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 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 [1] [2] 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." [3]. (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." [4]. 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. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. 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)

Yes, I am calling the EU an abstract object. --Trovatore (talk) 07:54, 3 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)

Yes, badly placed brackets - I was thinking about intellectual property like copyright and patents. Alansplodge (talk) 18:22, 3 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)

I think I'm right in saying that personhood and capacity in a legal sense ends at death - the person is no longer a person under the law and cannot be a holder of rights. The example of murder isn't really an upholding of a right to life of the dead person, it is just an enforcement of a obligation not to kill people on the murderer. The distribution of the deceased's property after death is arguably not an enforcement of the deceased's rights - surely it is an enforcement of the rights of the beneficiaries, and the rights and obligations of the executors. The beneficiaries can agree to amend the provisions for succession, so I think that points towards it being their right of succession rather if you see what I mean.---- _nonsense ferret 16:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the rights of the beneficiaries matter--but they only have those rights in that form (as opposed to inheritance laws for next of kin in intestate deaths) because the deceased wrote his will while he was still alive granting those bequests to them. Death doesn't affect that. It makes no more sense to talk about the dead having no rights in this situation than it would to say the dead have no obligations and hence debtors claims against the estate are null and void. μηδείς (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate you think it makes no sense, but I understand it is the prevailing view particularly from a civil law tradition to frame the analysis in these terms - rights and obligations are held by a person under the law and legal personality ends with death - that you might have a claim on the deceased's estate is an obligation on the executor, not the deceased ---- _nonsense ferret 13:25, 4 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 [11] is a picture, and here [12] 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 [13], 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)

Don't abbreviate "Wikipedia" as "Wiki"! There are other wikis out there – Wikipedia is just one of them.

I wasn;t going to change it on wikipedia. I was going to change it on wikimoon.org. 174.7.167.7 (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

How were we supposed to mean that you mean WikiMoon? Dismas|^(talk) 21:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, we have no association with Wikimoon. You'll have to contact someone there. --Jayron32 00:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense. Ok I'll ask people on that website. 03:24, 3 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)

We have a selection of PVA glues available in supermarkets and hardware stores in the UK, but I haven't seen Eileen's. It might be available in craft shops. Eileen's seems to be more tacky than the average PVA. Perhaps someone knows a craft equivalent. Dbfirs 08:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

You can get Aleene's® Original Tacky Glue in the U.S. in a gold bottle (check spelling). Also Elmer's Craft Bond seems to be similar but I haven't used that one myself - is it available overseas? Rmhermen (talk) 16:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Aleene's glue does appear to be available in the UK (e.g. here) but it wouldn't be recognised as describing a particular type of glue. The only immediately recognisable ones I can think of are Pritt Stick, UHU and Copydex, but I don't think any of these match what you're looking for. The best bet would probably to specify using 'tacky, clear PVA glue', and leave your customers to choose the brand they prefer. You can search on the Hobbycraft website (the first link I gave) to see the sorts of things that are available. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 18:01, 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)

If it is for a costume, black felt is usually used. See these instructions or google "how to make an eye patch" for other suggestions. μηδείς (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The eye patch store[14] mentions ultrasuede and leather as a materials for an eye patch. Vinyl is mentioned in this search. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Sony TV selling stores in Doha with estimated price

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 fail to find the electronic stores selling TV and displaying the prizes on their website. Can you suggest a store website?Nirajrm (talk) 06:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The confusing part is your use of the word "prize". Is there some type of contest where they give away something for free ? Or did you mean to say "item" instead of "prize" ? In any case, there appears to be a Sony showroom here: [15]. StuRat (talk) 07:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Stu, are you deliberately not understanding, or are you actually missing the obvious miss-spelling price->prize? Assuming that, I hope you can agree that all of Nirajrm's entries make perfect sense. The difference between the voiced and unvoiced is far from universal, so for many ESL speakers, those words are complete homophones, even though they're not in most English dialects./81.170.148.21 (talk) 12:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

