Miscellaneous desk
< January 17	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 19 >

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

January 18

London rain

How can London be the third-rainiest AND the sixth-driest city in Europe at the same time? 24.23.196.85 (talk) 03:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rainiest is an unclear term. Sixth-driest presumably mean that London has the sixth lowest average annual rainfall, i.e. the total rain that falls. Another common meteorological measure is rain days. That might be what they mean by rainiest. This is the number of days that it rains in a place over a period. London has that wonderful "drizzle every day" climate, that makes you feel like it's always raining, but total rainfall is not that high. (Do remember that they invented cricket there!) HiLo48 (talk) 03:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe ask Mark Twain. And just to be overly pedantic, cricket was first recorded in the county of Hampshire in southern England. Richard Avery (talk) 08:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure that third raniest is wrong. I am sure that Glasgow, Cardiff, Manchester, Swansea, Dublin, Bergen - a lot of places. If you are looking at this site it has the number of wet and snowy days in London 100 too much! -- Q Chris (talk) 13:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But Q Chris, what do you mean by rainiest? HiLo48 (talk) 21:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with HiLo - it rains for a long time here without any great volume of precipitation. London's average precipitation is 592 mm over 110 rainy days (being more than 1.0 mm); in contrast, Rome has 804 mm over 79 days. Surprisingly, Sydney has 1,212 mm over 144 days. Alansplodge (talk) 23:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "sixth driest city" claim is reported in The Daily Express Bring Me Sunshine; "...in fact by some calculations London is the sixth driest city in Europe." The "third rainiest" comes from Salvatore Rubbino, A Walk in London. Alansplodge (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! I see that both facts are in Interesting European Weather Facts and Extremes linked in the question above, hence this question. Alansplodge (talk) 01:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

English speaking countries versus other first world countries in mergers and acquisitions

I noticed from this table published on mergers and acquisitions activity in 2012 by country (http://www.bloomberg.com/professional/files/2013/01/MA-Legal-League-Tables-2012.pdf the table is on page 11) that English speaking countries from the US to NZ seem to have a lot more M&A than other first world countries like France or Germany. I figured buy and selling assets in the corporate world would be very similar throughout but does this data indicate there is something very cultural behind M&A?

Preparedtobecrowded (talk) 05:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On page 11, it says that New Zealand had 127 deals work 4K millon. Germany and France both had much more than that. Can you clarify what you're looking at? RudolfRed (talk) 05:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand too appears to be more active in M&A than Germany/France relative to the sizes of economies. Preparedtobecrowded (talk) 06:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Created an article !

Hello, I created an article on wikipedia yesterday name Cric Blast. It was decline by Exciral. I edited it and sent it again for review. Has it been accpeted? If not when will it be reviewed and when will the answer come to me ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhtashim (talk • contribs) 07:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question appears to be promoting a Facebook page that you have created yourself. As the decline message says, there is no evidence that the page is notable - that is, that it has been covered in reliable sources that are not connected with it. It is also written like an advertisement, and you have a clear conflict of interest, so it is very unlikely that the article will be accepted in anything like its present form. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you still haven't understood why your article was rejected: basically, unless some famous news outlets, or book authors, or famous bloggers, start talking about your Facebook page, your Facebook page is not eligible for a wikipedia article. --Lgriot (talk) 13:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...and... Even if your page is covered in major media (you have only 124 "likes"...so it obviously isn't!), you are the wrong person to be creating or editing it. You have an extreme "conflict of interest". Having the wiki article make the facebook page sound really good would be something you'd obviously desire - resulting in a bias (either conscious or unconscious) against including material that might be critical of your facebook page. Wikipedia has rules about that. So all you can really do is to make your facebook page really, outstandingly good - hope that mainstream media finds it and gets excited about it - and when it's a world-wide phenom, then you can be quite certain that someone will come along and write a Wikipedia article about it. What definitely won't happen is that you (or anyone else) would create the Wikipedia article and thereby somehow drive more traffic to your facebook page to make it more popular. That won't work - mostly because Wikipedia doesn't allow articles about things that aren't reported widely elsewhere - but it also won't work because all Wikipedia pages are covered by a rule that tells Google - and most other search engines - not to count Wikipedia in the "pagerank" of the web pages that it refers to. So getting a mention in Wikipedia doesn't make your facebook page show up higher in Google search results. We have this arrangement with Google (and others) precisely to avoid people doing what you (perhaps) have in mind here.

