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.

July 4

Is the wikipedia reference desk an suitable place for me to ask mental health questions?

Questions about the ref desk itself belong at the ref desk talk page, I have moved this there, please continue there if you have further questions or comments. μηδείς (talk) 03:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

See I have aspergers and borderline personality disorder. Is asking for mental health advice appropriate here? Venustar84 (talk) 02:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, you can't ask questions about your specific case, but you can ask Q's about those disorders, in general, like when those conditions were first recognized. StuRat (talk) 02:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)If a question is directly about those conditions, it's not appropriate to ask for advice as it would fall under medical advice.

However, it should be appropriate to ask for WP:MEDRSs about the subject. It would also probably be fine to indirectly get answers by asking questions about related topics, such as social interaction, especially if it focuses on other people. It should also be fine to ask for WP:RSs by or about people who have Aspergers and/or borderline personality disorder.

For example, "how could someone with borderline personality disorder deal with their concerns about abandonment?" would be an inappropriate question. But "are their any autobiographies by authors who dealt with concerns about abandonment, especially authors with borderline personality disorder?" would be appropriate, as would "are there any case studies about the effectiveness of different therapeutic techniques to deal with concerns about abandonment?" Ian.thomson (talk) 02:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to talk, pleas continue there. μηδείς (talk) 03:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Do cats...

...actually eat mice? KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 13:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. You may find this of interest. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They do on occasion, but house cats typically consider mice playthings rather than sources of food (assuming the house cat is adequately fed). I've read that farm cats which are fed catfood are actually better mousers than ones that have been left to fend for themselves for food; when killing mice is serious business, cats work just as economically as a wild animal would - they don't want to exert energy if they're not hungry enough to eat. However, well-fed cats gleefully destroy all the small animals in their path, using the body parts as toys as they see fit. Matt Deres (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our cat kills mice (and voles and other small mammals) and sometimes eats them (often leaving some of the innards) and sometimes brings them in as presents. Sometimes his presents are still alive, which is more of a problem.--Phil Holmes (talk) 16:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's also times where a cat will hunt the small animal with the intention of eating it, bring it home, and only then remember their delicious and easier to chew food bowl. It's kind of like grabbing a sack of dollar burgers only to come home and discover that your family has already grilled some prime rib. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am asking this as there is a BBC article about cats having a special chemical - felinine - in their urine, which controls the mice, either by having the adult pregnant female mice actually abort their babies, or by making young baby mice less fearful of cats. The final line says that it suits their need for mice. As Phil says, I always thought they were just bringing them in as presents. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 17:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This may not be related to your question but I just thought I'd mention this article. Bus stop (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to felinine seems appropriate. I'm not a biochemist, but I doubt there's something intrinsic to mice that the cat would need to create this substance, so even cats who never ate a mouse would still excrete it. Matt Deres (talk) 18:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the BBC meant rats infected Toxoplasma gondii (third paragraph). CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 01:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a link to this BBC article? Rodents abort or eat their young when under enough stress that postponing the effort of raising a litter makes economic sense. If a cat is peeing that close to the nest, finding a new nest is a better Idea. As for the fearlessness indeed caused by T. gondii, that's a separate issue not related to felinine. μηδείς (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's this article. Bus stop (talk) 12:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, what's going on with the young mice exposed to felinine not showing a fear reaction is called habituation, so the T. gondii case is intersting, but no relevant here. μηδείς (talk) 04:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By what mechanism would felinine cause pregnant mice to abort? Bus stop (talk) 05:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship, RAT-Access

I looked up "informants" and noticed that the article cannot be edited. There is evidence that someone has had remotely accessed my PC with a Remote Access Tojan (RAT), therefore I do report whenever there is a suspicion of censorship, for instance, by someone's removing of the "edit" option. I think that censorship of a law-abiding adult without any accusations or convictions of Internet crimes or Internet abuse is a huge deal. Regarding the definition of "informant," I have been wondering whether one should call citizens who witness a crime and inform law enforcement "informers" to set them apart from (paid) "informants," who wander in the world of law and in the worlds of crime and terrorism. Cornelia T. Bradford — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3299:C080:9D38:774B:1236:4D51 (talk) 20:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Informant is permanently semi-protected, presumably due to persistent vandalism. If you had a registered account, you could edit it. And as regards "law-abiding citizens" or whatever, there is no constitutional right to edit Wikipedia, nor is Wikipedia censored for content as you're implying. Also, this is not really the right page to file this complaint, but someone else can figure out where it should be directed instead. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think she's complaining about the article's semi-protection constituting censorship, I think she was referring to her (incorrect) concern that the absence of the edit tab might be due to her being somehow censored by a computer virus. -Elmer Clark (talk) 10:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Was there a vaguely similar complaint a few weeks ago? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You could start by asking the admin who protected it. He was active on Wikipedia as recently as 2 days ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to request an edit, you can request an edit. Do it on the article's talk page. Those are virtually never locked. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:46, July 4, 2015 (UTC)

July 5

anecdotes

Hi,

I was wondering if you can recommend some anecdote-books, such as books about political anecdotes, military anecdotes, diplomatic anecdotes, entertainment anecdotes, and so forth.

thanks so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.228.214.5 (talk) 13:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford University Press has published The Oxford Book of Literary Anecdotes, The Oxford Book of Military Anecdotes, The Oxford Book of Legal Anecdotes, The Oxford Book of Royal Anecdotes, Eurekas and Euphorias: The Oxford Book of Scientific Anecdotes, and perhaps others. Deor (talk) 14:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested article-space correction of birthplace of Dominic Barrett

Please see Dominic Barrett and discuss the proposed changes at Talk:Dominic Barrett