You're right, that must be what they meant. I didn't see it, since the two sound very different to me, making a misspelling unlikely for me, and the OP repeated the word, making a typo unlikely. StuRat (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you StuRat but I want to do online shopping of a Sony TV in Doha. Sorry for the confusion. I mean cost of the TV.Nirajrm (talk) 07:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I am interested in online shopping of the Sony LED TV in Doha. So, please suggest me the website for it. I tried Google but so far not successful. Nirajrm (talk) 07:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm having the same problem. It's possible they aren't allowed to sell TVs online in Qatar. Some nations require a local partner. In this case, the local partner would sell the Sony TVs in it's showrooms. 51 East seems to be a local partner in Qatar: http://www.51east.com.qa/. (If you pick "Haute Electronics" and then "TV", they list some Sony TVs, but no prices are shown.) StuRat (talk) 07:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Note that you don't need to actually sell online to display prices. It isn't uncommon for manufacturers to list prices even though they don't sell products direct to the consumer or don't sell online. Some retailers do so too. There may be a small number of jurisdictions where this is illegal, but I doubt it's common. However the practice of selling online and listing prices varies significantly from country to country depending on how common it is etc. Although I'm somewhat confused whether the OP wants a store selling online or simply wants to a list of prices online as they've mentioned both. Nil Einne (talk) 16:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Listing prices online where you don't sell online is problematic, as each retailer will sell for different prices, and, if they sell for more than the list price, this will let everyone know they are being ripped off there. They typically either don't list prices online, in this case, or list an absurdly high manufacturer's suggested retail price, so as to not make their retailers look bad. Of course, such a MSRP is of little practical value, as the amount they pad the price is variable, making comparisons between brands useless. StuRat (talk) 16:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't say how things work in the US, but I'd think you'd find in many places, major manufacturer online stores when they do exist sell their consumer electronic products like TVs at MSRPs (or prices close to it) anyway. Yes the prices are absurb but the OP didn't give any indication they cared. Similarly, in many countries, even if online non manufacturer retails stores do exist, for big ticket consumer electronic items the price you'll pay online is often a lot more then you can expect to pay in store (barring the occasional special) since it's expected you will haggle on the price and the online store simply lists the retail price which few people pay (one of the reasons why online stores aren't that successful). The prices may not be quite as high as MSRPs but getting there. I thought of mentioning all this during my initial reply but decided it's the OP choice and they hopefully know more about the Dubai marketplace then you and me. I'd note the OP can no indication they cared about anyone but Sony (although comparing even same manufacturer MSRPs doesn't always work very well.)Nil Einne (talk) 05:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Online game map editor

Hi, I am looking to find a free to use online games map editor to keep track of enemy locations. It is to be used alongside a browser-based online game. The locations go from 0,0 to 999,999. It is important I am able to edit the locations by inputting coords directly, ie 234,567. Thanks guys — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.8.63 (talk) 13:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you want it to provide graphic maps for the players to view ? StuRat (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

No, just a visual reference for me to keep track of enemy coords. Thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.8.63 (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

So, would you have a top view pic of rooms, etc., then enter enemy coords, and have it create a map with dots added to the pic at each of those coords ? And do you also need the ability to move the enemies on the map, once placed, or would you generate a new map from scratch and re-enter them all ?

Or perhaps you just want it to list a table with the coords for each enemy ? If that's all you want, I could write that for you myself. StuRat (talk) 06:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I would think the second option is closer to what I had in mind. At the moment, I am keeping tabs of locations by hand and it gets really messy :) Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.8.63 (talk) 09:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, would you like me to whip up a program for you ? This does mean you'd have to trust me enough to give me your email address (you could tell me on my talk page) and then run the executable I send you. StuRat (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

(I've now sent the program I wrote.) StuRat (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Mailing the Queen

I love writing letters, and just got to know that the Queen (of England :P ) will be participating in InCoWriMo. I’d love to send her a letter, but was wondering how to go about it. For starters, how do you address the queen in a letter. Keep in mind that it’s not official stuff, it’s meant to be casual. Do I still write “Your Majesty”? Or do I begin with “Dear Elizabeth”? =P Also, I’m from India, and not extremely familiar with British etiquette. What do I write about? Things I would normally write about to any old penpal I usually correspond with? Any pointers would be much appreciated. Many thanks in advance. 101.60.33.39 (talk) 17:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

We have an article on everything: Forms of address#Royalty. So you would write "Your Majesty" instead of "Dear..." and I'd suggest you'd congratulate her on recently celebrating her Diamond Jubilee, and maybe you'd also like to ask her whether she plans to visit India. Unfortunately our article does not inform us how to close the letter - maybe "Yours faithfully". --TammyMoet (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

(ec) According to the royal website at http://www.royal.gov.uk/HMTheQueen/ContactTheQueen/Overview.aspx, "You should feel free to write in whatever sytle you feel comfortable" RudolfRed (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

