Welcome to the miscellaneous section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/M

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.

June 19

Advantages of reading

What are some advantages of reading? I know that reading allows you to be more imaginative, frees you from stress, but I don't know very many others.--AM Talk/Contribs 20:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Learning new things? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See The 26 Major Advantages to Reading More Books and Why 3 in 4 People Are Being Shut Out of Success.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wavelength: My computer won't let me access it, Microsoft's Parental Controls blocks it. Is there a way that you can get the information in the article to me?--AM Talk/Contribs 20:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my summary: (1) mental exercise, (2) skill development, (3) vocabulary, (4) knowledge of cultures and places, (5) development of concentration, (6) self-esteem, (7) development of memory, (8) improved discipline, (9) portability of books, (10) improved creativity, (11) conversation topics, (12) low cost, (13) flexibility of pace, (14) mental connections, (15) improved reasoning, (16) increased expertise, (17) money-saving skills, (18) mistake reduction, (19) surprising tangents, (20) reduced boredom, (21) life changes, (22) slump solution, (23) reduced stress, (24) relief from digital competition, (25) increased income, (26) a better alternative to movies.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wavelength: Could you expand on 5, 6, 7 and 15?--AM Talk/Contribs 21:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(5) Reading books requires concentration for extended periods of time. (6) Being more informed and more of an expert increases self-esteem. (7) Reading involves remembering details and making connections. (15) Writers make arguments for their claims, and readers can learn how to make arguments and even counter-arguments.

—Wavelength (talk) 23:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Airplane Maniac (talk · contribs) I would also suggest strongly that you ask whoever invoked the parental controls to configure it properly for you and not leave it on the default setting. If they don't know how to do it ask a trusted neighbor. You can even have your own parental account set up incase you have younger siblings using the same computer.--Aspro (talk) 23:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't fun be high on the list? Enjoyment, distraction, because even reading a sad book can be a pleasure in some sense. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:01, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See the 12th item listed on the page to which I linked. I could have summarized it better as "low-cost entertainment".

—Wavelength (talk) 15:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to what has been mentioned, reading is our connection to present, past and future humanity. Without reading you would be to that degree more isolated. We could not be communication like this without your ability to read. Also, by this medium it forces us to take concepts we might normally communicate with body language and other means into concepts contained in words. The encourages more rational thought about those concepts in addition to those words being available not just to those here in the present, but also to all in the future who read it. Lastly, most people who read a lot can read faster then talk, so you can assimilate information more quickly. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Fry wrote (possibly in Moab Is My Washpot) that as a boy, he observed that reading made his peers more clever. --Dweller (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DC input interfering with RF cable?

I've been trying to nail some inconsistent signal / reception problems with my basic TV.

Seems that when the DC power cable gets too close to the RF cable, signal quality drops off substantially. Moving the wires further apart seems to improve the problem. Ideally, I'd prefer to keep the cables close to enable tidy routing....So my question is whether or not this is due to a faulty / leaking DC power lead. Or is it a poorly shielded RF cable. Is there anything I can do to mitigate.

Well, there are shielded power cords: [1]. (BTW, why does your TV have a D/C power cord instead of A/C ? I've only seen those on portable models that plug into car cigar lighters.) StuRat (talk) 23:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see this about what happens when you wrap cords. μηδείς (talk) 00:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought. Has the screen of the RF cable been earthed properly?--Aspro (talk) 00:10, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

US English translation: "Has it been grounded properly ?" StuRat (talk) 00:15, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a switched mode power supply on the end of it, then this can make plenty of RF interference, especially if there is no ferrite rings or beads on the cord. Inadequate filter capacitors can also lead to the problem. If it has valid CE marks or the like then it should have passed tests for putting out RF trash. As Aspro suggests, if it is a coax cable, any noise should travel on the outer surface and not get onto the inside. But usually you would have the cheapest cable with open braid, and the braid may not connect to the plug all around, thus leaving a gap for interfering signal to come from the outside of the cable to the inside. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:10, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question re UK tax laws

This question has been removed. Per the reference desk guidelines, the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment recommendations. For such advice, please see a qualified professional. If you don't believe this is such a request, please explain what you meant to ask, either here or on the Reference Desk's talk page.

Tevildo (talk) 09:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 21

Countries with a 10-year preuniversity cycle

How many countries do have 10-year preuniversity cycle? --112.198.82.19 (talk) 07:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to this article, The Philippines used to have a 10-year preuniversity cycle until the enactment of The Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013, also known as the K-to-12 Act, and that at that time the only other countries worldwide with a 10-year preuniversity cycle were Angola and Djibouti. We have articles, Education in the Philippines, Education in Angola, & Education in Djibouti.

