Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous

Welcome to the miscellaneous section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

January 25

Help identifying a font

Could anyone please help me identify the font in this image? It looks like some kind of Gothic script, but I'm having trouble finding the exact one.--十八 00:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

It is Goudy Text from Monotype. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much.--十八 04:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Heat / Aircondition / in Arizona ? Heat Punp / gas assist.

In AZ air conditioners also have heat punps. I understand the theory of using the heat punp in cooler weather. lately I have heard of HVAC's having gas fired. Are these just a furnace added or is gas used to heat the gas, if so how does this work — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.199.201.140 (talk) 02:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

See the article on HVAC. It is a kind of air conditioner, it is all the systems for heating, air conditioning and ventilation/air handling. Gas in this context means natural gas, not air or gasoline. Rmhermen (talk) 04:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Watch question

First… Please forgive my ignorance… (and second my English)

What is it for the color indication or scale or labeling, that diving watches have from the one to the fifteen?

I don’t know exactly if all divers have it, at least my Invicta have it, and I remember a quartz Casio diver that I had long time ago until its battery died and purchased the invicta, and it have it to, now I was watching this IWC… and there it is to, someone told me it’s just a decoration but… come on? Really?

I love watches but most of the time I don’t figure out all most of its functions

thanks Iskánder Vigoa Pérez (talk) 05:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

See Diving_watch#Bezel_markings. StuRat (talk) 05:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

What's with Al Qeada and the finger wagging?

What's with the terrorists and their finger wagging? Is it religious? Psychological? Something they picked up at Columbia University? Al-Shiri, Awlaki, Osama. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs)

It's just a common gesture... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Confirmation bias. --Jayron32 06:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe some of it is them trying to imply or invoking Allah as approving their actions. It is done by many religious people. Dmcq (talk) 10:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Citation needed. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

How about [1] section 'forefinger aloft' meaning (c) invoking a higher power. Dmcq (talk) 11:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

If that's what the gesture indicates, it is by no means limited to Islam. Just watch an athlete salute the sky after scoring a touchdown or crossing home plate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't say anything about Islam or Muslims. And more importantly it doesn't give us any indication it's why the named people or really any terrorists were wagging their fingers. From my memory of most times I've actually seen videos, it's usually done either when making a point or as a form of reprimand. OR, but better IMO then some random source irrelevant to the context. Nil Einne (talk) 18:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Some discussion here [2] which mostly agrees with me although does suggest in one case with Osama he may have been referencing the divine. Nil Einne (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Seb and Jayron32. You'd note one of your results includes Clinton wagging his finger. Try a search for Obama finger, Clinton finger, Bush finger (with some contamination) and you get pretty much the same thing. Even Reagan finger finds one or two sort of similar things (although more pointing then wagging, and pointing in that form is unpopular in some countries [3] [4]), as well as a bunch of stuff with Romney, some random guy I dunno (evidently Brownback), Santorum, Henry Waxman with basically the same thing. In other words, you might as well ask 'What's with the American presidents or American politicians and their finger wagging'. Nil Einne (talk) 18:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe that politicians are now advised NOT to point or wag a finger while speaking, as it seems aggressive. Tony Blair had an odd way of pointing with his thumb to add emphasis[5][6], while David Cameron (equally oddly) only points downwards[7]. They both bear the hallmarks of the advice of PR gurus. Alansplodge (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Yet they still seem to do it in the US. (I'm pretty sure the Romney, Santorum and Obama examples and also the Brewers example below were relatively recently. Probably the Waxman too.) This sort of tells us how common the gesture actual is. Nil Einne (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, well even Plato stuck his finger up in the air on occasion, but there was commentary about the ritual symbolism of this constant harangue-long finger wagging by terrorists in their recorded threats after 9/11. Help finding that would be nice. μηδείς (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's some nice evidence that the "Reagan did it too" protest is off the point. Any help with references for this behavior? μηδείς (talk) 03:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

