Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 October 28

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 28

what country has had the most H1N1 cases?

what country has had the most H1N1 cases? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatguy0900 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the US, with 2618 of 4780 reported cases.[1] Clarityfiend (talk) 06:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

That article is dated 27 April 2009. Please reality check your answers - would it really be described as a pandemic if there had been less than 5000 reported cases worldwide? --Tango (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

My mistake. They've been crying wolf so long, I hadn't been paying much attention, and the numbers seemed reasonable to me. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Given that there have been over 414945 cases [2], in other words your figures are nearly 2 orders of magnitude too low, it seems it would be more accurate to say you've been paying no attention at all, not that there's anything wrong with that but I would respectfully suggest you take more care next time before accusing people of 'crying wolf'. (The actual effect of this pandemic so far doesn't appear to have been much worse then seasonal flu but I think it's understandable there was significant concern given the early reports.) In fact as the WHO article says, the number is almost definitely significantly higher then that because countries are no longer required to report to the WHO [3] and many countries have long given up on properly tracking cases anyway. I know a family who very likely got it, but I'm not sure if they even saw a doctor (they did call up the healthline and one was affected for over 2 weeks so it's possible they did) so I'm doubtful that they would be included in any figures and expect Graeme Bartlett could confirm something similar. Many countries probably were never that effective at tracking cases anyway. BTW, in terms of a pandemic, one of the WHO's main requirements is there [4] [5] "the pandemic phase, is characterized by community level outbreaks in at least one other country in a different WHO region" (in addition to other criteria like community level outbreaks in at least two countries in one region) so I would expect it's technically possible for a pandemic with only 4k cases but it's probably rather unlikely. (There were around 30k cases when H1N1/09 flu was declared a pandemic. [6]) I know because there was some controversy/criticism of the WHO definition at the time. Nil Einne (talk) 00:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Well Australia has had 36,991 laboratory confirmed cases, with real figures probably in hundreds of thousands, it probably struck down 10% of people I know. See 2009 flu pandemic in Australia. US actually had 58,151 cases according to 2009 flu pandemic by country, so still beats Australia. The figures reported like this actually indicate the capacity of laboratories to confirm cases rather than the actual numbers. . Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

For the reasons you give and I mentioned above, we can't really answer this question. I would note that our articles are a bit sketchy anyway, as often happens with this sort of thing, some of the figures may have been updated recently others not for a long time. Given the lack of any accurate information for most countries it's of questionable use anyway IMHO. It could be a southern hemisphere countries, they were initially significantly affected because it began to spread just before their winters. Potentially something like Argentina which has had a large number of deaths (likely for a number of reasons including the figure of 8k [7] cases is way too low). But a northern hemisphere is going to overtake the south if it hasn't already particularly given the demographics differences. The earlier site gives 300k cases for the US and we are pretty sure it was spreading in Mexico for several months before it was recognised too. And who really knows what the situation in China is like? Eventually someone will come up with estimates I suspect Nil Einne (talk) 00:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

My 6.5" Alpine door speakers keep getting blown

I have gone through about 4 pairs of speakers because they eventually sound staticky or no sound comes out at all. I get the system put in at a local car audio shop, which is now out of business. I have to amps, one of them is the following:

http://reviews.cnet.com/car-amplifiers/performance-teknique-icbm-775/4505-6726_7-32366737.html

I have one 10" Kicker sub in the trunk. Currently the problem is that there is quite static sounding music coming from the passenger side speaker. The driver side speaker is fine right now. What do I need to do to make less bass go to the front speakers (if that is the problem)? I am trying to learn about the different settings (HPF,LPF,Subsonic,Levels) but I am pretty confused on what I should touch. I don't know how to tell which knobs control which speakers. Here is a blurry picture of the back of the amp, thought it may help to give you an idea of what I have