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

JUST THOUGHT U SHOULD KNOW 10 PIN BOWLER AND PBA CHAMPION AND TEAM EUROPE 10 PIN BOWLER DOMINIC BARRETT (NOT LISTED) IS FROM COLCHESTER!!!!!!! ADD HIM TO THE GROUP WILL U. GIVE THE MAN THE CREDIT HE DESERVES TOO 4 BEING A PBA BOWLING WINNER!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.105.146.192 (talk) 18:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Turn off your capslock. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have had an article on Dominic Barrett since 2006. -- ToE 19:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although, our article says he's from Cambridge, the OP says he's from Colchester (@OP - do you have a source for this?), and the one non-dead source from our article here says he's from Walton-on-the-Naze. Some confirmation and editing may be in order. Tevildo (talk) 20:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a reference for Colchester. Nothing for Cambridge as yet. Tevildo (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for article edits belong at that article's talk page, not here. μηδείς (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 6

How to find total number of links

I want to know how to find the total number of links from an entry, like Peking University. Now I'm doing some statistics about links to and links from some entries. I want to get a way to quickly know the total number of links of the both types I mentioned. Thanks very much for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:DA8:201:1102:483C:5F36:1186:CD91 (talk) 14:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"What links here" in the tools box of a page will give you what other articles in WP link to your target article. You can also open up an edit window on an entire article and search for [[ using ctrl-f, as each normal link will have a double square bracket. Keep in mind that you may get a result "more than 100" using that method (in which case go section by section and add them up) and there are also external links, links in refs, and templated links (using {{ instead of [[ ) that may affect your results. In the future, questions about wikipedia itself should be directed to the general Wikipedia:Help desk, as we deal more with finding you an article or outside source here than with wikipedia as such. μηδείς (talk) 17:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ponies in search history and on recommended videos on YouTube please help

There seems to be ponies on my search history and on my recommend YouTube videos so can you help me with this mystery..? I do know a bit about MLP:FiM but I've never been a fan so could you give me a idea as to why these sort of girly cute looking pony videos show up on my history and YouTube. I am not a brony so could you please help me because high school is a judgemental place! Thank you. 89.241.162.63 (talk) 16:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious answer is that somebody else is using your PC/account. Do you have a little sister ? Or maybe a friend of yours does it as a practical joke. Setting a password on your account and always putting it in that mode when you walk away would be a good idea. Meanwhile, can you wipe your search history to solve the current issue ? StuRat (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to give us more information for us to properly help. At the least: 1) Is this a single-user computer or a shared computer? 2) if shared, how do you sign in to the computer? What is the operating system? 3) what web browser are you using? 4)Do you sign in to youtube?

Here's directions on how to clear cookies and history from Firefox [2] [3]. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a little sister. None of my friends even know about MLP:FiM so that can't be it either. My password is secure and I do not need to write it down so no one could have gone into my account. So have you got any more ideas...? I don't fancy deleting my search history because my parents might think I've been watching adult stuff which every other person at my age seems to be doing but I don't as it is sick and disrespectful to the women practicing in that. Sorry for going on a bit of a rant there but also there's some MLP:FiM videos on the search history and MLP results when I look up anything to do with western animation. Also for question one it's not a shared one. For question three it's a Mac. And for question four I do not have a YouTube account. PS I use a Safari browser. 89.241.162.63 (talk)

Do you leave the screen unlocked when you step away ? If so, somebody could jump on it then, do the pony search as a practical joke, then put it back how it was. Some other possibilities:

YouTube does this weird drifting thing. For example, I search for "Great Wall of China" and it brings up mostly correct stuff but a few on dishes. If I click on one of the ones on dishes then my search results are "refined" to being about dishes, table settings, etc. Then if I click on link about silverware, all my search results are now about those. So, my search results now have almost nothing to do with the original search term. Maybe something like this happened with you, and you accidentally clicked on something tangentially associated with ponies. Or maybe they just have something mis-indexed, so they think you clicked on a pony vid when you didn't. StuRat (talk) 17:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Also, what sort of other videos are you watching on Youtube? They make suggestions based on what else you've been watching, what else other people who watch that video also watched, and what they can figure out is related. If I watch a whole 10 hour loop of Fukkireta while searching for Gravity Falls videos, Youtube starts recommending a lot of AMVs and Disney Channel clips, even though most of the rest of my history is FPS speedruns and Blue Öyster Cult albums. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I always leave the screen locked. If I clicked on something vaguely related to ponies I have no idea. But there's a lot more than that in my search history which also has links to FiMFiction and EQD which I did not click on at all. I wonder why because I do not go on these sort of cute pony-filled websites or read any fan fiction about MLP:FiM no matter how good they are. I mostly listen to theme music from games and Ace Attorney fancases. Also I doubt YouTube could make such a error. Thank you. 89.241.162.63 (talk) 18:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it find things seemingly unrelated to my search terms, so it can happen. StuRat (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't we get this exact same question within the last month or so? Matt Deres (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, here it is. I assume you are the same person? You seem to be blowing this out of proportion, but not watching YouTube videos at school would still seem the best solution. Matt Deres (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What else are you searching on Google? Youtube sometimes recommends conspiracy theorist garbage because I happen to research to argue against conspiracy theorists on this site. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The OP from Edinburgh has already asked about ponies, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2015 May 24. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You see my school is a special school so once in a wee while we get free time to say listen to music or look up something or play games. I don't really search anything relating to ponies at home or during free time. Oh. How interesting some other guy in my school has the same problem as me. I say in my school because someone in my class seems to know a lot about MLP:FiM yet he says he does not like it at all. Thank you. 78.148.82.90 (talk) 08:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When you say you are doing this at school, do you mean with school computers? Because if you do, I don't see how you can claim your account is secure. It's generally a bad idea to assume highly shared computers with varying levels of support behind them, and which are shared by a lot of bored kids with nothing better to do who think there won't be a significant consequence or simply don't care, are in any way secure. Of course even if the computers themselves are secure, you need to make sure any login entry is, which again is difficult to do in a school environment. Also I can't remember if you mentioned this before are but MLP videos showing up in your Youtube watching history? Even if they aren't, if they are showing up in your actual search history rather than simply recommendations as you mentioned last time, this suggests one of two things. One is that there is a bug or error in Google/Youtube. Two is that your account was used by someone, whether you or someone else to search (and view if you answered yes to my earlier question) isn't as secure as you think it is. The second option is far more likely. Nil Einne (talk) 13:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The password is secure and if there was anyone who would sneak on the computers in my class while someone else is using they would be told to not do it again and given punishment. Plus everyone has there own password so no one could get on my account. There is a possibility that could happen but I am not sure. Not the history but the videos on my sidebar have most of the time something related to MLP. We use laptops too not just desktop computers. Speaking about free time at my school most of the time only about 4 people go on the desktop computers a lot or use the laptops for free time in my class. PS Speaking about MLP I've never really cared but I have to say that the fans have balls for liking such a girly show and being open about it. Thank you. 78.148.82.90 (talk) 18:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, if you are accessing your accounts on computers you cannot be sure can be trusted, like school computers, there is no way you can know if your account details (like your passwords) are secure. If you don't accept this, I don't think you will be able to get help, or realy anywhere on the internet. Whether these are laptops or desktops is largely irrelevant. In fact, if you are referring to laptops provided by the school which change hands often and which can be brought home by students, there is even more reason to think the computers should not be trusted. BTW, no one ever said any compromisation of accounts happened during the free time. The account details would have been recorded whenever you logged in on an untrusted computer be that free time or whatever. But the person who was recording these details didn't have to be using a computer or even nearby at the time. They could have been in an exam, sleeping or whatever else. Once the account details were recorded, the person can then use them at their leisure in whatever location such as their home. (The may have needed to retrieve them from the computer if they weren't sent to a remote location.) I believe Google will send emails for logins from new locations, but while most script kiddies won't bother, this isn't a reliable method since it's easily possible someone will delete these emails. Google does have a login history that I believe can't be modified, but it only lasts for 10 days or something. Ultimately if you care about your account security (such as ensuring your search results are only stuff you actually searched for), you're going to need to at least accept that you cannot be confident your account details are secure if you are accessing them from school computers which you cannot trust. Onces you've accepted that, you probably should stop logging in to your accounts that you care about from computers you can't trust. Also remember to always safeguard your password entry when there is any possibility it will be seen by someone you cannot trust (I'll be honest, at school this is probably any other student). If you must login on computers you cannt trust or cannot always secure your password entry, at a minimum enable two factor authentication. Nil Einne (talk) 17:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Ford Fusion (Rear Bumper Harness Warning System)