So you're saying because most politicians in the US seem to do it (despite evidently being advised against it and here's another one I think was also in some of the earlier searches but I didn't mention [8]), and so do some terrorists, as well as a random character in a comedy show (funnily enough even TVtropes has an article [9]), it must be something unique to terrorists? Incidentally, our own Index finger article mentions it can be an admonitory gesture without mentioning it being restricted to terrorists. Nil Einne (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not arguing anything. What I am saying is that when the various terrorists released their tapes after 9/11 and the second gulf and afghan wars, there was commentary in the press about their finger wagging during their taped press-release harangues. I'd like help finding that commentary. People's personal comments about Bush wagging his finger too aren't helpful. Bush and Obama may occasionally wave their fingers, but they don't do so in a ritual manner in long taped harangues. Unfortunately the results I get when I search the topic all end up being about finger-pointing (blame) and not this very characteristic finger wagging by these "terrorist authorities". But that is what I want help with, not whether Americans also have fingers. μηδείς (talk) 04:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

You brought in the irrelevant video (it's from a comedy show, didn't involve a terrorist and as the TVtropes link clearly specifies this isn't a trope unique to Islamic terrorists in media) above which is what I replied to. And all the source provided so far, including the earlier albeit non media link discussing the behaviour in terrorist videos suggest it's a common gesture used when making a point or when admonishing someone not just among terrorists or Muslims but for many people. The fact that terrorists tend to do this a lot in their videos where they tend to be doing both but politicians who are evidently counseled against it (and the Clinton and Brewers discussions show it can be controversial for reasons that have nothing to do with the usage by terrorists) don't do it quite so much when they aren't making such videos, doesn't change that fact. No significant evidence it's anything ritualistic for terrorists any more then for politicians who seem to also do it a lot taken as a whole, other then the mention in the source above it may be connected to raising of finger during shahada. (One did suggest it's common among Islamic preachers but no evidence was provided it's more common among them then other preachers.) If you want sources suggesting otherwise, you're welcome to ask for them, without making claims, without evidence but with irrelevant sources instead, that your uncited belief is factual. Nil Einne (talk) 04:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I wan't saying it was specific to Islamic preachers, just that for religious people it warns there is a higher power watching their actions. Dmcq (talk) 13:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

It's actually much simpler than all the above. When you wag your finger when speaking, or haranguing, or lecturing, or admonishing, whatever - it symbolises "Do not interrupt me or challenge me or argue against me, because your words will not reach me as I am brushing them away before they reach my ears". It is akin to the gesture of holding your open hand in front of you so as to say, "Speak to my hand - I am not listening". 77.99.122.161 (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The commentary I remember said that holding up your finger implied a peculiar claim to religious authority in what you were saying. This was linked to some school or tradition or group. It's that link I am looking for. μηδείς (talk) 18:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to put a burden on you, Nil, if this is upsetting. In case you still have doubts, yes, I know Abu was a restauranteur character in a comedy show. I really don't know what to say to your continued false implication that I am arguing only terrorists hold up their finger when they lecture you. Let me repeat: I am not arguing anything. What I am saying is that when the various terrorists released their tapes after 9/11 and the second gulf and afghan wars, there was commentary in the press about their finger wagging during their taped press-release harangues. I'd like help finding that commentary. μηδείς (talk) 18:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Long time later but you seem to have missed my point. You specifically said the Reagan stuff was irrelevant for no reason. You then linked to an irrelevant video. There's absolutely no reason to think the comedy video has any connection to this claimed supposed claim to religious authority by some some school or tradition or group. If want to ask for these supposed sources, then ask for them. You only asked for these sources very late. You then dismissed references and examples already provided as irrelevant when they were completely relevant to your original question without any good explaination (since as said, your explaination was an irrelevant comedy video with no demonstrated link whatsoever to this supposed religious authority link). It was completely fair for me to point out your dismissal was nonsense and your refusal to accept that was the whole reason for this unnecessary diversion. Fact is, unless anyone has actually talked to these people and asked them, why they do it, everything is just speculation. Given the amount of nonsense the media finds when they have nothing else to do, there's no good reason to think this alleged religious authority link has any more merit then the other suggested reasons in this thread. This doesn't mean there's anything wrong with you asking for these specific sources, but rather as I said earlier, if you want to ask for them you should ask for them and not dismiss perfectly valid possibilites mostly offered before you'd specified you weren't actually interested in understanding why the people in the videos may be doing it, but only interested in one specific reason you'd heard about before. Nil Einne (talk) 16:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