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p212/adg4499/amp.jpg

I would appreciate any help because I am getting pretty tired of continually replacing my door speakers. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.5.23 (talk) 01:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I would think that if the speakers are dying completely then they are not man enough for the job. That amp has high outputs, that needs a speaker that can handle that output without destruction - you might find that it's hard to source a speaker small enough to fit in the door and still take the load. I will also point out that a couple of hundred watts of music in a car will not be good for your ears!  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

...and will frequently irritate the hell out of anyone within a mile or two.--88.110.20.147 (talk) 06:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

You really have to put more money into the speakers than the amp, and if you really want high volume you are going to have to go beyond the door and put speakers in other places to share the load. In your case perhaps you can add a fast acting fuse to the speakers to protect against an overload. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Snow

Can someone produce, or does someone have access to, an exhaustive list of countries which experience cold, snowy winters (at low elevations)? Rimush (talk) 09:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you better define "cold", "snowy", and "low elevations"? Dismas|^(talk) 09:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

DO you mean snow to 0 meters above sea level at least 10 times every winter? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Someone from the tropics might regard even southern U.S. states as "cold and snowy" in the winter. The OP needs to define his terms. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I found this map on wikimedia commons, which may be of some use. --Lesleyhood (talk) 12:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett's definition sounds pretty good. Rimush (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

So is Mongolia not acceptable, since there is no point in Mongolia that is at sea level? Googlemeister (talk) 20:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, I solved this a different way. Thanks everyone. Rimush (talk) 20:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Please fill us in on what you found, in case this question ever gets asked again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Is Scottish Currency Legal tender?

Until very recently, there were 3 Scottish Banks that could and did (and still do!!!!) print and issue their own currency notes - The Royal Bank of Scotland - The Bank of Scotland - and The Clydesdale Bank. Each of these banknotes bore the signatures of the respective governors with the usual, "I promise to pay the bearer on demand" guarantee. But since all of these banks have now been absorbed into other non-Scottish Banks or been largely nationalised by the UK Government, what value do those "promises" have? In other words, are Scottish banknotes legal tender? I know from personal experience that they are NOT accepted in non-UK countries (except perhaps in Scottish-owned bars in Spain and Greece), and there are large pockets of England which will not accept them. But my question stands ie., are Scottish Banknotes legal tender in Scotland given there are no Scottish Banks remaining to guarantee their face value redemption? 92.21.81.185 (talk) 11:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

All the responsibilities of those banks now lie with the banks that took them over, so the situation has not changed. Also, I believe that the "promise to pay the bearer on demand" has been an empty formula for some time. What is and isn't legal tender does not depend on it. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Whose picture is on those Scottish banknotes? I was envisioning a certain famous poet, and then Scots could say they had "money to burn". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Bugs, the current £10 note from the Clydesdale Bank (qv) has the picture you seek... AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Beautiful. Thank you! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Too bad they don't have one with a Clydesdale on it. Unless that's one on the reverse of the old 20 pound note. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Our article states: "Scottish and Northern Irish banknotes are unusual, firstly because they are issued by retail banks, not central banks, and secondly, as they are not legal tender anywhere in the UK – not even in Scotland or Northern Ireland – they are in fact promissory notes. Indeed, no banknotes (even Bank of England notes) are now legal tender in Scotland or Northern Ireland." --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 11:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

What article are you referring to? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