On a 2009 Ford Fusion SE, does the sensor harness located on the rear bumper need to have all 4 sensors in working order for it to be operational? The purpose of the sensors is to engage the warning alarm if you are coming in close proximity of an object while backing up. One of 4 of the sensors are damaged and I don't know if I need to replace the whole harness. It is removed from the bumper at this time so I have no way of knowing if it will still work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.171.171 (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest a test ? Try something soft, like a plastic trash barrel, so you won't cause any damage if you slowly back into it. My assumption is that it will still work near the other 3 sensors, but you need to test it to be sure. StuRat (talk) 18:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trimotor aircraft with tail-mounted engine

G-Joey, which retired from Channel Island service on Saturday.[1]

Was the Britten-Norman Trislander the only trimotor (propeller) aircraft built with a tail-mounted engine? I stepped through all the blue-links under trimotor#List of trimotors and didn't see any photos of others. -- ToE 19:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's the only one I've been able to find. Though absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If I had to take a guess, I'd say it's probably not used due to the height that you'd need to get the engine up off the fuselage in order to clear the radius of the prop. This site, a forum and thus not reliable by WP's definition, discusses the advantages of tri-engine aircraft. You may find it interesting. Dismas|^(talk) 21:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yup - I can't think of another aircraft quite like it either. And Britten-Norman seem to have successfully taken out a patent on the design concept, which suggests that there was unlikely to have been anything similar built earlier. [4] AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Link to full patent - including the stated advantages: [5] AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The patent is telling. -- ToE 01:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd try asking someone at the (US) National Air and Space Museum if they can answer this question. The museum's web site offers a variety of forms of online contact, though for a specific query like this, a plain old letter might work as well.

There have, of course, been at least two important models of jet aircraft with one tail engine and two on the wings, but you were asking about propellers. --174.88.133.209 (talk) 03:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this configuration is the standard for trijets. -- ToE 07:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, many of them (notably the Boeing 727, at one time one of the most numerous airliners in the world) have all three engines at the rear. --174.88.133.209 (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, right. -- ToE 17:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Respect in the hood

Why are so many poorer neighbourhoods in the US obsessed with 'respect'. In these troubled neighbourhoods, to disrespect someone seems to be akin to threatening a persons very existence. It's perceived as a profound and grave insult.

Indeed, the streets are littered with the bodies of those who have caused disrespect. Something as simple as bumping into someone could get you beaten up, or worse.

