Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:53, 20 February 2017

Welcome to the miscellaneous section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

WP:RD/M

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

February 15

How to decide on the ideal linear drain for my personal bath?

I would like to improve my shower room style with a linear shower drain system. I'm not sure what type of linear drain to decide on: linear drain with stainless steel cover or tile insert linear drain system? What exactly is the best? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliasdivan8 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Define "best". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One suggestion is a removable screen over the drain to catch hair. It should fit snugly into the drain opening so it doesn't get pushed out of position by sloshing water. It should be removable for easy cleaning and replacement, and also to allow larger "objects" to pass, like if you need to spit in the shower. If you can move it aside and back with your foot, then that avoids bending over. StuRat (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A site that offers both linear and linear tile-insert drains says "The shower drains with tile insert system are very loved among designers and clients wanting to produce the impression of water disappearing under the floor". Blooteuth (talk) 22:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your primary concern ought to be ease of access and cleaning. Nothing designed to stop hair going down it will do its job properly so you are going to have to clean it out periodically. Linear drains will also collect more hair and soap scum than conventional drains (or wastes) so you might want to consider whether it is actually an improvement. You might also consider how much level surface area there is as this will retain water. The floor might slope towards the drain but the drain is positioned level. Stainless steel is not stainless against limescale so lots of cleaning will be required to keep it looking its best particularly if you live in a hard water area. No references for this I'm afraid, just my experience.--Ykraps (talk) 11:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 16

Videos

I want to watch these two videos on this website, however they don't play for me. It says "stream not found". Is this a problem with my computer or the website? Can you find me these two videos on some other website where I can watch them? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.56.221.19 (talk) 00:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have Flash? I also could not play the videos, but that could well be due to my use of NoScript to prevent me doing stupid things. However, it is clear that that the Flash plug-in for your browser is required (though it was difficult to make out the actual message on the display screen). Incidentally, the computing desk is usually better informed on these kinds of things. I'm not quite sure what the videos were of, but it sounds like the kind of thing they might have on the Internet Archive; searching that might be fruitful, though of course YouTube is the de facto leader. Matt Deres (talk) 01:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing the same problem as you, and I'm reasonably sure my computer is functioning ok. So the problem is on the web server, probably a typo in a link, a missing video file, etc. I'm seeing this on other sites too, sometimes it's fixed quickly, sometimes not at all. An email to the site may help. Jahoe (talk) 15:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the $ 100 million Wikipedia endowment fund?

In January 2016, the Wikipedia Foundation announced that it is launching a fund-raising program to raise $ 100 million as endowment fund that will enable it to operate its projects without annual fund-raising. [1] What happened to that? How much money have been raised till now? --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 03:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a really hard time finding anything about this fundraiser from the WMF itself. There's plenty of information on the 2015-2016 fundraiser, but I haven't seen any mention of a "fundraiser to end all fundraisers". Someguy1221 (talk) 04:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See this. --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 04:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any official communication from the foundation that Juliet Barbara ever said anything like that. I also notice that Inverse's article is the only one to use that quote, anywhere on the internet. There is nothing about this at the WMF's blog, which seems odd for such an ambitious proposal. Maybe something like this was said somewhere, but I can't find out anything about it in the obvious places. It would probably be quickest to just ask at the contact page for the Foundation. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some basic info behind the endowment at meta:Endowment Essay, [2] and [3] with contact details to find out more. Nanonic (talk) 08:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Business Insider has some information about it [4]. Apparently Wikipedia has assets valued at 92M, and it's not run with a deficit. That is, each year it builds up its cash reserves (That was +6M last year). Considering that it needs 66M yearly to keep running, this does not seem like a crazy big amount. NGOs have endowments, and these are obtained through donations. Nothing new under the sun here. Llaanngg (talk) 19:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does not need $66 million yearly to keep running. The cost to keep all Wikimedia projects operating at current traffic levels is only a few million dollars yearly. (The difference between Wikipedia and other top-10 sites is that the overwhelming majority of traffic comes from static files served by caching proxies.) You can see the latest budget here. Most of the money raised each year is spent on the salaries and other expenses of the Foundation's 277 employees (up from 2 employees in 2005, when they served ~1.4 billion page views per month; they currently serve ~17 billion per month). They spend more on fundraising (~$7M) than they do on their data centers (~$5M). There's a good article/answer here by Andreas Kolbe about the WMF's wasteful spending and deceptive fundraising practices, but the short version is that people donate too much money to them because of their high profile and it's gone to their heads. -- BenRG (talk) 03:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Russian roofers