baby girl

if we want a baby girl what measures can be taken while having sex — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.178.231.184 (talk) 07:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid there's nothing significant you or your partner can do to determine the sex of your child. Fgf10 (talk) 08:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Sex selection has some info. Sjö (talk) 08:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Note that all of those (that work anyway) are in vitro techniques, the OP specifies actions taken during sex. But thanks for the link, should have added it myself. Fgf10 (talk) 10:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Fill out adoption papers in bed. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Avoid the mother eating bananas, that way any boys you conceive will be more likely to be aborted, increasing the chance of having a girl. Sources. μηδείς (talk) 03:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

WTF? Both on the stupid sources and the abortion joke angle. What possible good do you think this answer holds for the OP? --Onorem♠Dil 04:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The studies have been published in the scientific literature, and all through the popular press, and the bottom line is that boy babies require a higher nutrient level than girls, so avoiding bananas helps make sure that spontaneous abortion of males is more likely. The majority of conceptions are believed to end in unrealized spontaneous abortion. It's up to the OP to decide whether the desire for a girl matters that much. That's what's the fuck. μηδείς (talk) 04:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Most of the links I've clicked have been about the same study with a sample size of about 750 and based on what they recalled about their eating patterns over the last year. 3 categories. 56% boys for high, 45% for low. Nothing in the article about what the usual % is and what other factors they did or didn't look at. I don't have time to click on all the results of your linked google search for an explanation on the abortion part. Please be specific. --Onorem♠Dil 04:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The studies reflect post-conception survival, not pre-conception selection for girls. Eating bananas doesn't make X-bearing sperm quicker to the egg or more successful in fertilizing it in the uterus. That means more boys are spontaneously aborted after conception than girls on the low nutrient diet. This sort of sexual selection induced sex ratio is common.μηδείς (talk) 04:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Please give me a link. I don't want a link to a search, but a link to a reliable source that says what you are saying. And who said anything about bananas changing how quickly sperm travels to the egg? --Onorem♠Dil 05:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Some countries don't even have access to bananas, so they would all be a nation of girls and quickly die out, if that were the case. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Nearly all of humanity didn't have access to bananas until 100 years ago or so, which is why the banana advice is ridiculous. --Jayron32 17:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Onorem, but all I am getting are dead links when trying to look for the original study. But the claim that the sex ratio is affected by nutrition was widely reported. I am not quite sure how people got the notion that a link to this 'groundbreaking science' (irony) was meant as serious advice. μηδείς (talk) 18:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

No one claimed that nutrition in general couldn't affect the human body in the ways so described. The ridiculous claim was overselling the role of bananas specifically. --Jayron32 04:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

No worries, Medeis. We all know you've gone bananas. :) KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

While the causes section of the spontaneous abortion article describes a number of causes that could be linked to nutrition, nothing is said specifically about bananas or how this might affect the sex ratio. Astronaut (talk) 21:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Just a thought, but has anyone considered telling my famous compatriot that we have even more evidence of bananas testifying to the genius of god's creation? Oh what a nightmare for atheists! Nil Einne (talk) 12:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Time-travel consistency in "Bender's Big Score"

I watched Bender's Big Score in the gym tonight, and it seemed that the time-travel plot was intricately planned and interwoven. But it was a little too complicated to check without writing anything down. I was wondering, has anyone followed all the world lines and checked whether they make sense, according to the rules of the film?

Not that I'm completely sure I understand what those rules are. A conceit of the film is that, if a living body is duplicated by time travel, then that body is "doomed". But if it was explained what it meant for a body to be "duplicated", as opposed to just having its word line wrapped around so that it intersects a spacelike slice twice, I didn't follow it. For example, "Lars" is apparently Fry's future self, but after Lars dies, Fry goes on, and apparently is not destined to go back in time and become Lars, only to die. Is there any explanation for that?