Now, if we compared most better neighbourhoods (economically, socially) no such issue exists. In deed, if you bump into someone here they are likely to apologise to you, rather than stab you. Why, and where did this one foot wrong and you're dead culture originate from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.154.86.140 (talk) 22:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Might be based on prison subculture, where once they think you are "weak", you are in serious trouble. Many people in bad areas have been in prison themselves, or know those who have, so pick up that culture. StuRat (talk) 22:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When a cohort (say a poor neighbourhood) has no opportunity for eco-social, personal financial advancement, a hierarchy nevertheless evolves. Someone has to be top-dog that demands respect from others just as in communities were one is lucky enough to have job just flipping burgers Kowtows to Ronald McDonald.--Aspro (talk) 22:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If someone "bumps into" someone in a poor neighborhood there aren't going to be negative repercussions. That is ridiculous. Respect concerns "deliberate" disrespect, and this would hold true in the economically advanced neighborhood. The pressures are greater where living adequately is based on slimmer margins for failure. There is also sometimes a higher crime rate in lower income areas. The ease of availability of a first rate educational environment tends to be absent from poor areas. Everybody has their bad days but in an environment free from the added pressures found in poorer neighborhoods it may be more likely that people who are hot under the collar will retreat to some sort of comfort zone and thus be less likely to contribute to a statistic of a negative confrontation. Bus stop (talk) 01:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Bumping into somebody can very well get you killed. Just recently in Prague, one person passed another who was sitting down on the escalator, for some reason, in the subway. He seemed to do so very politely, but nonetheless the person who had been sitting on the escalator responded by pushing him off the subway platform down onto the tracks, seriously injuring him: [6]. StuRat (talk) 02:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having actually lived in Harlem and the South Bronx I can tell you that people are generally extremely polite for the exact reason that you don't want to bump into someone and not apologize. It is in places like the Upper East Side (where I have also lived) where leach-blonde trophy wives or spoiled brats who live off their parent's money are likely to push you into the street, talking or texting while not looking where they are going. That simply does not happen uptown.

The "respect" thing in general has to do with the ever-present threat of lawlessness, whether it be in the Wild West or places like the Middle East or Southern Italy run by chiefdoms/gangs/warlords/families, etc., where vigilante justice is swift and maintaining a reputation is a necessary form of self-defense. This has nothing to do with American blacks or prisons per se, although prisons are often run on the chiefdom basis. Look to Latin American prisons where the prisoners run the prison and depend on food delivered by family to survive. Putting this in terms of depictions of blacks in TV and Hollywood is historically and culturally blinkered.

μηδείς (talk) 03:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"leach-blonde trophy wives" = gold diggers ? :-) StuRat (talk) 04:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, once I noticed the error I thought it too fortuitous to fix. μηδείς (talk) 04:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest reading this excerpt from Ta-Nehisi Coates's upcoming book for some perspective. If you have time, I recommend taking a look at some of his other writing as well. Coates is black, and grew up in Baltimore. When many things are beyond one's control, or perceived as so, people focus on what is under their control. --108.38.204.15 (talk) 23:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

playing with friends in different classes in swtor

Here's the question,is there a way to play as a Jedi Knight and play with my friend that's a trooper?

I wanna begin playing Star Wars the old republic but i don't know if i can play as a Jedi with my friend that is a trooper.Any help would help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.88.46.174 (talk) 22:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Star Wars: The Old Republic for our article - this question might be better on the Entertainment desk, or on one of the sites listed in the article. Tevildo (talk) 23:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: yes you can, as long as they are all on the same side of the conflict. I.e. Jedi, Troopers, and Smugglers can play togther, as can Sith, Bounty Hunters, and Agents. But not Jedi and Sith (etc) unless you count meeting up to fight each other. Iapetus (talk) 15:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 7

Cases of Addiction and Counselling in USA

Which states in America have the most number of addiction cases and help counselling? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.191.79.16 (talk) 01:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since addiction rates aren't likely to vary much by state, the most populous state, California, is likely the state with the most addiction cases. The rate of counselling is more likely to vary by state, perhaps with red states less likely to offer government funded programs. But, while California has some rather conservative areas, it isn't particularly conservative overall, so again it might take the top spot. Another high population "liberal" state, New York, might also be a contender. StuRat (talk) 03:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For fuck's sakes, Stu, I wish you'd stop guessing with this stuff. Addiction rates vary a lot by state, as you could tell with a two second Google search. Matt Deres (talk) 16:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the first link, that's not addiction rates, that's meth labs. Regarding your 2nd link, while the availability of one drug may vary by area, those with drug addictions can merely use other drugs, alcohol, etc. And your first map only shows where meth is produced. It can be shipped across state lines, you know.

Addiction is known to have a genetic component (in the case of alcohol, some of these genes are known), so for people in one state to be far more addicted than another would require that they have a significantly different gene pool. StuRat (talk) 16:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stu, I'm not interested in nitpicking my links with you: they're approximately a billion times more useful than whatever bullshit you spout off the top of your head. Where's your source backing up your claim that drug use doesn't vary by state? Where's your source for anything? Matt Deres (talk) 16:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See List of U.S. states and territories by population, which shows California has 44% more people than Texas. If you are claiming some other state has the most cases of addiction, then Texas is the obvious choice, and that would require that Texans have an addiction rate over 44% higher than those in CA. That would be an extraordinary claim, and would require extraordinary evidence, not the worthless links you provided. StuRat (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, obviously if you are looking for the number of cases then the population numbers have to be a major factor. However, to say that addiction rates vary by state isn't an extraordinary claim at all. The proportion of the population that is urban, the age profile, the availability of various drugs, education, poverty and employment would all be expected to have an effect. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some effect, yes, but a 44% increase would require a major difference in the populations. StuRat (talk) 18:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see First law of holes, Stu! By your argument, New York should have more African Americans than Georgia and Mississippi combined. And "a genetic component" is something very different from "genetic predetermination". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

<redacted per talk page> --Jayron 32 02:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've provided a relevant source (populations by state). You've provided none. StuRat (talk) 02:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These map collections provide some related information on drug use in American differentiated by state. [7][8]. Dragons flight (talk) 15:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And here are detailed drug-use stats by state, for various licit and illicit drugs for 2012 (which seems to be the latest year available). The first set of maps that Dragon flight linked to correspond to a similar dataset for 2011. Abecedare (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The answer absolutely can't be based on the state population. For example, California has twice the population of New York state but their total numbers of people in treatment are about the same: in 2013, California had 117,159 people in treatment [9] while New York had 114,660 [10]. Note how the charts show the numbers fluctuating a lot - in 2010, for example, California had 123,611 while New York had more, at 130,171.