"Legal tender" has nothing to do with redemption or guarantee or the "soundness" of the currency; Legal tender is merely something which must be accepted as settlement of a debt. FiggyBee (talk) 12:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Accepted as settlement of a debt is actually a very restrictive idea as well. It is NOT equivalent to "accepted as payment for services"; it is incorrectly assumed that currency being "legal tender" means that every business must accept cash in exchange for goods and services; that is not so; businesses are free to refuse to take cash if they choose; they can establish the method of payment before providing the service to you, so technically, you do not incur any "debt" before the service is rendered. As a practical matter, legal tender is not a very inforcable concept; it was put onto paper money during the early days of paper money because people did not believe that banks would honor such notes with "hard money", i.e. coins, so the government required people to accept such notes in "payment of debts" from banks, mainly as banks pay off debts to customers in the form of withdrawls. If you put money in the bank, you expect to get that money out, and if people put coins in the bank (which they usually did), like say $500 of gold coin, they expected the equivalent in real metal coins out. The government is basically telling you "this paper is worth the amount in real coins we say it is" when it uses a phrase like "Legal tender". Since modern currency is essentially "fiat currency" and not based on hard metal standards anymore, the concept of "Legal tender" is pretty much pointless. --Jayron32 14:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the above responses. But that all leaves me with 2 more questions viz. If paper money is NOT legal tender, how can I be arrested for copying ie "counterfeiting" it and second, are the issuing banks required to hold sufficient gold or other equivalent valuable currency so as to be able to redeem all its issued notes if required to do so? And if NO to the second question, what security are they issuing against? 92.8.203.8 (talk) 18:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The answer to your first question is fraud; its still illegal to use deception to get money and/or goods and/or services without paying actual money. Secondly, even if it is not legal tender, Scottish Banknotes are still legally recognized as valid currency; the UK government will gleefully accept them as payment for taxes, for example. Thirdly, currency is no longer "backed" by anything other than the full faith and credit of the issuing institution. With the notable exception of the Scottish and Northern Irish situations, most true currency is issued by central banks and not commercial banks. Also, currency itself represents a small portion of money. Currency is a convenience, but is itself a minor bit of the total economy. Almost all money exists solely as entries in a computer spreadsheet. In the U.S., for example, the Federal Reserve Bank controls the money supply not by printing more or less bills. It has the responsibility for printing bills, and does so largely based on demand for those bills, but printing more bills has only a minute effect on the value of the Dollar. What the Fed does is it lowers the interest rates at which it (the Fed) will loan money to other banks. When it lowers that interest rate, other banks will borrow more money from the Fed, and thus put more money into circulation. Here's the deal; the Fed just invents the money out of whole cloth. The idea is, the U.S. government is "good for it", so when a bank takes a loan from the Fed, it does so based on the agreed-upon terms, and the Fed just dumps a bunch of money in their account. The Fed doesn't have any gold in "reserve" backing these loans; they are backed by the fact that people generally trust the US Dollar. And that's it. Other central banks operate on much the same method. --Jayron32 19:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The article that Cockatoo was quoting is Banknotes of the pound sterling (see?) —Akrabbim^talk 19:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Recession survival

what are the oppurtunities that came along for some companies with the onset of this great depression are there companies which gained out of it, what and how did they do it? anyone please

Well first it's probably premature to call it a great depression. That said, there are companies that do better during hard economic times. I believe Walmart's and McDonald's revenues went up during the difficult recent quarters, and I saw on the news that dollar stores are having record years in some cases. There are many "recession proof" businesses, some of the sectors are mentioned here. In this recession in particular, there has been a lot of complaining that banks that were bailed out last October are now in (unfairly) excellent positions to make huge amounts of money as things bounce back, in part because their smaller competition has dropped out. Because of that many of the big banks reported good profits over the last few quarters. TastyCakes (talk) 14:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Which is part of why this is a recession and not a depression. While there many that will argue the nuances in the difference between those terms, the broad entire-economy-wide downturn that one saw in the "Great Depression" is just not happening here. There are many sectors, such as employment and housing, where the economic downturn has hit hard to a large number of people, so it is easy for people to think that "everyone and everything" has been hurt by this. But its just not so. People have not stopped spending, for example, they are just shifting their spending from higher-priced to lower-priced versions of the same items; which is why Wal-Mart and McDonalds are doing very well, since people are still shopping, they are just shopping on the cheap. Likewise, I heard several analysts say that places like Home Depot and Pep Boys tend to do well in a recession, since people tend to a) stay in their current homes and cars and not buy newer ones, so they need to fix them more often, and thus need materials to fix them and b) tend to do more work on their own rather than find contractors and/or mechanics to do it for them. So not everyone is suffering in this economic situation, some people and business are actually doing better. --Jayron32 14:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Waht abou the BPO sectors ? they are paying less for the same amount ow work? how to survive this??