There seems to be regular news reports about Russians sneaking onto, and then taking photos from, the tops of tall buildings, sometimes travelling quite some distance to other countries to do so: e.g. this or this or this. Is this activity in fact more popular amongst Russians than in other countries? If so, is there any analysis of why that is? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article urban exploration covers the general pastime of people exploring abandoned buildings or the forbidden parts of cities like sewers and rooftops. That article doesn't seem to suggest that it is particularly popular in Russia. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 15:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Our relevant article is at Urban_exploration. It mentions a few prominent Russians, who may have attracted followers and copycats. But the hobby is also popular to some extent in Japan, USA, France, etc. There may be some influence of Russian buildings tending to be less locked down, or Russian law being less harsh on trespassers, but I don't have any refs to support that. Here [5] is a list of cool places to explore, tagged by country. Here [6] is a list of the best legal places. Here [7] is a stubby article on Wikitravel. Note haikyo as the Japanese term. WP:OR I first heard of this sort of thing at a large state university in the USA, students breaking in to steam tunnels. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A possibly associated activity is Buildering "the act of climbing on the outside of buildings and other artificial structures". A fairly recent documentary in the UK called Don't Look Down followed a British "urban free climber" who went to Russia to meet his heroes, whose hobby is to dangle by their fingertips from the highest buildings they can illegally access (here is a still from the programme). Hopefully, Darwin was right :-) Alansplodge (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 17

Bold

When adding an answer to a Ref Desk question I accidentally hit a semi-colon instead of a colon, and my text appeared in bold. Why does that happen? Wymspen (talk) 08:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like this! Wymspen (talk) 08: 48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

It's part of WikiMarkup, intended to be the headline of a list: Help:Wiki_markup#H:DL. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) See "Description lists" in Help:Wiki markup#Lists for what it's intended for, and why it shouldn't be used by itself. Rojomoke (talk) 08:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Permanently removing an image from Google's servers

So I uploaded a photo in a blog post on my (private) blogger account and published the post. I changed my mind after a while, and deleted the image from the post. However, I can still access the image with the old image url. Is there a way to permanently remove the image from Google's servers, or is this image going to be forever accessible to anybody with the url and all the Google folks? La Alquim ista 17:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does this help? --Jayron 32 17:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I realised that there's a slinky little corner in your Google photos that preserves all legacy uploads, which is why the url still works. I removed the photo from my Google photos account so it no longer shows up on a search. But I bet some bloke at Google can still access it. Thanks for the link though! La Alquim ista 15:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cutting hair against the grain or with the grain