I haven't found an easy way to see the numbers for all the states in a list, but 180.191.79.16, you can check each state individually for yourself. Start here: [11] and click on one state at a time. Look under 2014 for the "behavioural health barometer". Inside each file, scroll to the table on number of people in substance abuse treatment. 184.147.138.101 (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Squabbling @ Misc desk. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:17, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw a news story [12] saying that New Jersey had 3x the national rate of overdoses recently. But the overdose rate has to do with these particular smugglers selling heroin that is presumably cut with other stuff, but then spiked with fentanyl (which is vastly more potent than heroin). Under those circumstances it apparently is very difficult for an addict to guess how potent the drug they are using is. Unfortunately, every statistic I can think of - overdoses, people going to treatment, prison numbers, seizure amounts - they're all going to have confounding factors. So I'd be wary of quoting an absolute number of addicts, rather than a specific statistic, unless some academics have seriously sat down and claim that's what they worked out using some sophisticated model. Wnt (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do I Figure These ?

Is there anything online or anywhere else that can give me an idea of how much a U.S. Dollar or British Pound was worth in centuries past ? The example I had was that in the movie Belle it was said that Dido Elizabeth Belle was to receive an annual income in about 1780 or so of two thousand pounds per annum, and I guessed that might be like a million New Zealand Dollars now. I know from a book I read twenty years ago that an English Maid might be paid about twelve pounds a year, and expected to live on that in about 1903, which certainly does not sound like much even accounting for inflation. Chris the Russian Christopher Lilly 07:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a search for 'historical exchange rates' brings up a number of various calculators. Dismas|^(talk) 08:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are some very distinguished academics on the board of Measuring Worth. Suggests it's pretty reliable. Dalliance (talk) 11:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank Yous both - I shall give them a look. Chris the Russian Christopher Lilly 05:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CNN anchor instead of Wolf today

Who was the blonde CNN anchor girl who, replacing Wolf, interviewed Jim Sciutto today in Wolf about Snowden, right before 2pm ET Amanpour? I caught the end and no credits were given. CNN's current schedule doesn't help either. Thanks. Brandmeister^talk 18:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely Pamela Brown judging from this clip. Nanonic (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's her, thanx. Brandmeister^talk 20:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will America invade our country?

We do not respond to invitations to speculate. Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

What if Daesh beat us. Is there a good chance you Americans will finally deploy your marines over here and help over come the threats we are faced with. Or will it end up like another Iraq situation with our leader executed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.253.111.176 (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Questioner geolocates to Damascus, Syria.) We are unable to respond to your question, which is a request for a prediction, per the rules at the top of this page which include "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate." Good luck. -- ToE 22:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

American-led intervention in Syria covers some of how the invasion/intervention has already gone. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:56, July 8, 2015 (UTC)

The US government doesn't even know, so it's not likely Wikipedia will. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source for the US government not knowing? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:21, July 8, 2015 (UTC)

Something Obama himself said recently about the US not having a clear plan for what to do. Google the subject and you'll see various references from the last 6 months or more. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I have to Google? Found this. Ten months old, though, and starts with "too soon to say". Maybe it's not too soon anymore. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:33, July 8, 2015 (UTC)

Here's one from yesterday. Apparently the plan is more aid to "moderate opposition". Too soon to say they're terrorists, at least in America. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:36, July 8, 2015 (UTC)

Black Gays

Does the percentage of a population who are defined as homosexual vary from race to race. Or is it is the percentage fixed across the species as a whole.

Obviously, this rate would be without cultural taboos applied "in the closet, out of the closet type issues"

From a casual observers stand point, it seems like there are far less gay blacks / african decent. And more gay phillipino people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.97.172.220 (talk) 21:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the USA, see recent Gallup poll here [13], more coverage of said poll here [14]. Of note, all groups that are not "white non-hispanic" reported LGBT status at higher rates than white people. Black people in the USA reported the highest rate of LGBT self-identification, at 4.6%. This is the largest ever such poll in the USA, and fairly recent (2012). I expect these trends may be different in other parts of the world. If you have a specific non-USA area of interest, let us know, and perhaps someone can find data for that area. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are problems with the concept of race that would tend to render this question almost unanswerable. It is not simple to define race. Bus stop (talk) 22:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absoulutely, race is not a well-defined scientific concept. But it still exists as a social construct, and respondents self-identified on that as well. The Gallup poll technically doesn't report on "race", it reports on Ethnic_groupings - which are also self-assigned categories. I guess the point is, if someone says they are black and they are LGBT, (or Asian and not LGBT, etc), it is still informative of something to tabulate these results. It might be problematic to say that these results prove anything about race/ethnicity or sexual orientation, but the poll does support in a scientific manner many specific statements - that people in the USA who identify as black are more likely to identify as LGBT. That younger people in the USA are more likely to identify as LGBT. That women in the USA are more likely to identify as LGBT, etc. The "implications" section gives no undue weight to the findings, IMO, saying things like "In particular, the findings challenge both media and cultural stereotypes to reveal that the LGBT population is in a number of ways not that different from the broader U.S. population." SemanticMantis (talk) 23:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as being gay. That's a construct of the latter half of 20th century in the West. Humans are facultatively bisexual; look at Greek and Roman civilization. Augustus Caesar was noted by his contemporaries for the fact that he did not engage in homosexual acts. The real divide is between the behavior of men and women, certainly not racial. See, for example on the down-low and look at "straight", often married men who have gay sex.

As for the disparity by race, some of that may be due to the urban versus suburban and rural environment. I once asked a black person from Harlem half-kiddingly whether all black people were gay, to get the response that blacks (in Harlem) wonder whether all white people are gay (presumably from the skewed sample that the Village and the Upper Left Side provides).

