexTiefling (talk) 12:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

You mean like the rather ill chosen "The future's bright, the future's Orange" ;-) Dmcq (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Something like that, although the Indy lazily repeats the 'No va' urban legend [21], so i'd view the reporting with a little skepticism. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Although dressed as a military vehicle, I think it's one of MAN SE's civilian trucks (they make them in so many variants for different purposes that I can't figure out precisely which; I think it's a construction build TGM) rather than one of the military vehicles built by Rheinmetall MAN Military Vehicles (which have armour). IMCDB hasn't got a page up about the movie yet. So they probably belong to some plant-hire company, to whom they'll be returned (with the cammo overpainted) once filming is done. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 14:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The MAN vehicles we used in the US Army 56th Field Artillery Command 20 years ago were not armored. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

How do I change my username on a wikipage?

How do I change my username on a wikipage? Venustar84 (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of the fact that that might be highly inappropriate, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk which handles editting questions. μηδείς (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Past posts to talk pages where you signed your username probably shouldn't be changed. If you wish to merely change your username going forward (i.e. to start using a new username from now, without regard for your previous posts on talk pages) you can do so at WP:CHU. --Jayron32 19:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The user has already promised not to change his username given past misbehavior. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Archive_96#New_NeptuneKH94_sockpuppet_nonsense. The user's already got over a dozen names. μηδείς (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, yes. In that case, don't do that. Just keep this name, and don't do the things you were told not to do before. --Jayron32 01:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

February 2

Eileens' Tacky Glue - in UK and Australia.

My g/f has a business making small plywood building models (http://renm.us) - and we recommend that our USA customers glue them together with a white wood glue called "Eileen's Tacky Glue" - which comes in a gold bottle and is on sale just about everywhere (eg Walmart, HobbyLobby, etc). I'm writing the instructions for assembling her models and because she makes big sales in the UK and Australia, I'm wondering what to recommend to her customers in those places.

The critical attributes of this stuff is that it's fairly sticky when fresh from the bottle but has a long working time - and most importantly, it dries completely transparent.

Could anyone from Europe/UK and Australia (and other countries too if you can) suggest whether Eileens' is commonly available in stores there - or what a decent local alternative might be?

TIA. SteveBaker (talk) 03:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

eye patch

in making of an eye patch what material is used thanks billy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.2.126.176 (talk) 06:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

An eye patch can be made of many materials, it just needs to block light and not cause any other problems. Cheap, disposable ones can be paper, with others made of cloth. In either case, an elastic cord is needed to hold it on the head. There also seems to be a version held on with adhesive, which is more like a Band-Aid/plaster. StuRat (talk) 06:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Sony TV selling stores in Doha with estimated prize

Hi, I am trying to search the website of the Sony TV selling stores in Doha with estimated prizes. Tried Sony Doha website but they don't show the prize. Thank you in advance.Nirajrm (talk) 06:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand. Can you clarify your question ? StuRat (talk) 06:57, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I want to buy the Sony LED television from Doha but no website is showing it. Can you suggest a website for the same?Nirajrm (talk) 06:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)