Obviously I'm not interested in arguments why time travel isn't possible, and I don't want to hear from anyone arguing against counterfactuals in general. I'm just trying to figure out if the film is coherent by its own rules, and what those rules are. --Trovatore (talk) 11:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it depends on whether you think the future has already happened, or that it has options. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I would not be surprised if the show's writers didn't work very hard to keep the plot internally coherent and consistent, given what I know about the sort of attention to detail that the writers usually have. Futurama is well known for the insane attention to detail the writers seem to have towards making its convoluted plots actually work. Item #5 on this list goes into a bit of the sort of stuff that works into Futurama, including not one but two secret languages which have been fleshed out to almost Tolkein-like detail, Futurama#Language actually covers this a bit, and the unique mathematical algorithm that a writer actually developed to make episode The Prisoner of Benda. So, while past performance is no guarantee of future results yadayadayada, the shows writers have at least demonstrated the capacity to work that level of detail into their work. --Jayron32 13:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. If you want an easier, yet still classic, treatment of time travel, I recommend Heinlein's story "By His Bootstraps".--Wehwalt (talk) 13:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Didn't really like that one. It was one of the very few Heinlein stories where there was no one to like, and where the universe as a whole felt mean. I much preferred "—All You Zombies—", which I think was roughly equivalent from the time-travel point of view. --Trovatore (talk) 19:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

...and if you want an even more convoluted, intricate one, I recommend Primer (film)...bring a notebook as you watch! SteveBaker (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I just want to point out helpfully that time travel isn't possible. So I can't comment on the movie until after I download it and watch it later tonight. μηδείς (talk) 18:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

That's not helpful; Trovatore asked respondents not to argue about the impossibility of time travel. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Quite the contrary - time travel is totally possible... in the world of fiction. Which, if I recall correctly, is the world the OP was talking about. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Medeis was just having a little fun here. I don't have a problem with that. I do get tired of counterfactual, or at least implicitly counterfactual, questions being answered on the basis of current understanding of contingent reality in the actual world. --Trovatore (talk) 22:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Having just watched this earlier tommorow, the ending with the multiple Benders makes any calculations impossible, so the easy answer is no. What's really relevant is the entertainment factor. While I won't sue to have that hour and a half of my life back, I would say that anyone who likes time travel and good writing would be much better served watching these episodes of the Sarah Connor Chronicles. μηδείς (talk) 03:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

My general recollection of Futurama is that they are rather inconsistent about whose timeline should be followed when time travel takes place. This makes interpretation rather difficult. Nonetheless, Bender's Big Score is one of my favorite pieces of entertainment ever. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course time travel is possible. I've been moving into the future at the rate of 60 min per hour for quite a while now. Gzuckier (talk) 08:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The future's for amateurs. I'm much more interested in what is going to happen after the future. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't decide whether Jayron32 miscounted "not"s. And perhaps Jayron32 was joshing us by describing Futurama's ciphers as "secret languages which have been fleshed out to almost Tolkein-like detail". Anyway, it has seemed to me that Futurama is rather cavalier about continuity, so I wouldn't bet on a time-travel story to hold up under close examination. —Tamfang (talk) 05:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

wordpress blogs

having a little bit of a problem here, I originally had a nice blog, but after most of a year I stopped posting to it much, and it sort of faded away, then when I wanted to start on it again a few months later, I decided I might be better off starting again, especially after some big changes to my life recently, rather than trying to catch up on everything that I had missed in those few months. that second blog has also faded away to nothing, but now I want to get back into writing again, but I don't like the idea of just losing all that I did before, so I am wondering if there is any way now of merging all of both of them into one, then continuing from there without having to repost every single article one by one?

thank you,

86.15.83.223 (talk) 15:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

This would be a good question for the Computing reference desk: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing - you'll get a much better answer there. SteveBaker (talk) 16:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Or an email to Wordpress would also work. Sometimes just sending an email to the company that creates a certain software package or whatever can give you an accurate answer just as quickly as waiting for someone here who happens to know the answer to your question to pass by and read your question to begin with. Not to put down these desks but with such a specific question about a specific product, the people producing the product often have a good chance at besting us at answering questions. Dismas|^(talk) 16:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

wordpress help section is only available to paying customers, and they've managed to lose one of my accounts, apparently it doesn't exist when I try to reset my password, but does when I want to register a new account under that same name. So I've given up and moved. But I can post a new, different question under computing now 86.15.83.223 (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

On the dashboard of every Wordpress blog, under Tools, there's an "export" and an "import" function. "Export" saves all the posts and comments of that blog as an XML file. You can then "import" that file into a different Wordpress blog. --Nicknack009 (talk) 16:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Facebook-like button

People who like too many things, like this.