μηδείς (talk) 01:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, there's no such thing as the English (or any) language, the American (or any) presidency, the Gregorian (or any) calendar, the C major (or any) scale, the internet, or the secret ballot. They're all constructs of various people or groups at various times. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you are missing my intended point. I am not saying there is no such thing as homosexuality; that we share with the Romans, the New Guinea highlanders, and with bonobos, penguins and dolphins. What I mean is that certain fads, fashions, institutions, like hanky culture in the 70's, wearing beads in the 90's, living in enclaves, voting left-wing, and so forth, that we call "gay", are not a historical constant, but very recent and ephemeral things. I am quite sure there are many married and "straight" men who either engage in buggery on occasion or by preference who identify as straight. That has apparently always been the case. Female homosexuality is a bit less overt, and attested or as easy to study. "The Homosexual" as a category, as opposed to homosexuality as a behavior dates back only to the late 19th century. But buggery has been around forever. μηδείς (talk) 16:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifiying. But on your last point, "homosexual activity" does not necessarily imply "buggery" (if you intend that to mean penetrative anal intercourse using a penis). Porn would have it as the almost universal component of every male-male sexual encounter, but everything I've read in RL tells me it's rather less common. A large chunk of the sexually active gay male cohort never get into it at all. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not for Lesbians! That was more rhetorical than anything. I am really not opposing anything anyone has said, I just want to make it clear that viewing homosexuality as the same thing as what has been called gayness in the modern West is like looking at domesticated mammals as representative of the animal kingdom. As for your metaphysical point, that there would be no such thing as the English language or the Gregorian Calendar, it's a very interesting topic. Obviously there is no thing physically that corresponds to English other than brain-states, utterances, texts, and the like. And the calendar exists as a matter of convention only; it has a tenuous connection to physical reality on the scale of the universe. But individual sexuality and what people think of as being gay, as in "gay pride parade", are very different monsters. Western "gayness" is much closer to goth and hip-hop and trekkie subculture as a chosen identity and in-group.

It is very frustrating for those of us who don't vote a straight gay party ticket to have certain expectations simply dropped on us. When I had a crush on both the Six-Million Dollar Man and The Bionic Woman in elementary school, I didn't expect it to mean that when I worked at Christopher Street Magazine my employer would give me paid time to register and then vote for Bill Clinton in the '92 election. I voted Ross Perot. μηδείς (talk) 00:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One thing of interest is that our pre supposed impressions of certain matters can end up being very different to the realities. My assumption would have been that there were more White gays than Black or other races. I also had an impression that there might of been a lot more Jews who were gay than others, but I think this was more due to seeing more portrayals of gay Jews in Movies and on Television than of other races, due to the personal opinions of some Hollywood script writers wanting to show as many gays as possible. To be absolutely sure, the vast majority of Jews portrayed in Media and such were not shown as gay, and I would like to make clear that as a People, whether they are a Race, a Nationality or a Religion, I have always had the greatest respect for Jews, or in fact people of all Races, since we all contribute something to this World. God hath made of ONE BLOOD all Nations of Men for to dwell on all the face of the Earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation ( Acts 17 : 26 ) These impressions as to whether certain Races are more likely to be gay, or belligerent, or criminally minded, or whatever else, are as much due to stereotypes, which may have developed due to some measure of truth, but are not ultimately borne out by the facts. But whether or not one is gay or straight, these things are choices, whereas Race is not, and yet why it appears that more people of Colour identify themselves as gay, is also a mystery to me. Chris the Russian Christopher Lilly 05:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gay or straight is not a choice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So lets see, stereotypes have a grain of truth to them, but stereotypes don't tell the whole story, and race differs from sexual orientation in that sexual orientation is a choice but race is not, and it is a mystery to you, Chris the Russian, that the homosexual sexual orientation appears disproportionately among people of colour. Do I understand you so far? If so, what would be your overriding point? I'm just trying to figure out what you are trying to say, or are you just telling us that you are mystified by the findings of the abovementioned Gallup poll? Bus stop (talk) 13:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am a gay man, and neither I nor any other gay person that I've known has "chosen" attraction to the same sex. That status is either innate or the result of environmental influences in the first couple of years after conception, or some combination of the two. What is a choice is whether to be open about one's attraction or to try to hide it. While I am white, I have known many gay people of color, and in my experience their share of the gay population in any metropolitan area is roughly proportional to their share of the overall population. If people of color are slightly more likely to identify as gay than white people, that would not surprise me. If it's true, the reasons are surely cultural at root, since races as they are conceived in North America are not meaningful genetic categories. Marco polo (talk) 14:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly relevant to the cultural attitudes/difference is Down-low (sexual slang). I think there were some statistical white/black cultural differences several years ago, but of course one should not read too much meaning into racial observations, since they're prone to change. (Can you remember when many people thought girls weren't as well suited to college as boys?) Wnt (talk) 21:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I posted down-low yesterday, Wnt. I'll use the opportunity to repeat that a lot of perception and self-reporting is based on the difference between rural and urban settings. Given urban America is less predominantly white than rural America and also typically more gay friendly, it might not be unexpected that this would skew both perception and willingness to self-report. μηδείς (talk) 00:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by all I have written, as I am sure You all do. Agree to disagree. So, to Bus stop (talk), yes You understand me correctly - the mystery about this to me is only due to these things not being in my realm of experience, but what is, is my knowledge that God does not make us gay. This is a choice, and is never natural, since as Marco polo (talk) has stated, and I quote :That status is either innate or the result of environmental influences in the first couple of years after conception, or some combination of the two. This suggests that if a child exists in an environment that leads them to become gay, this cannot be a natural thing, since there could also be a suggestion that without such a result of environmental influences, such a child would not become gay, if as is suggested, this is one of the causes. As for homosexuality being innate, as I stated, this is not true. God is not so unjust as to create gay people then condemn them for being as such as if it were natural. Somewhere or other there is some other factor that has caused the gay person to choose to be gay or to become so, but not as of Nature. What I was saying about the results of the Gallup Poll was simply that I was surprised that there were more likely to be gays among blacks than other races, but I concede this is due to my not knowing the exact details of gay society. I admit it might also be due to some of my own sometimes subconscious misconceptions about gays as if they are soft, and yet to be honest, I actually know that this is not necessarily true, but as I say, this idea is in a way subconscious. Combine this with an impression I have that blacks are generally tough, but I think this is closer to the truth, since as many of them are subjected to unjustified racism, at least in certain areas, they have to toughen up. I admit I allow myself to be influenced by certain stereotypes, and this I intend to deal with. As for what I said about these stereotypes, I do honestly believe most of them do begin with a sprinkling of truth, or at least some one's impression of the truth. It is unfortunate that blacks for example are seen by certain whites as criminals, and those of the white power variety want only to see that side of them, but I know not all blacks are criminals at all - I suggest more skinheads are - and yet, imagine one is robbed by a black person, what then are they to think ? So my point here, is any idea of blacks being criminals might come from certain people being robbed by them, which is the factual part, and yet they then ignore the fact that just as many people are robbed by whites, or also that most blacks were not out robbing that night, and from these unfortunate things comes some sort of stereotype, which though is not necessarily always believed, and certainly not always true. To finish off, I mean what I said, and if it is not clear to anyone it may be You did not want to agree with it - fine - but there it is. There is not natural, innate gay nature in anyone of any race, and anyone who thinks they are gay, are mixing up who they are with what they do, just as those who rob banks do such things but certainly do not have to, and can change if they desire to. Chris the Russian Christopher Lilly 11:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've got it fundamentally wrong about sexual orientation. You possess no "knowledge" about what God does or does not do. It's strictly your personal prejudice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To Bugs, yes I do have knowledge about God - not all of what He does, but what He has already made clear in His Scripture. I may, as is noted below, have prejudices about some things, which I admit to, in terms at least of falling for the ideas behind some stereotypes, which I acknowledge is not on, but what I say of God is my personal opinion, but I believe it to be fact, and I am sure many out there will disagree and believe what they want to be fact, and I know I am right about what I said about sexual orientation, because it is not of me, but of God, and throughout Scripture He condemns homosexuality to the point of commanding the Jews to execute them, but thankfully, God has changed how He deals with us, to show us obedience to the Law of Moses was all but impossible, and saves us all by grace through faith.