I am rather confused by the phrase "10-year preuniversity cycle", as this article says that the old 10-year Philippine system required "at least two years of Kindergarten, six years of elementary education, and four years of secondary education." That sounds like a a twelve year system to me. Likewise, K-12 sounds like a thirteen year system. -- ToE 23:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really gross smelly poo (Does the human gut use fermentation as part of its digestive process)

Does the human gut use fermentation as part of its digestive process. Or is this activity only restricted to certain types of diets. It's hard to imagine a diet high in KFC and beef jerky. Whereas, what about someone who eats a copious amount of chickpeas and beans in their diet.— Preceding unsigned comment added by User:61.84.81.3 (talk • contribs)

Fermentation is part of the digestion process. Please read Digestion.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The mayors ball 1950 -1951

Hello im am after finding information on how to find an old photograph taken in 1950-1951..I believe it was archived in bootle town hall,this photograph,was of the mayors ball,and contains an image of my mother attending the said mayors ball.I would be grateful of any information or help in trying to find the copy of this photograph.Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.12.255 (talk) June 21 2015 15:54 (UTC)

Your best bet would most likely be Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council's library service (Contact details for Bootle library here). Local libraries in the UK collate records and other items related to their locality. Sefton are also building an online historical photograph repository which will go live on the 25th June 2015.[2] Nanonic (talk) 16:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, don't forget that this photo may have be achieved by a local news paper. Local news papers today love human interest stories. This is now June 2015 and your mother probably didn't give you her life's history. Yet today, a local journalist may say ah ; and volunteer to hunt through archives (that local journalists know how to do) to crate a human interest story. If you where to email (say) [3] giving what you remember about your mother they might realise that she did things that are of interest to its modern readers. For hints see:Tips of the trainer - human interest stories. The may even be able to link you up to people that knew your family. Discover your heritage. Don't delay - do it today. --Aspro (talk) 18:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Private sector

What if an employer is hiring in the private sector, yet the revenue is insuficcient to offer minimum wage, does the US government subsidize the employees income? 78.144.252.84 (talk) 17:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No: That would be a license to get the government to subsidize one's uneconomical, non-viable business. It would mean anyone could stet up a business to sell (say) snow to the Eskimos (Yupik, Iñupiat and Inuit) (or Coals to Newcastle for British readers). Mind you, now that you have mentioned it, I could take a leaf out of Microsoft's book and license snow that I didn't invent -complete with a End-user license agreement …. Hey, that's a brilliant idea.!!! --Aspro (talk) 18:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would be true if 100% of the salary and benefits for the employee were paid by the government. However, a "negative payroll tax" approach, where low income worker's wages are supplemented by the government, may make sense, as the employers still don't want to waste their portion of the salary and benefits by hiring incompetent workers for boondoggles. Meanwhile, the government may actually pay less to subsidize the worker's wages than if they were on "the dole". So, this would especially make sense in bad economic times, less so when there's a boom economy and any able-bodied worker can find a job. (The recent bail-outs in the US economy were criticized for sending lots of money to bankers and auto makers, but very little to those who actually needed it.) StuRat (talk) 18:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fittingly, snow arises from water vapor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If an employer does not have enough revenue to pay the minimum wage, then hiring will simply lead the business to bankruptcy. So businesses in that position generally do not hire. Marco polo (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the issues of loss of jobs and disemployment discussed in a few places in our article Minimum wage. -- ToE 20:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice it's the fat cats who make that argument. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If a company is just starting and doesn't yet have much revenue, they may use seed money, venture capital, or personal savings to make payroll. If the company does well, they will hope eventually to have enough revenue to cover payroll and to pay back the loans. If a company is not doing so well, it may find it doesn't have the money to pay its employees. This is not uncommon. It may be possible to sell assets or to use the owner's savings or a loan to smooth over the temporary shortfall. If the situation proves not to be temporary, the company may have to shut down. Some information about this situation: [4]. If the company declares bankruptcy, employees may or may not end up being paid wages that they have already earned. --Amble (talk) 01:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 22