Hi, I am looking for the site to which you give a string X and which then gives you a Facebook-like "X like this" thumb-up image. Thanks. Apokrif (talk) 19:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

We can do that in Wikipedia, as shown. StuRat (talk) 02:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Misdirected question

ref your cheap holidays recently in the paper, I read the Sun every day and collected the tokens every day for my daughter and rang and told her the token words as the tenth one was published on the monday but all the best ones had already gone ,but she has since found out that people she knows had already booked before the first day possible ? but getting access to the code words prior to the first day. I ASK THE QUESTION HOW? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.218.136.42 (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have come to the wrong place. This is Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I hope you can sort your problem out. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

January 26

People keeping their ages secret

I've asked questions about this over the past few years or so. One thing I noticed about this practice is that, except for maybe Japan (see my earlier questions), most famous or high-profile people who keep their ages secret: 1. are from an older generation (e.g. active in the 70's, 80's or 90's), or 2. are not that famous (for example, particularly famous movie stars like Brad Pitt have known ages, but actors and actresses who are somewhat less high profile sometimes do not). Why is this the case? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

No one has asked them? --Jayron32 04:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

As for how famous they are, those who are famous enough probably can't get away with lying about their ages. That is, if Brad Pitt lied, somebody would find an old interview or dig up his birth certificate, and prove he lied. For some minor actor, nobody is likely to take the trouble to verify their age. StuRat (talk) 04:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Not sure where you would find referenced material on the "Why?" In fact, you would probably need to produce better sourcing than your own perceptions that the people you mention DO tend to keep their age a secret. My view is that it would depend on the situation. As someone who is 60+, I can assure you that there is definitely discrimination against employment of people my age in most industries. That could a good reason. We probably all make assumptions about people based on their age. Some people may not (want to be expected to?) fit those assumptions. HiLo48 (talk) 04:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Mystery actress who sued IMDb over age reveals identity Royor (talk) 05:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

(Joke alert) I always thought the average willingness of an average (live) person to reveal their age x (on a scale of 0 to 100) could be expressed in terms of a function f(x). I'm not entirely sure what the exact function might be, but an approximate guess of mine is defined below:

x ≤ 0: f(x) is undefined (obvious reasons)

0 ≤ x ≤ 1: f(x) = 0 (as they don't yet understand the question)

1 ≤ x ≤ 20: f(x) = 100 − 1/x (to account for the small chance that they might not feel like revealing it)

20 ≤ x ≤ 60: f(x) = 200*log₁₀(2/x) + 300 − 1/x (it is at this point that the willingness to reveal one's age and identify as "old" starts to drop gradually, but severely)

60 ≤ x ≤ 99: f(x) = 239/x (at this point, no matter how you do it, your chances of finding out their age are small...)

x ≥ 100: f(x) = 100 (but once you pass this milestone, you are proud of your age and no longer wish to hide it)

(Graph the function if you don't understand immediately.) Double sharp (talk) 09:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

When I was young I was told by the man next door that he was 96 and his wife was 26, like to calculate the chances those were correct? ;-) Dmcq (talk) 15:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

For some reason this reminds me of the very ancient woman, well into her 90s, who went to a lawyer and said she wanted to start the process of divorcing her equally aged husband. The lawyer did a double take. "But you've been together for, like, 70 years. What has gone wrong?". She replied: "Oh, our real marriage ended decades ago. We just stayed together for the sake of the children".  :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Corollary to the OP's question: Why are some people so obsessed with wanting to know others peoples' ages? HiLo48 (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

To be "obsessed" is obviously a bad thing - but mildly interested isn't. It's useful information.