Sorry for repeating some of this, as I published it, then it was responded to above, and in the mean time I realise I had more to say. Here it is in full. I stand by all I have written, as I am sure You all do. Agree to disagree. So, to Bus stop (talk), yes You understand me correctly - the mystery about this to me is only due to these things not being in my realm of experience, but what is, is my knowledge that God does not make us gay. This is a choice, and is never natural, since as Marco polo (talk) has stated, and I quote :That status is either innate or the result of environmental influences in the first couple of years after conception, or some combination of the two. This suggests that if a child exists in an environment that leads them to become gay, this cannot be a natural thing, since there could also be a suggestion that without such a result of environmental influences, such a child would not become gay, if as is suggested, this is one of the causes. As for homosexuality being innate, as I stated, this is not true. God is not so unjust as to create gay people then condemn them for being as such as if it were natural. Somewhere or other there is some other factor that has caused the gay person to choose to be gay or to become so, but not as of Nature. What I was saying about the results of the Gallup Poll was simply that I was surprised that there were more likely to be gays among blacks than other races, but I concede this is due to my not knowing the exact details of gay society. I admit it might also be due to some of my own sometimes subconscious misconceptions about gays as if they are soft, and yet to be honest, I actually know that this is not necessarily true, but as I say, this idea is in a way subconscious. Combine this with an impression I have that blacks are generally tough, but I think this is closer to the truth, since as many of them are subjected to unjustified racism, at least in certain areas, they have to toughen up. I admit I allow myself to be influenced by certain stereotypes, and this I intend to deal with. As for what I said about these stereotypes, I do honestly believe most of them do begin with a sprinkling of truth, or at least some one's impression of the truth. It is unfortunate that blacks for example are seen by certain whites as criminals, and those of the white power variety want only to see that side of them, but I know not all blacks are criminals at all - I suggest more skinheads are - and yet, imagine one is robbed by a black person, what then are they to think ? So my point here, is any idea of blacks being criminals might come from certain people being robbed by them, which is the factual part, and yet they then ignore the fact that just as many people are robbed by whites, or also that most blacks were not out robbing that night, and from these unfortunate things comes some sort of stereotype, which though is not necessarily always believed, and certainly not always true. To finish off, I mean what I said, and if it is not clear to anyone it may be You did not want to agree with it - fine - but there it is. There is not natural, innate gay nature in anyone of any race, and anyone who thinks they are gay, are mixing up who they are with what they do, just as those who rob banks do such things but certainly do not have to, and can change if they desire to. Some last things I should add. Yes, I do not believe homosexuality is right, but we have all sinned, and none of us is perfect, no, not one, so I admit that I do not endorse the practices of the Westboro Baptist Church or any other of that like who seem to be preaching hatred and the Wrath of God only, but there does not seem to be any Love. They seem to forget their own sinful nature and concentrate on that of all others, and have adopted a kind of guilt by association hate list, against, among others, brave soldiers who fought and died in current wars not of their own making, just because they are in a Military run by a Government that supports homosexuality. They did not die for their Government, but for their Country, and some of them may not even have supported homosexuality, either. If such Christians want to lay this guilt on people only by association, well, they live in a country whose Government supports homosexuality - does this not make them associated with gays, also ? Remember Your First Love guys, come out from among her and be ye separate, and touch not the unclean thing, and realise, that as God is Love, He sent his Son for ALL OF US, that we may be humble in His Sight, and that goes for us all. On the other side, I see a film on You Tube of a little girl holding a rainbow flag, the kind associated with the support of homosexuality, and the caption reads 1st Grader Backs Down Homophobe Street Preacher. This I see not. They conveniently do not show the whole thing, and the way these Christians appear to be acting seems alright to me, but only from what I can see, and the preacher stops talking to the girl simply because she is not listening, and the Bible tells us not to go on when we have made our point and they will not hear. Grown ups, to their shame are high fiving the little girl, and here may be an example of someone too young to choose what her parents might have taught her, and here she goes supporting something she cannot possibly know ( nor should she ) the exact details of. And yet others criticise Christian parents for raising their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. I cannot think of any of the many young children in my family who would do what the little girl is doing, as support of such things is simply not normal to us. My point here being that we need to know the Truth of God's Word, but His Truth, and not get it wrong and turn it into a doctrine of hate - that's for skinheads, who, like all of us, for what ever our sins may be, can repent of all sins, even if we do not see it as such. God Bless Chris the Russian Christopher Lilly 12:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 8