Does cutting hair against the grain or with the grain produce visibly different results? --Llaanngg (talk) 19:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hair has a grain? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess you are talking about shaving, and mean shaving against the direction it grows or in the same direction. OR: In this case, you want to shave against the direction it grows, as going in the same direction just pushes the hair flat and doesn't shave it. (Note that electric razors with rotating discs shave in all directions, the idea being that they will eventually hit each hair in the proper direction to cut it.) StuRat (talk) 22:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's best to shave with the hair's growth to avoid razor burn (per the article you linked to). Hair growth varies in direction (on my face it's generally downwards but turns lateral and back on the sides of my neck) and when I was younger and didn't know better shaving downward on my entire neck caused a very mild abrasion that I hadn't noticed except for the opportunistic staph infections (about 1/3 of the population are staph carriers) that scarred my neck. --Modocc (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Razor burn is a sign of a dull blade. Try shaving against the hair growth direction with a new blade, and see if that causes any razor burn. I never get razor burn when using a sharp blade. StuRat (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mmk, but the first article you linked to mentions "grain" twice: "Note the direction of razor travel is the same as the direction of the stubble hairs or 'grain" (caption of the second image) and in the subsection on "Razor burn": "The condition can be caused by shaving too closely, shaving with a blunt blade, dry shaving, applying too much pressure when shaving, shaving too quickly or roughly, or shaving against the grain." ---Sluzzelin talk 23:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does say that, but I don't see any sources for those statements. I've also labelled my original statement as OR. StuRat (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For me, the laying down of the hair without the razor cutting is one of the the first signs of a dull razor. My razors are and were sharp, but my hair is thick, grows quickly and I could not ever shave upward against the grain without burn. In fact: "Most men’s skin is too sensitive to stand up to an against-the-grain shave without redness, razor burn, and even ingrown hairs, but if you can deal with it, go gently." [8] The issue with the infections on my neck was not obvious, but I've been free of infections there for a decade now since I corrected my strokes to go more with the grain there. --Modocc (talk) 00:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The original poster has not said that he/she was talking about shaving. I am no expert in the subject, but I read it as being about barbering. --76.71.6.254 (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but in that context, what could cutting with the grain or against it mean ? StuRat (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I was asking about cutting hair, that's why I said cutting hair. Why someone assumed it was about shaving hair? I don't know. Against/with the grain refers to the direction you cut the hair using a Hair clipper. Either you cut in the direction it grows, or against it. --Llaanngg (talk) 01:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The term "against the grain" is widely connected with shaving; see Should I shave against the grain, Shaving Against the Grain: Do or Don’t?, Why you should shave with the grain, Face shaving tips - against the grain, and so on for several Google pages. Alansplodge (talk) 08:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do you determine what that "grain" is? If it had an actual "grain", would you still need a comb? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe they cut hair at as close to a right angle as possible, presumably to prevent split ends. With hair clippers used close to the skin, however, you are limited in which direction you can approach from. StuRat (talk) 03:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 18

Intelligence and orientation in the US of A

I've been watching thump...and it begs the question whether there truly is any correspondence in IQ and political affiliation. Where do things stand between the Republican V Democrats in the faculties between the ears department.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.98.249.243 (talk) 00:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IQ stands for intelligence quotient. Or in other words: the score gained from undergoing certain tests. Nothing to do with social/machiavelli abilities.--Aspro (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One thing you can be sure of: Each side thinks it's smarter than the other side.^{[citation needed]} I don't have to cite that the sky is blue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just copy my comment from the last time this came up: High IQ correlates well with self-identification as a liberal, and low-IQ with self identification as a conservative[9]. It's not an enormous difference, with "very conservative"s averaging out at 95 IQ points, and "very liberal"s averaging out at 105 (so a difference between slightly below average and slightly above, rather than a difference between genius and brain damaged as some might suspect). This correlation is consistent in the UK as well. It's interesting to note that intelligence also correlates similarly well with degree of religiosity, so there could be a connection there. Also, now please also consider all of the problems with measuring IQ. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If liberals are so smart, how come they keep losing elections? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They don't. Obama won twice with wider margins, while Trump only won the electoral college, losing the popular vote by millions. And the difference between the two we can blame our founding fathers deciding that no matter how small a state's population is, it should still get 3 electoral votes, giving rural states disproportionate power in presidential elections. If you want to go back further, the younger Bush also won by narrow margins, while Clinton won by wider margins. See US presidential elections. StuRat (talk) 05:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They do. From state government to Congress, liberals have consistently been losing since 2008. See Democratic losses since 2008--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 05:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a rather short-term argument. Political trends tend to last for a decade or two in the US. That doesn't mean the wind will never change direction again. StuRat (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If Albert Einstein was so smart, why was he not a famous athlete? Why is reality TV popular? Intelligence is often not the deciding factor in winning things. 91.155.195.247 (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligence is overrated. Persistence often whips intelligence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that may contribute to this perception is how conservatives often ignore science, facts, etc., such as believing the easily disproven lies Trump and team send out daily. This looks like a lack of intelligence to liberals, but it's more of a "willful ignorance" than a genuine lack of intelligence. StuRat (talk) 05:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} on your claim that Trump and team send out "easily disproven lies" daily! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 10:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have there been any days when Trump and team didn't say anything? If so, that would technically "disprove" StuRat's comment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trump keep his mouth shut for an entire day ? Are sutures allowed ? :-) StuRat (talk) 23:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC) [reply]