Do you mean Business process outsourcing? If so, it would seem to depend entirely on the companies involved. If they're doing back office accounting for Chrysler, say, the future is a lot gloomier than if they're doing it for Walmart, say. There is a lot of talk of developing countries (particularly China) increasing their domestic consumption to make up for the drop in international business (the US trade deficit significantly narrowed for the first time in a long time because of the recession). India and China are still managing significant economic growth, while the US and some of Europe remains stalled (or worse). Consequently, I would expect outsourcing from the West to India (I'm assuming that's where you're talking about) to slow overall, but it is quite possible that domestic business could take up the slack. I think India's general economic growth would prevent wages from falling overall, but I have no data to support that. TastyCakes (talk) 15:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't offer a reliable source for this opinion but when I was a student, I had a part-time job with a "Bookmaker" aka Bookie aka Turf Accountant and during the great recession of Maggie Thatcher's Government in the UK, my boss would come to work gleefully smoking a big cigar and hoping for another big day ahead. When I asked how he could be so gleeful and confident during what was a period of great hardship and unemployment, he told me that a person with a single £ in his pocket was more likely to gamble it on a 10-1 loser than to spend it on something else like a pound of potatoes or a turnip. And we were always VERY busy in that period - but only on the incoming side of the counter - rarely so on the pay-out side of it. 92.8.203.8 (talk) 19:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

If you had access to a Bloomberg Terminal or equivalent machine, you could look up what percentage of companies in a given universe, such as the Dow Jones Industrial Average, have had increases in share price, revenue or profits since the beginning of the recession, whenever you define that to be. As an example, Palm Inc. and Amazon.com shares are higher than they were when the recession supposedly began in December 2007. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Strange chess variant

Hello there, everyone:

Has anyone heard of this chess variant?

• Pawns move and capture in the same way as in standard chess, with the sole difference being that when they take a piece, they jump to the square diagonally after the one taken. For instance, white e4 capturing black f6 would result in white jumping to g6.
• as a consequence, pawns on rows A and H cannot be taken.
• no stalemate. A king that cannot legally move equals the end of the game.
• Every other piece on the board moves around in the same way, except the queen, which has the added ability to jump like a knight.

Or even just a variant with the first rule? I ask because, before I learnt the standard rules of chess, I was taught a version with these rules, as though it were the standard itself. This was the standard used in my school's chess club and with which I played with teachers. It was only upon leaving said school many years ago that I learnt that this was an offshoot. I have always found it curious why they taught these rules over the regular ones.

Also, has anyone else heard of a variant where the game is won by points?

All the best --81.202.142.42 (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The article Chess variant, which is pretty long, may mention this game? Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I enjoyed reading the article but, unfortunately, couldn't find the variant I mentioned. Thanks for suggesting it though.

All the best

--81.202.142.42 (talk) 21:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

At first blush, your first variant seemed in line with en passant -- though it's possible I didn't construct my mental chessboard properly. Hmm...seems like a checker move! DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• I agree, DRosenbach, the first rule is like a strange addition of a checker move to chess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.202.142.42 (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Some of the elements seem to have been used before. From the (huge) book A History of Chess by H. J. R. Murray (1911):

• The no-stalemate rule was in Arabian chess, and also in the early Spanish forms. Some of the Indian forms made it illegal for a player to put his opponent in stalemate!
• The queen moving like a knight as well was used "in countries in which the European rules were ousting the original native method of play. Russian chess went through this phase, and the queen in Georgian chess still possessed this extended move in 1874." (quote from Murray) It seems to have been around in Turkish chess, too.
• In one variation of the four-player Indian game, the different pieces had different point values, which were scored by capturing the piece, and the king could be captured like the other pieces.

I can't see (from looking at the index) any mention of pawns taking by jumping - I think if that's not just someone's bright idea (the headmaster's, perhaps?), it's probably part of some modern variation. AJHW (talk) 18:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

COPC !! ??