Nosy e-mail provider

Is there any wiki content or cites on e-mail providers other than Outlook.com? Outlook is very nosey and even asked for my mobile number, which creeped me out. 78.144.252.84 (talk) 07:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Comparison of webmail providers. Dismas|^(talk) 08:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@78.144.252.84: It may be worth noting that Outlook.com, as with most of the popular webmail providers, offers two-step authentication. It's a security measure that combines something you know (like a password) [typically] with something you possess (like a cell phone). The idea is that someone can steal your password online, but it's far less likely they'll steal your password and your phone. That's probably why they were asking for your number. I think most privacy/security experts recommend it, but it's usually optional. The old balance between privacy and security, I suppose, but our cell phones are already about the least secure things we own anyway :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unless they actually call, or require you to call from, the cell phone, you can just give them a fake number. I try to give as much fake info as possible to people trying to violate my privacy for no valid reason. A favorite email address of mine to give out is NOYFB@NOYFB.com (None Of Your F'n Business). RadioShack used to REQUIRE that you give them your email addresses with each purchase, then sell it to spammers. They got quite a range of fake email address from me and I have to think this policy is one reason they are in such financial trouble now. StuRat (talk) 17:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's terrible blanket advice.

First, it's almost definitely a two-step verification matter OP is talking about. In that case giving a fake number, if the site doesn't have things in order, could be very problematic (but is most likely to simply not work).

Second, you're encouraging subverting communication systems using your own Radio Shack example but you don't know what systems people reading your response will actually be using. Their bank? The IRS? According to this, if you don't think the IRS will call you, just give them a fake number! Many places use a phone number to verify an account or verify a purchase, even if they don't call you. Perhaps more to the point, not all of them tell you that they're going to call, and some might only do so if there's a problem and they need to reach you.

Third, you're potentially having people have their personal information given to whoever has that fake number.

That's not to say I always give a real phone number myself, of course, and the odds are indeed low that any of this will happen, but isn't it best to just skip the unreferenced anecdotal workaround as though it can be generalized for everybody? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have missed my "for no valid reason" caveat. Obviously your bank and the IRS (if you're in the US) have a valid reason to need your real phone number. RadioShack does not. As for email providers, there it depends. Is this a critical email account you need to protect or is this a throwaway email account you wouldn't mind losing ? In the later case, you really don't need to risk giving out your phone number. StuRat (talk) 03:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't miss that. The problem is "for no valid reason" doesn't mean anything. The extent to which information is available/ready-to-hand concerning what, specifically, personally identifying information will be used for varies dramatically, so it's a big assumption that there's "no valid reason". People also have different senses of what is and is not considered "valid", making it utterly subjective. Beyond that, OP is also talking about email, and as I pointed out, it's almost certainly a two-step verification thing -- most people consider that a pretty valid reason. I just fail to see how connecting the question to what you like to do at Radio Shack is anything but detrimental. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's up to the OP to decide what is a valid reason, not you. As for email, I already discussed that. If it's a throwaway email account you needed for a one-time use, they certainly don't need to know your real phone number. StuRat (talk) 05:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OP gave no indication whatsoever they were talking about a one-time use account, and even if it were a one-time use account, it's still bad advice. If it were a one-time use account and they were required to enter a phone number, it would still be for two-step verification. What do you think would happen if they used a fake number? The next step is receiving a message on that phone number.

The alternative, which OP is clearly already aware of, is to not enter a phone number or, when it's required, to seek out a different email service, not enter a fake one -- which, I'll add, is also rather obvious to someone looking to avoid entering their phone number, and it should be our role to explain the less obvious aspects of why it can be a bad idea, not just pitch the obvious idea in its obvious context (i.e. enter a fake number so you don't have to enter a real number).

There is just no scenario where that is helpful and only scenarios where it can present problems. It's irresponsible to say it's up to OP to decide what's valid (as if, as I already pointed out, people know all of the ways the number will be used -- which is very rarely the case), or in other words that it's up to them to make your advice beneficial rather than detrimental. You also didn't even qualify your advice in the original response. You just said "Unless they actually call, or require you to call from, the cell phone, you can just give them a fake number." -- no indication that there are things to keep in mind, that it might not be obvious whether they'll call you, that if an email service is requiring your phone number it almost definitely will be calling or requiring you to call ... just a Radio Shack example.