SteveBaker (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Silicone

Is there a difference between a white silicone or a clear silicone used for bathroom water fixtures?108.8.201.251 (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the white silicone usually has a white pigment, likely some Titanium dioxide pigment added to it, but functionally there shouldn't be a difference between white silicone and clear silicone; as long as you use the same formulation aside from the pigment. It should be noted that there are many different formulations of silicone caulk and not all clear and/or white caulk will be equivalent. Make sure the one you use is appropriate for the application. If need be, consult a plumber and/or someone at the store where you plan to buy it for advice. --Jayron32 17:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, if you use a clear silicone, it will look better than white. However, if any dirt or smudge works its way underneath, you will have an unsightly stain that will last forever (or until you get tired of looking at it and recaulk). Hemoroid Agastordoff (talk) 04:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is dairy queen ice cream gluten. Free

Is dairy queen ice cream gluten free — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.131.5.175 (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Searching Google for "dairy queen gluten" pulls up the official Dairy Queen statement on the matter [1] (Google html cache) as the first hit. It indicates a number of items (including Chocolate and Vanilla Soft Serve) do not contain any gluten. Other items likely do. -- 71.35.98.191 (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found This list on a blog as well as what 71.35 found. --Jayron32 17:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you referred to this as "ice cream", because I recently enquired how they ever came up with such a silly name as "soft serve", but I've had no replies yet. I guess trying to get an answer here on the back of someone else's question could be seen as soft serving, but that doesn't gel with me. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's because it is softer than normal hard frozen ice cream. See Soft serve RudolfRed (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but as I pointed out in my question (see the link), nobody in the world has ever called any form of ice cream any kind of "serve", except for this stuff. Lots of soft things are served. The mashed potato that gets dumped on my plate at the cafeteria is soft, and it's served. How did anyone ever think that the term "soft serve" would make people think of ice cream? The association has well and truly been created by now; but originally, what was their thinking? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, on DQ's menu[2] you might note the lack of either the term "ice cream" or "soft serve". I was once told that the term "ice cream" has a somewhat legalistic definition. I think it has something to do with butterfat content. DQ's products fail that definition, whatever it is. The Soft serve article may be of some interest. The term has been around a long time. Google [mister softee], for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "soft serve" is a very common term not exclusive to any one vendor in the US (although I think the machines may be Soft-Serv brand), and many icecream parlors offer both regular and soft-serve ice-cream. The idea is that soft-serve is soft enough to be served out of a nozzle. μηδείς (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, this little group of nostalgic ads uses the term "soft ice cream". Look for Mister Softee![3] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, people keep referring me to the Soft serve article. I read Soft serve before I asked my question at Talk:Soft serve. I know better than to ask a question at Talk:Soft serve before reading the article called Soft serve. I would never ask a question at Talk:Soft serve without first reading Soft serve. I probably don't need anyone else to draw my attention to the article titled Soft serve. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Googling the subject, a pattern seems to be emerging - that the reason it's called "soft serve" is because it's dispensed by a special machine rather than being scooped out of a container like "hard packed" ice cream is. And its source is typically a dairy-based mix. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, just a thought... Have you thought of having a look a the Soft Serve article for further information? It might be quite useful... ;-) hehe gazhiley 15:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I might if it had any new information, but all it does is redirect to Soft serve. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Australia at least ice cream was (maybe still is) defined as a product with a particular minimum percentage of cream and other milk products, and it was quite a high percentage. Many of the soft serve products have as much connection to a cow as they have to a lump of granite, so they need a different name. HiLo48 (talk) 21:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Halogen heaters vs convection heaters