Suppose you want to have a conversation with someone - if they are a significant difference in age from yourself - then chatting about (for example) music may be difficult. Talking intelligently on the subject with either mom or my son requires speaking in very general terms because the music I care most about is basically unknown to them - where someone of my generation knows exactly what I mean as I name bands and albums from my teens and 20's. If I talk with my g/f about the Apollo moon landings (which I recall from watching live on TV) - the conversation is soon derailed by the fact that she was just a few months old at the time and has no memory of this except as a piece of history - it's as old to her as the Korean war is to me.

It's very useful "social lubrication" to have at least a rough idea of how old someone is. In the past, we could mostly tell just by looking - but when we communicate so much online these days, the need to ask someone's age becomes more crucial.

SteveBaker (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Crop planting by the sign

There is a word that I,ve heard once that is in regards to planting by the signs. Planting by the signs usually refers to astrological phases, time of month, moon phases etc.

There is another word definition that has to do with planting by the signs that relates to soil temperature and water content. This is deduced as to what wild plants are starting to grow and bloom. For instance if wild roses are blooming then it means the dewberries are ripe and its time to plant corn. There are old books where this information has been preserved, but I need to know the word or phrase that decribe the above. My refence librarian could not help me This may be common knowledge but it has eluded me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.6.23 (talk) 16:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

BTW, it's "for instance", not "for instant". StuRat (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean biodynamic agriculture? --TammyMoet (talk) 17:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Orginal questioner76.31.6.23 (talk) 23:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC) Thanks StuRat I missed that, never proof your own question.

Thanks Tammy, biodynamic agriculture seem to be using the zodiac. I'm looking for information that uses the resident plants to tell the soil temperature. Knowing that the rose is blooming or an easly reconizable weed is starting then soil temperature and water content is deduced or its time to sow the sorgum seeds. This type of information is akin to whats in the FoxFire books by Eliot Wigginton. Now retired.

There's a problem doing it that way. What farmers want to know before planting is the future weather, while the presence of plants tells them the past weather. You could have an early thaw one year, and thus get plants blooming which normally bloom later. Planting crops earlier than usual, based on this, is unwise, since a late frost could still wipe them all out. StuRat (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Ghostbusters

where can i get more help in paralnormal and poltergeist activity and how to get rid of the spirits, who should i contact74.71.226.3 (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I added a title. StuRat (talk) 18:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried a Google search ? What terms did you use ? Exorcism ? We also have a list of exorcists. StuRat (talk) 18:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

www.ghostterminators.com (though they look pretty scary themselves).--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

well, this may be a shock to you, but it just so happens that poltergeist and ghosts don't exist. There is no possibility that any phenomena you experience is the result of paranormal activity. I'm happy to charge a fee to make your non-existent ghosts go away though. ---- _nonsense ferret 11:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

You're probably right, but it's not 100 percent certain. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

That's only because nothing that we think we "know" can ever be 100% certain. Fortunately, that also applies to your answer (and this response to it).

However, the real question (in a world where there perhaps a one in a billion chance that all of science is wrong and that ghosts exist) is: Should a rational, thinking person spend a significant amount of time (and money) chasing something that only has a one in a billion chance of being true? Worse still, even if that one in a billion chance turns out to be true - how sure can we be that "exorcism" would be the correct "fix" for such phenomena? That's a one in a billion leap-of-faith WITHIN a one in a billion chance of the phenomenon existing in the first place. That puts the odds so remotely that it's truly negligable. Worse still, without any serious effort to measure the existence/nature of these things - we have an utter impossibility of knowing whether any particular course of action would be effective at removing them. The odds are precisely as good that whatever bullcrap these "exorcists" do will attract more evil spirits as that they will remove them. Maybe the right way to get rid of a ghost is to offer it a nice slice of cake and discuss where else it might go over a cup of tea? Maybe waving an 0.71 meter length of nyodemium/ytturbium alloy in a lissajous figure is what works? There are an infinite number of possible answers - and all of them are equally probable. So, the most rational thing to do is nothing - even if Baseball Bugs is right. SteveBaker (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