Is COPC only about Transaction Monitoring (clause 2.4 COPC), as i am working under a COPC certified person in a BPO process and have found that we only talks about calls ,caliberation,GAGE RNR,Fatal,Non Fatal errors etc etc,. But there are various other clauses like (1.0. leadership and planning),(2.2 process control) so on and forth, which we never hear happening.So, if i were to implement a COPC plan as aleader in another organisation,"how am i suppose to start with" anyone?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.95.140.188 (talk) 18:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

There may be people reading this who know what COPC is, but I am not one of them. I guess it might be "Community Oriented Primary Care". If you would care to give us a hint of what on earth you are talking about, you might get more response. --ColinFine (talk) 17:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Customer Operations Performance Center Incorporated, also known as COPC Inc., is a privately held international customer service support company based in Austin, Texas. COPC Inc. redesigns business processes for customer contact center and business process outsourcing (BPO) services. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

How much would these items cost to buy individually?

• Northface jacket
• Casdigan sweater
• Polo
• Rugby shirt

Accdude92 (talk to me!) (sign) 19:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest Google. --Jayron32 19:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Or your local high street. --Tango (talk) 19:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Or any number of other ways that you could have easily found this information on your own... Dismas|^(talk) 23:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't be too much of a smarty, or they'll drag you to the talk page too. :) The basic problem with the question is that the prices of any of those things could vary widely depending on quality and/or where you shop. Probably more expensive at Macy's than at Wal*Mart, for example, and possibly of different quality. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

$30 used, at a thrift shop, $2 used, at a garage sale, 50 cents, used, at a flea market, 50 cents, used, at a closeout special. Bus stop (talk) 01:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

As opposed to $35 at Wal*Mart, $40 at Penneys or Sears, or $199.99 at Macy's? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Somebody is dressing up as a frat boy for halloween —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.134.7 (talk) 02:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

If so, they'll be plenty warm from the waste up! Dismas|^(talk) 03:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Some might argue that a frat boy's waste is between his ears; his waist, on the other hand... FiggyBee (talk)

Touche'. I must have been tired when I typed that... Dismas|^(talk) 18:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Or perhaps you were tyred? - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 19:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Correlation between seniority and hours worked

In modern organizations, what is the relationship between one's position in the hierarchy and how hard one works? The stuff of myth is that bosses (like the pointy-haired boss in Dilbert) don't work very hard at all. Their desktops are virtually empty of paper and they seem to spend most of their time schmoozing contacts and playing golf. Meanwhile, the drudges below them work insane hours for comparatively little reward. How close to the reality is this picture?