Ergophysiology

Talk:Eleni Avlonitou#Ergophysiology???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:582:C5E:8300:108C:83EF:4B73:1E4B (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is the question? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What in the seven hells is ergophysiology? It is the only article in the wiki where this word shows up. 2A02:582:C5E:8300:108C:83EF:4B73:1E4B (talk) 16:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And the answer is Exercise physiology. Redirect has been created. Tevildo (talk) 17:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conversational English via skype

I hear there is a massive demand, especially by Chinese students to have conversations in English with native speakers for practise. Can anyone suggesr a good way to find these potential students? The plan would be to then proceed over Skype. Other nationalities considered as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.243.12.57 (talk) 21:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 9

How do you accurately describe yourself if you're a socialist - but also hold nationalist views?

Obviously, referring to yourself as a "national-socialist" is likely to cause confusion and offense. --146.198.142.19 (talk) 03:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about "socialist patriot"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Social nationalist"? Still close, but perhaps not close enough. Like how therapists generally aren't confused with the rapists. You might still get mistaken for these guys, but they're less famous, so less so. And if you do, they're still generally less offensive than Nazis. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:18, July 9, 2015 (UTC)

What's wrong with just "socialist"? There's nothing anti-nationalist (patriotic, loyal, etc) about socialism. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Classical proper socialism is a global movement, nationalism is such a petty and pointless thing. I'm a socialist and a global citizen, who happened to have been born in the Netherlands and live in the UK. Words like 'nationalist' and 'patriot' just indicate nonsensical attachment to a social construct, to which your 'allegiance' was determined by a random event (your birth). A good socialist should't be a nationalist or a patriot. (And puts salt in their porridge before someone else makes that joke) Fgf10 (talk) 07:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That theory works fine until your country gets invaded. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that socialism is incompatible with nationalism. --Viennese Waltz 08:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, it usually is. The state is an artificial construct, and is not a relevant issue for many/most true socialist philosophies. That's one of the [many] reasons why so many countries' establishment have been scared to the willies of socialism down the years. --Dweller (talk) 08:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The entirety of civilization is an artificial construct. Where on this planet is socialism incompatible with nationalism? Certainly not the UK, which has had socialized medicine for nearly 70 years, but there's no shortage of national pride. Or maybe I should ask, Where on this planet is your theory of socialism practiced? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me that North Korea is one of the most socialistic states in the world, yet nationalism there is not only strong, it's required. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You think that "socialized medicine" (for which the proper term is free health care) is a sign of a socialist country? Hahaha. --Viennese Waltz 11:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm a lot dumber than you are, so eddycate me: name a country that matches you definition of socialism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about individual countries. It's about the theory of socialism and nationalism as political philosophies. Read Dweller's comment above: "the state...is not a relevant issue for many/most true socialist philosophies." --Viennese Waltz 12:04, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What, pray, is a true socialist philosophy? DuncanHill (talk) 12:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What he's really telling us is that "true" socialism is some sort of "ideal" which is not practiced in the real world. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DH: I would have used "pure" rather than "true". @BB: once again, I'm not talking about the real world, I'm talking about theory (which, believe it or not, is what the OP was asking about). --Viennese Waltz 12:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All the OP asked was what do you call someone who's both socialist and nationalist. And you proceeded to give him your personal opinion that the two are incompatible. Supposing they were compatible, what would the answer be? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So what do you call a pure socialist philosophy? I know loads of socialists, and no two of them can agree what socialism is. DuncanHill (talk) 12:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea, other than what is written at socialism. --Viennese Waltz 12:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, where it says, "There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The search for "true socialism" tends to be rather like the search for a true Scotsman. DuncanHill (talk) 11:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article Left-wing nationalism - most of the parties listed in that article can be described as democratic socialist. Tevildo (talk) 08:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A socialist and a nationalist, or a nationalistic socialist? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or socialist-nationalist. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Definitions vary, but generally: "socialism" is the belief that the "means of production" should be publicly owned and operated for the good of society as a whole, "nationalism" used to mean the belief that each nation should have its own state run for the benefit of its people rather than e.g. being part of a foreign empire (but more recently tends to be used to mean aggressive national chauvenism), and "patriotism" means love and/or defence of your country (whatever those mean in practice). They aren't inherently mutually exclusive. I belive Marx argued that Capitalism was so internationally entrenched that it would be impossible to achieve Socialism unless the whole world did it at the same time. But in general, I don't see an fundamental reason of definition why a state couldn't implement socialism on its own. And the existance of a state doesn't in itself imply hostility or contempt for other states or their people - even if you do "love" it. Iapetus (talk) 12:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How to lose fat without doing aerobic exercise and eating plainty of protein?

Large amount of protein intake is known for increasing the loading of kidney. Too much protein is bad for people with decreased kidney disease. Besides, it seems there is a link between low blood sugar and heart failure for people with heart disease "Hypoglycaemia and heart failure ... Hypoglycaemia has been reported with congestive cardiac failure" [15]. And "In general, blood sugar drops after exercise and is lower for the next 24 to 48 hours" [16]. If one has both kidney and heart disease what else he can do to reduce his body fat? - Justin545 (talk) 10:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think an answer to those specific questions would be giving medical advice. Iapetus (talk) 12:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, everyone's metabolism is different, so no one here is in any position to make specific recommendations to the OP. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may find our article Liposuction of relevance. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 12:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]