But make sure you don't address the letter to the "Queen of England". That would be as anachronistic as sending a letter to the Viceroy of India. You could if you like address it to her as Queen of Jamaica, or Queen of Papua New Guinea, or Queen of Tuvalu or 13 other choices - all perfectly legitimate current titles and all more correct than "Queen of England". But I suppose the default crown she is assumed to wear is that of the United Kingdom. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Further to the information above, the envelope should be addressed thus: (ref 'How to contact the Queen')

HM The Queen

Buckingham Palace

London SW1A 1AA

UNITED KINGDOM

For a formal letter, you should begin the letter with:

Madam,

and end with:

I have the honour to be, Madam, Your Majesty's humble and obedient servant, <your name>

In the body of the letter you should be brief, but courteous. The Queen receives very many letters, so you need to explain what you are writing about in as short a time as possible. I personally would not expect to write to the Queen as if to a friend or pen pal, but to write something interesting and meaningful. I believe that Her Majesty has a strong personal interest in India, so you may wish to tell her about your life in your country, but also to ask her for her thoughts on the future.

Do not be disappointed if you receive a reply from an employee of the Queen's household: although the Queen receives, and reads, many letters each day, she may not have the opportunity to reply to each one personally. However, her aides do make sure that her views are represented in their replies, and that she is informed of the contents of interesting correspondence. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 00:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Bearing in mind the OP didn't give any indication they were a citizen of any member of the commonwealth realm, is it really necessary or expected that the OP will call themselves the queen's humble and obedient servant? Nil Einne (talk) 05:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually the site continues This traditional approach is by no means obligatory. You should feel free to write in whatever style you feel comfortable. Also I think this form dates to a time when people would close letters with y'r obedient servant, Benjamin Franklin even when the letter was addressed to someone the writer had no intention of either serving or obeying. It reminds me a bit of the letter that Caryl Chessman reported receiving from the warden of San Quentin, which if memory serves went something like: Dear Sir. Today I received notice that an execution date has been fixed in your case. Very truly yours, H. Teets, Warden. --Trovatore (talk) 08:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

How awful. Common etiquette demands the use of "yours faithfully" when signing a letter commencing "Dear sir".[16] Alansplodge (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

It's similar to the old fashioned way of greeting someone for the first time by saying you are "at your service". If doesn't mean you are actually going to bring them their dinner, it's just courtesy. --Tango (talk) 01:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

When mailing the Queen, does the stamp go on her bum ? StuRat (talk) 06:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

No, one inch from her upper and right corner, use a ruler. μηδείς (talk) 21:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

February 3

Editing image of a world map?

In the Amazing Race articles on each season, there would be a map showing the places where the race will be set in, e.g. here. I looked up the blank map and got the image file. So how can I edit (and what do I use) to edit the image to look something like this (e.g. arrows pointing to different places on the world map with a dot showing the exact location and a blue background on the country of which the dot is placed on)? Thanks Koopatrev (talk) 05:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

That rather looks like it was done with Microsoft Paint, using the fill tool to set the color of selected nations to blue, the curve tool to draw the connections, etc. Note that this is a rather crude way to do it, as the routes should properly be great circle routes projected onto the plane of the map. StuRat (talk) 06:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Making things like diagrams (for Wikipedia) using a paint program is a really bad idea. It would be better to use a vector art program such as Inkscape or Adobe Illustrator which produce resolution-independent pictures that are much easier for other people to improve, re-use and add to. Is there an SVG (Scaleable Vector Graphics) version of that map someplace? Wikicommons has all sorts of maps in SVG format to use as a starting point. SteveBaker (talk) 14:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Tic (card game)

I've been looking through card games on Wikipedia and tried searching for this game but found nothing. I also searched the web and only found a few questions about it and someone describing how to play it. I would like if someone could help add this card game to Wikipedia. I could not find any sources for it. I did not make this game - someone taught it to me, and someone had taught it to them. Not sure if this game has any other names.