I'll leave it at that; at this point I'm starting to feel like I'm no longer writing for the benefit of readers and just arguing against Yahoo Answersing the refdesk. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's mostly for 2FA. That said, I know Gmail used to require phone numbers (or possible a third party non free address, can't remember now) with verification required before creating an account to reduce spammers creating accounts there. I don't now if Outlook does that as well. I think Google may have abandoned this, at least I believe I may have created one without it but can't remember. Possibly it wasn't terrible effective in the long run since with 10 or 50 or whatever accounts per phone number and phone numbers probably costing a few cents in places in Asia and Africa, if spammers did feel Gmail accounts were worth it they weren't that much to create. Neither Gmail nor Outlook are selling it to anyone of course, or any other such nonsense. Incidently, many sites which very strongly encourage 2FA do have a skip somewhere, it's just fairly small and easy to miss and they may prompt you every login or something. Nil Einne (talk) 07:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[5] suggests it could potentially be an anti spam measure but is only triggered when you push the limits. (Unfortunately one of those limits may be hit by an obvious first step with a new email address namely e-mailing contacts to tell them of your address.) BTW, one thing which doesn't seem to be addressed in the discussion is I don't believe Microsoft nor Google require mobile numbers. Land line numbers are fine. They've had voice verification for a few years nowadays. Nil Einne (talk) 07:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Servant of Two Masters Play

The following sentences refer to Beatrice's beloved cat, but I cannot find a reference to it in the script (google servant of two masters script to find several).

He is always complaining of an empty stomach, and always trying to satisfy his hunger by eating everything and anything in sight. In one famous scene, it is implied that he eats Beatrice's beloved cat.

I have searched numerous scripts, but since the actors of the Commedia made up their own dialogue, perhaps the author can provide a reference?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servant_of_Two_Masters

TIA, 108.9.134.139 (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Ron Tornambe[reply]

The information was added by an editor using an IP address, back in 2009. That IP address hasn't been used to edit here in six years, so I doubt you'll get a response from "the author". I'll assume you're correct, and remove the claim. --Dweller (talk) 14:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a good database website that talks about lgbt books for adults that are non sexual explict

I found this great website http://www.leewind.org/ which is a great website for teens. It has alot of categories for example; Queer People of Color, Transgender Fantasy ect. I'm looking for a website that has a great database for adults. I am 31 afterall. Venustar84 (talk) 17:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you looking for fiction or non-fiction? This is the sort of thing (databases) I would call my local reference librarian about, they usually have lots of different ones at their fingertips, and with a membership you can often access those databases yourself. μηδείς (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a booklist [6] from the American Library Association, 71 books in various categories, published 2012-13. Other relevant resources and previous lists on the sidebar of the page. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for fiction. Venustar84 (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dropping white spirit on bugs

I decided to do some informal experiments. I splashed a good dollop of white spirit. I found that both honey and bumble bees appear to stop working after having the stuff poured on them. Any idea why? Otherwise, woodlice seem to shrug it off without much bother.

Sadly, I didn't come across any slugs. That would have been particularly interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.208.177.118 (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

White spirit is apparently a type of paint thinner, for anyone as unsure as I was. It's listed as a "central nervous system depressant", presumably for humans, but it sounds like it may have that effect on bees, too. StuRat (talk) 18:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OP, you might want to stop killing bees. See Colony collapse. Dismas|^(talk) 06:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stu, you've clearly never done any DIY, if you're confused by white spirit. Anyway, OP, stop killing things! 82.21.7.184 (talk) 07:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's also a US/UK split. We just call it "paint thinner" in the USA mostly, though admittedly that term is less specific. Mineral spirits is another term that we hear far more in the USA. So for all I know Stu uses it all the time, just calls it a different name. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most insects have a film of hydrocarbons on their cuticle. Woodlice are not insects, they are crustaceans. My guess is that that has something to do with it. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Their respiration systems are also different; as isopods, woodlice respire through appendages on their abdomen rather than through spiracles. That could be a factor as well. Matt Deres (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I read the header as a new way of dealing with one of our favourite regulars. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC) [reply]

June 23

Ejaculation

With the help of assisted reproduction technology, theoretically how many kids could a man father from a single ejaculation with the average number of healthy sperm cells. A few hundred thousand kids? Millions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.73.108.80 (talk) 14:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semen_analysis#Sperm_count says 20-40 million sperm per milliliter. Ejaculation#Volume gives 0.1-10 mil per ejaculate. So you're looking at 2-400 million sperm per ejaculate. Probably not all of them are completely viable, and in vitro fertilization has a pretty low rate of success if considered on a per-sperm basis. So there's tons of variety and variables (e.g. semen quality), but I think "millions" is a safe answer if you're just thinking of it as a thought experiment (ignoring cost, logistics and other real-world constraints). SemanticMantis (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But the question assumes the use of existing technology. Let's say there are 300 million spermatozoa in a single ejaculation. Can current technologies divide that into "millions" of microscopic droplets of sperm and then successfully fertilize millions of ova? I doubt that existing technology could handle such tiny amounts of sperm rapidly enough so that most of the spermatozoa wouldn't die before getting near an ovum. Existing technology is optimized for the delivery of sperm from a single ejaculation to a single ovum, and even with a carefully planned effort, I doubt that it would be possible to expand the scale of existing technology beyond dozens of ova and therefore dozens of children. Marco polo (talk) 18:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semen_cryopreservation says you'd have at least 21 years to process a sample, possibly much longer. I interpreted the question as primarily being a thought experiment, and more about how many sperm there are per ejaculate, and not about the cost and time necessary to embark on such a project, let alone the specific details of IVF Oocyte_cryopreservation is also technically available, and would help out on the logistics.