I might hypothesize that the hardest working people in any organization are the middle managers, who work more hours than both the bosses above them and the junior staff (e.g. graduate trainees) beneath them. Or maybe it's the juniors that work hardest? Perhaps the higher up in an organization you go, the less work you have to do? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 20:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Think: Strategic: Tactical: and Operational. ie. Strategy - I have some capital, I know that field over there has coal beneath it, I want to buy it and profit from the coal being sold for more than it cost to extract it - make it happen - job done - just monitor and react accordingly. Tactical - I have been given terms of reference including buying the field, getting planning approval, satisfying environmental concerns, acquiring the equipment, arranging safety provisions, arrange transport and marketing requirements, recruit and manage the personnel, monitor sales and maximise profits, minimise labour disputes and accidents, manage budgetary considerations and report to management and shareholders etc., etc. Operational - dig that coal and bring it safely to the surface - obey all safety procedures - meet targets - report for work as per employment contract - work only the hours paid for and not a minute more - be happy but accept lowest pay on the scale. I would hypothesise from the foregoing analysis that the definition of HARD work (physical labour) may return the lowest pay - but the most ARDUOUS work is that of the middle-manager who usually earns less cash per hour of attendance than those doing the manual work. 92.8.203.8 (talk) 20:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that excellent analysis. I should have stated, though, that I'm mostly interested in purely white collar organizations (e.g. banks and other financial institutions, IT companies, governmental organizations, etc) for the purpose of this question. And by "hardest working", I really mean "working the highest number of hours". Thanks again, --Richardrj ^{talk email} 20:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Here are the results of a 2003 UK government survey on work hours: [8]. You can see that the workers with the most hours worked were managers, followed by shop-floor workers and "professional occupations." "Administrative & secretarial" workers labored the least, at least in terms of hours. No doubt the Office for National Statistics and its equivalents in other countries have lots more data on this type of subject. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Sort of related to your question: Fenton-O'Creevy, MP, Nicholson, N, Soane, E, and Willman, P (2003) 'Trading on illusions: unrealistic perceptions of control and trading performance', Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, vol. 76, no. 1, pp. 53-68. found that job level (statistically) significantly correlated with total pay, profit contribution and people skills (though not manager's ratings of risk management or analytical ability). So from that, I'd expect senior employees to be contributing in a different sort of way than less senior employees (this jives with intuition, but it's nice to have empirical support). Now the question becomes which type of work is more time intensive, the people skills oriented work of more senior employees or the labor/mental oriented work of junior employees. I'd bet on the junior employees working more time and quite probably harder, though the skills the more senior members provide are also valuable to a well-functioning business.--droptone (talk) 12:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I worked for a number of years in a UK government office, and it was very clear that the least-paid office staff worked the hardest. The typist - it was some time ago - worked more or less flat out at top speed all day. The clerks worked non-stop all day but not flat-out - no tea-breaks. The professional staff with postgraduate qualifications worked at a much more leisurly pace, with quite a bit of free time during the day. The poor typist - worked really hard and then had only a council-estate tower-block bedsit to go home to. But at least everyone did the same number of hours without any kind of overtime. 78.144.206.114 (talk) 11:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Contributing to the content/accuracy of WP by BUs

Is there any evidence that any banned user has, after (s)he was banned, contributed significantly (under another name or anonymously) to either the content or the accuracy of WP?--79.75.47.209 (talk) 22:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

This is totally the wrong place to ask such a question, but still. There was a big hoo-ha earlier this month about a banned user called The Undertow who created a new account called Law. Under the Law name he apparently did a lot of good work, so much so that he was nominated for adminship. The shit hit the fan when it emerged that some of the people who were supporting him in his RfA as Law knew that it was a sockpuppet of a banned user, but chose not to mention that fact. The whole story is a bit tedious and bureaucratic for me (I mean, don't these people have real lives, families, jobs and stuff?), but if you care to read more about it, you can do so here. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 22:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It probably happens more often than you think. The usual pattern is that someone does something terrible - we warn them - they do it again, and again - and they get short blocks - then longer blocks then an indefinite blocks. At this point, they often start making sock-puppet accounts and go right on offending, thinking that we won't spot that it's the same person - but 99% of the time, we can tell from the editing pattern, the kinds of ways they phrase things - the article types that they frequent, etc - it's usually a dead giveaway! You find what is supposedly a brand new user - suddenly knowing all of the Wikipedia guidelines - or using the system in sophisticated ways that newbies don't generally know. You'd be amazed at how obvious it is in almost every case. That's enough evidence to get a check-user run on the various accounts to find the ones that share the same internet address (IP) ranges. At that point, we'll block the IP address - or possibly a range of IP addresses and physically lock the person out.

However, if the person were to sneak back - mend their evil ways, keep their noses clean and do good work - the odds are extremely good that nobody would notice. We have no idea how many reformed vandals, trolls, etc there are - but in a sense, we don't care. If they don't misbehave, we really don't care that they came back. We aren't in the business of punishing people - we're in the business of preventing them from doing damage to the encyclopedia. However, in the case that Richardr refers to - the former miscreant tried for adminship. The idea of someone with that kind of history having admin powers is deeply worrying - the damage that could be done with admin tools would be fairly terrifying.