Found an explanation of the game here: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090705133126AAj9b4k

Here is their explanation of it:

Tic is really fun! Any number of people can play, just add another deck of cards as needed. It does get kinda slow with huge amounts though. Generally you use 2 decks for 3-6 players. Leave the jokers in the deck. You play in rounds, the first round everyone gets 3 cards. The dealer turns over the top card. The person to the left of the dealer can either pick up that card or draw a different one, then discard one, always keeping 3 cards in their hand. The object of the game is to get the cards in your hand into sets, either triples of the same card, or a suited run of three cards. This is the fun part: 3s are wild, and jokers are wild. After someone gets a set of 3, they lay down their set and call "tic". THEN everyone else gets one last chance to play, either taking a card off the top of the discard or from the deck and then discarding. If they get a set of cards, those cards DO NOT count against them. If you have cards in your hand not in a set after your turn, you add up all the points of the cards. Number cards are the same points as on the card, face cards are all worth 10 points, Aces are worth 15, and wilds are 25. So if you can't use your wild get rid of it! When everyone has discarded and added up their points, the round is over. The next round begins with 4 cards in your hands, and 4s and jokers are wild. You play the same way.. except you have to all your cards in sets of AT LEAST 3, so for this round and for round 5 you will have sets of 4 and 5. Again, everyone gets a chance to discard one last time after someone gets tic. Sometimes it is better to get rid of high cards (like aces) on your last turn than to go for a set. If you have a set of at least 3, it will not count against you. So if someone calls tic in round 4 and you have a set of 3 anything, and an ace, get rid of the ace. You want the lowest score possible! So a hand full of low cards is better than a set and extra high cards. When you get to the round with 6 cards, 6s are wild, and now you can have 2 sets of 3 to get tic (or 1 set of 6). The round with 7 cards, 7 are wild, and so on.. sets of at least 3 never count against you, add up all the cards not in sets. There will be 15 ROUNDS! Every round, the number of cards goes up and the wild card goes up. The second to last round aces are wild, the very last round, 2s are wild! After 15 rounds whoever has the lowest score wins! At round 15 you can have 5 sets of 3 to get tic. Awesome. Really fun game, enjoy! Coty9090 (talk) 08:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

If you can't find sources, then the game fails WP:GNG and is not suitable for Wikipedia. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The Candle Lamp Company, Peekskill, NY

I'd like to know about The Candle Lamp Company, Peekskill, NY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulie12 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Is this the company you mean? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 84.21.143.150 (talk) 14:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Advertising legalities

I was wondering how SodaStream was able to create the banned commercial featuring both Coke and Pepsi -- isn't it impermissible to feature another's product, especially in a mocking or scandalous fashion? Or is it merely a play on our expectations, in that we just think it's so clearly presenting Coke and Pepsi, and really, the logos are partially obscured and the drivers are really just wearing red and blue? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

It's a very broad question. There may be legislative jurisdictions where it is illegal to mention another company's product in your own advertising, but as a general rule of thumb I don't think there's any such prohibition.

But you're right that it's unusual, if only because to mention the other guy at all in your own advertising is to give a free plug to them, and smart marketers know this. That's what "suggestion" really means. It's usually taken to mean more like "recommendation", but to mention something at all is to put into the minds of the listener/reader something that may not have been there before. To mention Pepsi in a Coke ad, even if done to disparage Pepsi, is to suggest Pepsi.

This, for example, is why it's really dumb to say "Don't forget to ...". The listener may never have had any intention to forget whatever it was, but now that the concept has been raised, forgetting might well become exactly what they'll do. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm curious about that last statement, Jack. I trust it's not necessary to prove that people frequently forget things that they have no intention of forgetting (spouse's birthday, buying milk, etc.) even when they haven't been issued a "Don't forget to..." suggestion. Is such a reminder, phrased in that way, really worse than no reminder at all? Have any studies been done which demonstrate an increased propensity for forgetting following such a suggestion? I'm quite curious to see such research. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I put it in the same category as the First Lady not saying to the President in the morning, "See you for dinner, honey. Don't press the nuclear button and blow up North Korea or anything". Or a parent who's watching their child ride a bike unaided for the very first time, does not say "Don't fall off and smash your teeth and break your bones". Here are some hits I found - [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23] - the latter don't qualify as research per se. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Those are interesting, but only one (this page) happens to mention an instruction to not forget something, and as you say, it's far from any sort of real research. It also discusses it in the context of advertising, where the intent is presumably to influence the reader to do something they they didn't previously plan to do, or to make them aware of an event or product of which they were previously unaware. The nub of the problem is whether or not forgetting, in the circumstance you originally discussed, is a 'positive' act that can be consciously or subconsciously influenced by the mention of forgetting. The essence of some of those articles that you linked to is that the brain tends to get sloppy when given negatively phrased instructions— "Don't do this" gets initially parsed as "Do this". But what happens with the double negative of the 'don't forget' formulation? Does the brain hear "Don't forget to buy milk!" as "Don't Forget to buy milk!" or as "Don't forget to Buy milk!"