I will need to buy a supplementary heater next week as the gas company are replacing the gas main and we will have no heating otherwise. Approximately the same price are halogen heaters and convection heaters. I don't want to spend too much (I will probably have to get two, one for the bedroom and one for the living room) and I am curious as to the advantages/disadvantages of each heater, and where would be the best use for them. I don't just want opinion, but referenced opinion if you can. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm most familiar with convection heaters (the oil-filled ones that look like radiators). I find them most satisfactory. They seem to cost around US$40 each where I live, in Detroit. Here are some advantages over other space heating:

1) They don't get hot enough to burn dust, hair, etc., on low, medium, or high, so you don't get a burning smell when you turn them on.

2) The lower temperature, along with a tip-over switch and thermostat, makes accidental fires less likely. You still shouldn't toss a blanket over one, of course.

3) On high they do get hot enough to burn you. I leave mine on low. Of course, in your case, you may well either need to set them on high or buy several more units. If you have small children, I'd recommend doing so. (An inexpensive but morally questionable practice would be to buy several, use them, then return them when the week is up.)

4) The lack of a fan makes them almost silent. I do hear a click when the thermostat turns mine on or off, and sometimes a slight sound due to expansion/contraction as it changes temperature.

Disadvantages:

1) Some cheap models can also burn out the thermostat if left on high, and stop working.

2) They tend to heat the ceiling quite a bit, since the heat rises off them. This isn't so bad if you don't mind heating the room above you. If there's nothing above you but an attic, though, then you end up wasting some electricity to heat that. StuRat (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'd recommend a model with two indicator lights, one to show it is plugged in and turned on, and another to indicate that the heat is currently on, based on the thermostat setting. Many cheap ones only have a single indicator light.

As for halogen radiant heaters, if aimed at you, they tend to heat the side of your body close to them nicely, while the side in shadow gets cold. This can be annoying. You might want to aim it at a chair for a few minutes before you sit in the chair, to warm it up first. They can be more efficient, though, in that you're not heating most of the room much. However, if there's more than one person in the room, you may want more than one halogen radiant heater, with one aimed at each person.

Something else to consider is that your electrical service may not be up to fully heating your home in mid-winter. I don't think mine is. In that case, you'd need to consider propane heaters or, God-forbid, kerosene heaters. Both have serious safety issue, IMHO, with the fumes from kerosene heaters being particularly obnoxious. You might also want to heat your body/bodies more directly, say with electrical blankets and plain old sweaters, as that will get more bang for the buck. I would also advise you to get your place as warm as comfortable right before they cut the gas line, so your electrical load will be minimal. And, if you have a gas water heater, fill your tub with hot water, as that will provide some additional heat and humidity for a few hours after the gas is shut off (and you might as well take a bath, that being your last opportunity for a while). StuRat (talk) 19:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you're being cut off for more than a couple of hours? I'd have thought they would have a duty to help you out if you were going to be cut off for more than one day or if you have special problems. What they'd do normally is lay down a parallel pipe and then just switch over from one to the other. Dmcq (talk) 19:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised they aren't offering you a lender space-heater. I knew someone as an undergrad who used to "purchase" a space heater from Sears every November for $25 and return it in March for a full refund. μηδείς (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They let him return it 4 months later ? StuRat (talk) 23:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He kept the receipt and the original packaging. μηδείς (talk) 04:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But there's normally a 30 day limit on returns, or thereabouts. Their Craftsman Tools brand has a lifetime warranty, but I doubt if they make heaters. StuRat (talk) 04:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Sears eventually changed their policy; this was a few decades ago. μηδείς (talk) 05:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Googling "radiant convection heater" seems to do the trick. Here are two articles giving relative strengths of each type. The main thrust seems to be that convection heaters are more efficient for large spaces, whilst radiant (i.e. halogen) heaters are better for small spaces or individual areas. So you may find that a halogen heater directed towards your bed is fine for the bedroom, with a convection heater for the living room, unless you plan to spend the majority of the time in one place (like sitting in an armchair), in which case a halogen heater may well do you fine.