"That's only because nothing that we think we "know" can ever be 100% certain." Um, I suppose you are 100% certain of that? μηδείς (talk) 00:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I recommend playing a bunch of Jerry Vale records. If that doesn't drive the spooks away, nothing will. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't play Harry Belafonte or y'll ne'er get rid of 'em. μηδείς (talk) 00:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

There is the same chance of the existence of ghosts as there is the existence of santa claus or the tooth fairy - that is none. ---- _nonsense ferret 00:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, when I was a kid, my Christmas gifts were signed "Santa Claus" and my quarter was in an envelope signed "Tooth Fairy". And that evidence was good enough. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

So what's your point Ferret? That Beetlejuice must actually be a demon or an alien or a time-travelling robot, maybe? μηδείς (talk) 02:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

If you suspect a ghost or poltergeist, this what you do (based on what a parapysch shrink told me):-

• Document ALL incidents.
• Try to determine the history of the property where the incident's occur..
• Call the plumber, and make sure they really do check EVERY pipe, bolt and fitting.
• Seal the house against draughts, and interference from intruders.

And if that fails, you have a quiet word with your local minister XD Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Surely the correct answer is call 555-2368. 122.56.22.145 (talk) 23:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

January 27

How hunter-gatherers spend most of their free time

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Average number of former senators?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cannon Rate of Fire

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

I will repeat my answer from above: :It appears the rate of fire was usually 12 rounds per hour normally for sustained barrages, perhaps 4 rounds a minute in dire emergencies. More than 1 round in 2 minute was sometimes a court-martial offense (either for wasting ammunition or for using up your supply quickly so you could withdraw and some other gunners would have to be in harm's way).[11][12] Rmhermen (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

E major

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

F minor

• K. 594
• K. 608
• K. 519

F-sharp minor

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

G-sharp minor(!!!)

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

A-flat major

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's a Malaysian review: [13]. StuRat (talk) 08:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Bee Gees

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

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

According to find-a-grave, Hughie Gibb is in Forest Lawn in Hollywood:[14] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Rate of fire

moved [15] to the talk page

January 29

What name and number?

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

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

Cop partners

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

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

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

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

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

internet service providers default browsers

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

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

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

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

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

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

microbiology

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

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

npo's and 1099's

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

We cannot give legal advice; consult your tax professional. I can, however, direct you to the IRS page on 1099-Misc, here [16] SemanticMantis (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

86.46.194.120

User talk:86.46.194.120: Revision history

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

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

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

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

January 30

Wikipedia pictures

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clinical trials funded by pharmaceutical companies

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

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

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

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

"Another really famous case was where an investigator did a clinical study that was sponsored by a manufacturer of a thyroid hormone, a drug called Synthroid, and the university didn't have publication rights. When the investigator submitted to a medical journal, the sponsor made him pull it." [17]. (It doesn't sound like the paper submitted was sufficiently positive.) StuRat (talk) 04:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

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

"They found that there was a statistically significant relationship between funding source and qualitative conclusion. Unfavourable conclusions were reached by only 5% (1/20) of drug company-sponsored studies, compared with 38% (9/24) of non-profit sponsored studies." [18]. StuRat (talk) 04:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

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

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

As usual Stu has no expertise or even research into what he's talking about, he's just building on a relatively good education and making educated guesses. That gets a little annoying, especially when he gets things wrong.

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

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

Not that I disagree with the gist of your statement, but I think there's been evidence of a problem in the way clinical trials were done, namely while drug companies may not have much influence over the outcome of the trials, they frequently have had the choice whether and when to publish them, even in cases where it's an approved drug. This has been an issue in the Vioxx case but is also generally considered a wider issue. [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]. Some of the data from the trials may be provided to the FDA (and other regulatory agencies), but this still makes it difficult for others to evaluate the available data such as in a systematic review, for example when deciding which drug is the best choice. Things have changed a lot in the past few years so things aren't quite so bad although many still think we have some way to go. Nil Einne (talk) 11:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Because the largest pharmaceutical producing nation in the world has a very specific procedure for drug approval that involves literally billions of dollars on important drugs, let alone in aggregate, and yet we have articles for every single version of handball... people call me a deletionist but damn... Shadowjams (talk) 09:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)