We can check admins carefully - but for regular users, we really have no clue how many banned people are shocked into becoming good Wikipedians after a ban.

SteveBaker (talk) 23:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it really that terrifying? OK, they delete something important, edit a protected page, ban someone innocuously... and it is probably noticed in about a minute and reverted and the admin is banned. I was under the impression that the ability of even an admin to do anything more than irritating damage was low. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that Law/Undertow never actually did anything wrong with his admin tools. He tended to ruffle a few feathers because he was known, from time to time, to unblock someone as a show of good faith, often without going through proper bureaucratic channels, and yes, those of us involved in the fiasco have come clean and admited that it was a major error in judgement to keep quiet about the connection; however the person behind those accounts never misused his admin tools. However, such events DO happen from time to time; you can read about this user in back issues of The Signpost. this ANI post and This Signpost article cover the issue in some detail. It has happened that a disruptive user has come back, kept his nose clean long enough to get one of his accounts named an admin, and then started immediately misusing the tools. It's pretty rare; I only know of 3 cases where an admin has been discovered to be a returning blocked or banned user as a sockpuppet, and only ONE of those cases where there was ever a misuse of the admin tools. --Jayron32 01:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to turn this into a long debate (so won't respond further) nor an attack Law/The undertow thread but I feel your claim that Law/The undertow never did anything wrong with his admin tools is misleading. In fact, the thing which resulted in his sockpuppetry being publicly revealed was poor behaviour with admin tools by Law, in particular unblocking someone who should have not be unblocked without proper discussion (i.e. WP:Wheelwarring). You don't have to take my word for it thought. It's easy to say the way arbcom was leaning before the shit hit the roof [9]. This wasn't a major offense by any means, not in itself worth of desysopping just a simple warning "don't do this again" and hopefully minimal drama and it's clear the arbcom was also leaning that way. And just to be clear, arbcom was also going to acknowledge that the initial ban that Law/Undertow was too long (but not improper) although my reading of the situation based on what people including arbcom said and my understanding of policy is that Law's offense was worse (wheelwarring nearly always is of course) if you want to quantify things in that way. Again this doesn't mean it was a major offence nor have I seen any suggestion it wasn't a good faith mistake, and we all make mistakes from time to time. But good faith mistakes are still mistakes and particularly when they occur with admin tools they need to be avoided. If a user keeps making such mistakes ultimately the community may have no choice but to remove their admin tools. While I don't know if Law had much if a history in that regard it's clear Undertow did [10] Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive417#the undertow [11] and it was part of the conduct which lead to his (voluntary?) desysopping. This specific example is far worse then the Law example since the user was indefinitely blocked, with some belief it amount to a community ban (with the arbcom seeing no reason to review it before and after undertow got involved). While there was seemingly some dispute about this and it may not have been properly handled, it's clear and should have been obvious that Undertow's actions didn't help the situation and in any case it later became clear the user in question was subject to a community ban and hasn't had much hope of having this lifted from what I've seen, in fact the behaviour suggests it's unlikely. Note that while policy suggested an uninvolved admin could unblock a community banned user it definitely didn't suggest it should be done without discussion [12]. In other words, a rather bad error of judgement. It definitely should not be seen as simply failing to follow bureaucracy (IMHO that's an overused sentiment particularly when applied to established editors). In terms of the sockpuppetry issue my understanding is that Undertow had some history with the user he unblocked as Law and the fact that this was effectively hidden was always going to cause controversy. Undertow was also involved in Wikipediareview where the user he unblocked (as the Undertow) is also active and if my understanding is correct he was discussing the unblock in a highly positive fashion suggesting again failure to consider COI and perception issues. Considering what I understood of the reasons behind the initial block of Undertow, his incivility leading up to the de-admining and block, as well as the behaviour I saw after the Law incident (including some off-wiki) make me question the suitablity of Law/Undertow for adminship. Sure Law/Undertow may have been a decent editor in some ways and maybe even did some good adminstator work but some people just don't have the temperament for such a role. There are many editors who I expect would make great admins if they could learn to better control themselves or at least restrict their activity to areas they can control, sadly Law/Undertow doesn't appear to be one of those at the current time. Some of his viewpoints would likely have made it difficult for some people to support him too. But then again, I myself may also fall into many of those categories and rarely vote in RfAs so perhaps am not a good judge. While you didn't really say anything concerning this I think it's important to appreciate that even without the misuse of admin tools other aspects would likely have made adminship difficult for Law/undertow. There were of course a bunch of problems which didn't help the situation and as I've said before, others also made mistakes, but two wrongs don't make a right. I would emphasise it's possible I got some stuff wrong part of it is somewhat hidden (e.g. deleted or never revealed outside arbcom), however I'm provided most of the references and this took rather long to write (with a lot of distractions in between) so I think I'm mostly right. I also read about the whole incident a fair amount when I first read about it a about 2 weeks ago or so (when the dust had mostly settled). I don't think I've ever dealt with The undertow/Law much before nor was I aware of the original Undertow fuss until now. Nil Einne (talk) 10:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