Anecdotally, I can report that my apartment is heated by convection heaters (in fact, night storage heaters), which keep the room at a level on the low side of comfortable throughout the day. However, if I start to feel chilly, turning up the heat has little immediate effect. It takes a while (an hour or so) for the heat to propagate. A local Scout den has halogen heaters, which heat much more quickly but unevenly. If you stand next to one the hairs on your arms start to crackle, but two paces away you might be freezing. With this in mind, if you decide on a convection heater, you might also consider a small halogen heater or fan heater to keep near you in case you want a boost of heat. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 22:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you get a radiant halogen heater, make sure it's on a tall enough stand (say a yard or meter high) so that it warms seats and tops of beds. Otherwise, if it's too low, you just end up heating the bottom of furniture, which does you no good. StuRat (talk) 22:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm? Since heat rises, I'd have thought it'd be better to have it too low than too high. I know what you're saying about directing the heat to where it's needed, but I would have thought that a heater on the floor angled upwards would be just as effective as one on a stand angled straight towards you, and also would not waste any potential convection-heating. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 22:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Picture an easy chair with the footrest up and a space heater in front of it, aimed at it. If the heater is below the footrest, it would mainly heat the bottom of the footrest. Yes, eventually the heat will soak through to the top side of the footrest, but you may have gone to bed by then. Alternatively, if you place the heater far enough away so it also heats things above the footrest, then it ends up heating walls and other things, too, with only a small amount of the heat warming the person in the chair. Ideally the heater is aimed directly at the person, not at an angle, and is as close as possible. With a convection heater you don't need to worry so much about the room geometry, as it heats the entire room. StuRat (talk) 23:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all for your replies, it's very interesting. I've decided to contact the utility company on Monday morning to request assistance as I'm disabled. I seriously can't imagine they would be digging the road up given the weather at the moment, which is forecasted to remain the same for about 10 days, so we may well get a(nother) cancellation notice anyway. But it's made me think, as I'm reliant on the gas supply for heating, hot water and cooking, that I should diversify and get a convection heater as a standby for the heating. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to update, they're loaning me a fan heater and a hot plate for the day. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice of them. I find fan heaters very effective, especially if you only need to warm yourself. I would also suggest an electric toaster oven for cooking back up, or in case the gas gets cut-off / too expensive - 220 of ^Borg 15:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While on the subject, the fan heater page could use some attention, it has no references! - 220 of ^Borg 15:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you first fire it up outside, in a garage, or in an unused room, to burn off any dust on it, so you don't have to smell burnt dust fumes. 5 minutes should do it. StuRat (talk) 05:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ebay

can someone help, I need to contact ebay to complain about something, but they don't seem to have an email address on their site. I went to the appropriate part of their contact them section but it just said to log into my paypal account and sort it out on there, except my paypal account hasn't got the section or information related to this problem, so I need to email them about that as well. oh yea, and paypal themselves have been ignoring my emails for a while, I sent them one about this a week or so ago, and got nowhere, same as any other problem I have had with them.

So, I need some way to contact ebay directly to ask them to sort their own problem out themselves. any ideas?

86.15.83.223 (talk) 23:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go. After you fill out their forms, then they'll give you a phone number to call or someone to email. Apparently they make you jump through some hoops first. --Jayron32 23:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

that's what I tried, they give a list of reasons for contacting them, the one I choose, the only one even remotely close to the problem, is the one they say don't contact us about this, so what can I do? 86.15.83.223 (talk) 23:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your options are to not contact them, as they requested, or to pretend you have some other problem, so they will allow you to contact them. However, once they find out your real problem, they might still refuse to help. If you care to tell us the issue, perhaps we can tailor our suggestions better. StuRat (talk) 01:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]