Getting back to mentioning competitors in ads, I doubt that you'll find Pepsi running ad copy reading either "Forget Coca-Cola!" or "Don't forget Coca-Cola!" — either way, I'm coming away from the page thinking about Coke. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

How many lines do the actors have in an average coke commercial? :) KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The keyword you're looking for is comparative advertising. (Unfortunately, our article needs some work.) The laws regarding the use of other company's brand names, trademarks, symbols, etc. in advertising vary quite a bit by jurisdiction. In the United States, it is permissible to directly and openly compare one's own product to those of one's competitors (c.f. Pepsi Challenge). However, the claims in such advertising (and in all advertising) are governed by the rules and regulations of the Federal Trade Commission; misleading or dishonest comparisons are barred. Other countries and cultures will have different rules and/or attitudes regarding comparative advertising. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the commercial you're referring to, but FYI Coke and Pepsi have crossed over in the past. There was a Pepsi commercial featuring a Coca-Cola delivery driver stopping to sate himself with some forbidden Pepsi (IIRC, it may have been vice versa; this was more than a decade ago). Matt Deres (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Pepsi did this with the Pepsi Challenge adverts years ago. Also, the "I'm a Mac" adverts did the same. Linux came up with the novel idea of using that advert itself to promote its own product, having three characters on the stage. It's not illegal. It's probably illegal to actually show the rival's product's logo or packaging, but certainly not illegal to mention them in some way. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Can we please not engage in off-the-cuff speculation about what is legal and what is not? The article on comparative advertising which I linked to yesterday touches on the legality of using other companies' trademarks in advertising. This varies by jurisdiction, but the use of other companies' trademarks is legal (with unsurprising caveats on uncertain, misleading, deceptive, or untruthful claims) in advertising in the U.S. and the U.K. and probably many other places. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Collectible plates

Hi folks! I have been searching for references and any known knowledge on a set of colletible plates that I have recently came across. They date back to the early 1920's and were put out once yearly up to and including 1986. They may possibly still be put out to this day I am not sure. On most of them it says: Lake Shore Pioneer Chapter NY Central Veterans around the lip of the plate then on the bottom it says Cedar Point and the year such as 1955 then a few are commemorative of such things as End of the Line 1908-1979 with the same around the lip of the plate. Can you help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rooster914 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

There's a few for sale on ebay - a guess something produced for employees/enthusiasts of the railway line? Lake_Shore_Limited New York Central ---- _nonsense ferret 23:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Generally speaking, what is the cheapest color to produce?

I have searched on the Internet to see if I could clarify this doubt of mine but I have found different opinions. Some say black, others red, some gray, others green... Hopefully you can provide me with a definite answer to this question. Thanks in advance. --190.19.95.159 (talk) 20:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Colour of paint? Itsmejudith (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Color of crayon? Light? Ink? Ketchup? M&M? Money? Dismas|^(talk) 21:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Fairly obviously, the natural color of whatever material we're talking about here! SteveBaker (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps my question was not clear enough. I am not talking about any particular material, but rather about all of the colors that can be produced using any means. --190.19.95.159 (talk) 05:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Your question is most certainly not clear enough - even with this clarification! Are you talking about paint colors? Dye colors? Light source colors? The answer is dramatically different depending on what you're asking about. We can probably tell you whether white paint is cheaper than red paint (although the answer might be complicated by whether you need a very precise shade of red - or whether it has to be glossy or flat) - but if you're talking about coloring cloth, then bleaching it white might be cheaper than dying it red. Making white plastic might be more expensive than red plastic...but that's not related to whether red is cheaper or more expensive than white in a paint or a dye. The material that's being colored (and how, and why) is a critical part of the answer. We really need a clearer question here! SteveBaker (talk) 14:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe that, historically, red paint was cheapest, which explains why it was used on things like barns, which needed a lot of paint to protect the wood, but which weren't exactly fashion statements, so the farmers used the cheapest paint they could find. Don't know if it's still the cheapest color, though.