While not banned, User:Sam Blacketer an arbitrator resigned after it was revealed he had previously been different users which was not revealed at the time of his election Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-05-25/Arbitration report Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 3. With the other/earluer acounts, he was desysopped and was blocked a few times albeit was not at the time the account was started although there was some overlap of the accounts and one brief block happened after the Sam Blacketer account was active. AFAIK there was no question of his good work for the arbcom although strictly speaking that doesn't directly contribute to content or accuracy much (although I'm pretty sure Sam had some quite good contribs otherwise he would never have gotten to arbcom) Nil Einne (talk) 11:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

There was User:Michael, who was allowed to come back as "Mike Garcia" with Jimbo's special approval and mentorship...that was a long, long time ago, and apparently it didn't turn out very well... Adam Bishop (talk) 13:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup. I was banned in December 2006 for trolling and general unpleasantness. Chalk it up to being an economically-frustrated 27-year-old male. I was never officially re-instated although my identity did come out later. I now edit in earnest. Vranak (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Speaking generally, I imagine it will be a common pattern as Wikipedia continues that plenty of young folks will be banned for youthful misbehavior and then some of them will come back after gaining some maturity and make good contributions. I did some amount of mindless real-world vandalism as a tween, so probably would have vandalized WP as well if it had been around at the time. People grow up. --Sean 15:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

There are some editors who were banned and later unbanned and contributed good content after the ban was lifted. If you're asking about editors who kept editing (evading the ban) after being banned, I can't think of any examples where their contributions were worthwhile. As for Law/Undertow, he was apparently (going by the RFA comments) sysopped the second time based on vandal fighting, which while a worthwhile activity doesn't directly speak to your question of contributing good content. He did make a number of content contributions that were considered acceptable under wikipedia's content policies, but whether that counts as significant depends on your standards. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 02:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

What proportion of funds for cancer research come from charities?

There are many charities and drives for medical research, particularly cancer research. Does anyone know approximately what proportion of the research field's funding comes from charity? I can't help but think that it must be tiny, what with billion-dollar drug companies hoping to find a drug that will make them rich, and funding from the NIH and whatever.

Also, if cures were discovered using (some) money from charities, would this make them any cheaper to the patients?

Thanks, — Sam 76.24.222.22 (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

According to [this article, in the US, in 1996/1997, "the three major contributors were (1) federal funding, US$3.060 billion (almost entirely from National Cancer Institute); (2) industry funding, US$1.6 billion; and (3) funding by nonprofit organisations (e.g., Howard Hughes Medical Institute, American Cancer Society, Komen Foundation), US$305 million." That sounds about right to me, in terms of proportions, though the figures have probably changed a bit over time.

As for whether charities would make it cheaper, it depends entirely on the licensing agreements regarding the individual charities and the discoveries, I imagine. Who owns any resultant patents, and do they have any requirements on licensing them? I doubt there is a uniform policy. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)