Turns out the success rate of live birth from IVF maxes out at around 40%-55%. Reading In_vitro_fertilisation#Egg_and_sperm_preparation in more detail, it looks like they go for ~75k sperm per ovum. I suspect that could probably be reduced considerably, but going down to 1:1 would certainly radically reduce the odds of the overall process working on a per-sperm basis. So if you want a more conservative estimate taking into account more of how IVF is actually done, that puts us at about 1600 live births, figuring 300 million sperm, 75k per ovum, 40% live birth rate. If you want to further refine, they implant about 2 embryos on average, depending on age, but about 1/4 of those result in live birth of twins. So we can multiply 1600X0.75 to get 1200 as a more refined and more conservative estimate. It turns out 167,119 IVF procedures were performed in just the USA in just 2013 [7], so I think we'd have the resources to perform 12k from the same sperm donor if money were no object and we had a few years to work on it. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm missing something, but the group using IVF have selected themselves due to established problems conceiving; surely the number of sperm needed for people with more normal levels of fertility would be lower? Again, not 1:1, but the 75k level would seem to be partly due to problems most folks don't have. Matt Deres (talk) 13:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. It's all about how much a realistic maximum estimate is wanted, vs. a simplified thought experiment. OP never clarified, but I learned something doing the research above, so I consider it a win :) SemanticMantis (talk) 17:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any first nations rereserves in Burnaby or East Vancouver In BC

Please let me know. Venustar84 (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of Indian reserves in Canada by population which have a population of 500 or more. A lesser population may have trouble getting reserve statues. So, I don't think we can help you here. It may be simpler for you to contact the Canadian Government. The Freedom of information in Canada should make this easy.--Aspro (talk) 18:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We actually have a List of Indian reserves in British Columbia. None are listed with a location in Burnaby or East Vancouver. Marco polo (talk) 18:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a big map of BC reserves (on a Wordpress site at the moment, but originally from a federal government website), that shows a lot of reserves in that general area, although more towards Coquitlam than East Van or Burnaby. The 2015 Metro Vancouver Profile of First Nations also does not list any in Burnaby or East Vancouver. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 24

Excuse me for asking this, but can anyone recommend any mystery books with lgbt characters in it?

Can anyone please recommend mystery books with transgendered/lgbt characters that are not too wordy, boring, or sexuality explicit or long? Venustar84 (talk) 00:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend Simon Raven's novels - they incorporate mystery, occult, crime, politics and LGB (though nor so much T) characters. They are not overlong, they are by no means at all boring, and most explicitness is entirely in the reader's head. DuncanHill (talk) 01:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This list from goodreads.com is called "best gay mystery" and has quite a few books. It's been many years since I read them, but I remember enjoying Jonathan Kellerman's books about Alex Delaware, which feature a prominent gay police detective. --Jayron 32 01:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fighting without fighting

Is there a form of fighting that to others doesn't look like anyone is fighting? Example, say some guy is an expert in it. He could beat up another guy and nobody would notice.

Absolutely, and you can read all about it here. Unless you need more training, of course.

Seriously though, not really. Fighting with poison comes close, but many still get sloppy and spotted. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:17, June 24, 2015 (UTC)

Not the expert who knocked out Georgi Markov with a Bulgarian umbrella, though. Still might be out there. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:30, June 24, 2015 (UTC)

Ultra- and infrasonic weapons also come close. Can't hit what you can't hear! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:19, June 24, 2015 (UTC)