Another issue is coverage. When painting with white paint over a bright background, some would likely show through, unless you used multiple coats or primer. Darker colors, on the other hand, could be used with fewer coats. This would affect total cost. StuRat (talk) 04:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Black, because soot is free? Dbfirs 07:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Rust is also "free" - and Iron Oxide is what was used to paint those red barns. SteveBaker (talk) 14:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Ochre is also free.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

But red dye for clothes was expensive. According to Cochineal it was used for dyeing the clothes of kings, nobles and the clergy. So I don't think that there's a general answer to the OP's question. Sjö (talk) 10:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

By amount of colour I'd say - Blue for the sky and the sea. Yellow for the sun. Black for space. Just to go up in increasing sizes of areas covered. Dmcq (talk) 12:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Green. Just leave whatever you want to color green in a damp spot in the woods and wait until mold and moss have covered it. Cost=zero. Sjö (talk) 14:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

But waiting involves time, and time = money. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed it does. Einstein proved it.[24] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

February 4

Slough rail accident

4th Feb 2013

Rail accident at I beleive the Slough area UK in about 1959-61

Trying to find details. I was a passenger on a following train and my friend was on the accident train. we were both in the RAF. I believe only a few persons were hurt. I rememeber passing the site and noted that several coaches were lying on there side and the rail were twisted like bent pieces of wire.

Do you have any details of this event? Just curious.92.24.225.134 (talk) 09:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The accident was on 1 May 1959, and the official report is available online at [25]. There doesn't seem to be anything on Wikipedia; with just a few injuries, it may not be serious enough to merit an article. Warofdreams talk 10:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

philospohy

Is it right that dead people still have power over their intellectual properties and tangible ones? Does it mean that if it is unclear or unknown to whom the owner passed an intellectual property the property is itself owned by the one who will find or get it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.97.111.151 (talk) 12:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a very similar question to that in Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2013_February_1#ETHICS and I believe the answers there are a pretty complete answer for this too. Dmcq (talk) 12:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

A few subtle differences here, the question is should dead people have power over property after death - opinions differ on this point, what do you think? In some cases legal systems will carry out the wishes of the deceased, in many cases too they will set aside to some extent those wishes and give preference to creditors of the estate and family members in distributing those assets.

Secondly, to whom will property pass if the deceased did not provide a will - that is a question regarding the rules of intestate succession which would be specific to the legal jurisdiction in question - generally it would be the spouse or children of the deceased in first preference, followed by parents or siblings, then more remote family members, and perhaps all else failing such as the example of the UK it will be the property of the state. In order to claim such property you would generally have to show that you had a claim based on some blood relationship generally, or could provide evidence of a will written in your favour by the deceased. ---- _nonsense ferret 14:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I suppose it could be taken as 'should' rather than 'is it true that'. As has been said before and here dead people are not people but ex-people as far as most systems of law are concerned. They do not feature in any convention on human rights that I know of.

If that is so I'd interpret the question as whether we think a person's intellectual property should become public domain when they die. As far as the reference desk is concerned that can be translated into do we know of any debate or movement to cancel intellectual property rights on death rather than have them pass to the heirs. Personally I think most such rights except things like trade marks which are part of a continuing work or trade should only last thirty years irrespective of death or non-death but the article Societal views on intellectual property is probably the best place to go to about these questions. Dmcq (talk) 15:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Turtle Wax

I know it probably wouldnt be allowed now but did Turtle wax used to be made from real turtles?--92.17.48.43 (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

No. μηδείς (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Here is a quote from the company's web page, which I think should answer the question: "With a knowledge of chemistry and fascination of cars, Ben (Hirsch) mixed-up his first batches of PlastoneTM in the family bathtub in the late 1930s. Ben’s wife, Marie, bottled the auto polish as Ben traveled by streetcar to gas stations in the Chicago area to market and demonstrate his product. On a sales call in Wisconsin, Ben Hirsch passed by Turtle Creek. In a moment of inspiration, he realized the protective hard shell of a turtle was just like the finish produced by his auto polish, so he renamed his company Turtle Wax." Looie496 (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Like the jingle: "Turtle Wax gives a hard shell finish... Turtle Wax!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Analog wrist watch with altimeter and compass

Is there any on the market? OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Does this count [26] ---- _nonsense ferret 00:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes. And something less ugly? Maybe some Timex? OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

maybe [27] - or you could always ask for a fishing rod ---- _nonsense ferret 01:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Is this a request for a reference? μηδείς (talk) 01:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)