Of course! My ex is a 4th Dan master of Silent_treatment. I never won once. 41.13.216.190 (talk) 06:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are ways of inflicting pain on someone without looking like you're hurting them, yes. Applying pressure to pressure points and joint manipulation are two that come to mind but what would be the point? As soon as your victim cries out or retalliates, the game's up. Bruce Lee used the term 'Fighting without fighting' in the film 'Enter the Dragon' where he tricks the antagonist into a boat then casts him adrift. He meant ways of avoiding the fight, which is something I suggest you practice. If you really want to beat someone up without anyone noticing, I suggest you wait until there are no witnesses.--Ykraps (talk) 08:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was said of Gordie Howe that he could throw an elbow without anyone (or at least the ref) noticing - except the victim, of course. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Capoeira is sometimes said to have been developed in such a way that people practicing would look like they were dancing, not practicing a martial art. At a quick scan I don't see that mentioned in our article, so maybe that's an apocryphal claim. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rodent friendliness

Do any pets that are generally like rodents (though not necessarily scientifically classified as a rodent), such as hamsters, guini pigs, hedgehogs, rats, mice, ferrets, gophers, etc... behave in a friendly way such as dogs and cats? I have a very small 8x6 room. I am allowed one small pet, such as a fish or mouse. My experience is that all small animals bite and try to run away. They never reach a stage that they are happy to see you and want to sit in your lap while you read a book. I assume it is because they are not very domesticated.

I think many of them have the potential to act friendly, with some caveats:

1) They need to be raised with humans, maybe even a couple generations, so their parents don't pass their fear of humans on.

2) They are still wild animals, so I'd be very careful about now letting them near body parts you don't want bitten. A feature of wild animals is that they seem friendly then suddenly attack. The trigger could be all sorts of things, like you touching their food, hitting a sore spot while petting them, doing something they interpret as aggression, etc. Domesticated animals have had this instant aggression towards humans bred out of them, for the most part.

pet rat and pet mouse are domestic animals. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3) I would avoid larger rodents, and the like, as they can bite off a nose, etc. Ferrets and animals in the weasel family seem particularly unwise as pets, since they are wild predators and large enough to do serious damage. (Cats and dogs are at least domesticated predators.)

4) Note that what we interpret as friendliness may just be keeping warm, looking for food, etc. If they think you have something they can use, they may sidle up to you.

5) Something else you need to know about rodents is they have no bowel or bladder control, they just pee and poo wherever they are at the time. So, not a good pet to let out of the cage if you want to keep your room clean.

That's not really true in general. Many rats essentially self-train themselves to only excrete in one portion of their cage [8] - it's partially instinctual. Here's a wikihow on the topic [9], here's another guide [10]. There are literally hundreds of people discussing how easy it is to litter train a rat - just search /rat litter train/ or /rat potty train/ to find many, many more sources. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now I can't help but see Fry saying "The corner. Why didn't I think of that?" 199.15.144.250 (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Birds seem to form closer bonds with humans, but there the noise is an issue. There are mute swans, but they are too large and not completely mute. Finches and doves are typically less noisy. StuRat (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Erm 8 by 6 is small? That's a pretty damn big room! 82.21.7.184 (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC) Oh hang on, you mean feet I guess? I wish people that use obsolete units would specify them! 82.21.7.184 (talk) 17:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Hey, maybe it was centimeters! That'd be pretty small. --70.49.171.136 (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that some of those are essentially not domestic animals, and make poor pets if what you're looking for is companionship. But the pet rat surely is fully domesticated, and they are quite intelligent and endearing (to some). Rats can indeed be very friendly, I have known people that sit and watch TV/read a book with their rat on their shoulder or lap. Some people even carry them around town in a pocket or hood search google images for plenty of examples. Cute overload has rat features fairly often, showing many rats being cute and friendly, e.g. here [11]. You might also enjoy reading through some pet rat fora like these [12] [13] [14]. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some videos of rats "bruxing" and "boggling" [15], which are behaviors generally interpreted to be sort of like a cat's purr - pet rats do it when they are feeling content/affectionate [16] [17]. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't those people get rat pee and poo on them ? StuRat (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, not necessarily. Have you ever interacted with a pet rat? I assumed you must know a lot about them since you typed up a few hundred words about rodents as pets (but you didn't include any references, and got many "facts" wrong, so...). See my links above. Generally rat prefer to (almost) always go in the same place, and generally that's a corner of their cage. And many people further litter train their rats for easier cleanup. Even if a rat does defecate on your lap now and then, it's not a big deal. It's small, hard pellet that doesn't really stick to anything or smell much [18]. A rat might not make a good pet for you but many many people think they're great. It's not like cat and dog owners never have to deal with an occasional accident either, but most people who actually want a pet don't mind that as a part of the cost of entry. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]