I suspect it's more accidental. There are other notable correlations to be found in this sphere, such as a decreased interest in educational attainment among evangelical Christians (possibly because Universities are bastions of liberal heresy), and uneducated whites tending to work in industries harmed by more often by the democratic party than the republican (or at least, that's the perception). I find the argument, "Republicans court voting blocks that happen to correlate (very slightly) with lower IQ", is much more compelling than, "Republicans are stupid and everyone who votes for them is stupid." Someguy1221 (talk) 05:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are 80 lies, spread over Trump's first 28 days.[10] That's an average of one every 8 hours 24 minutes. 5.150.92.20 (talk) 13:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does that average take sleep time into account? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure he's working on a way to tweet his dreams out, too. Maybe a voice recognition system that activates whenever he talks in his sleep ? StuRat (talk) 03:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC) [reply]

This from a source which claims the election polls were accurate when in fact they were almost all off by 5 points or more! Before accusing our President of even misspeaking, let alone lying on purpose, they should look themselves in the mirror! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 04:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that the polls were accurate, at the time, or that people lied about who they intended to vote for. And you can fact check what Trump says yourself. For his claim that he won the most electoral votes since Reagan, just look at United_States_presidential_election#Electoral_college_results. Of course, lying politicians are hardly new, but what is new is Trump's blatant and transparent lies. Most politicians only tell lies that are believable. StuRat (talk) 04:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's NOT possible they were accurate at the time -- I was talking about the poll results on Election Day! As for Trump's statements, of the ones listed in that "80 lies" source, many were actually TRUE, and of the ones that were false, most were semantic errors (i.e. misspeaking), as opposed to deliberately lying! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 06:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In that list of 80, it's claimed that Trump refused to take 1,250 "refugees" held by Australia, with Trump calling them illegal immigrants. In fact, Trump was correct; they are refugees who travelled into Australian waters by boat, thereby entering Australian territory illegally. Scroll down to "What you need to know about the refugee deal" here. Travelling into Australian waters changes their status to illegal immigrant. Continue reading down, where it is stated that Australia refuses to take asylum seekers who arrive by boat. Akld guy (talk) 12:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Refugee#Legal definition. Australia signed both the 1951 Refugee Convention that defines a refugee as "A person who...is outside the country of his nationality..." and 1967 Protocol that removed temporal and geographic restrictions. Wikipedia has an article Asylum in Australia that describes that country's peculiar "punitive approach" (quoting UN OHCHR Special Rapporteur François Crépeau) towards migrants who arrive by boat. Blooteuth (talk) 17:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible to be a refugee who becomes an illegal immigrant by entering territorial waters illegally. Trump was correct. Akld guy (talk) 03:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Semantic errors" can be deliberate deception. For example, saying that 80% of the district court's cases are overturned by the Supreme Court (when it's actually only about 1%, when one includes the vast majority never challenged in the Supreme Court) is designed to make it look like the district court is totally incompetent, which is not borne out by the true 1% figure. StuRat (talk) 16:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies." Winston Churchill.

In general, political lies are so commonly told by such a broad ideological cross-section, they can't be used as evidence of intelligence, character, or lack thereof. There have been exceptions, although it's said that Governor Earl Kemp Long of Louisiana was involuntarily committed to an inpatient psychiatric hospital for telling the truth at the wrong times (as when he publicly alluded to some of his political opponents having engaged in miscegenation).

If one considers inaccurate statements made by the current President of the United States to be evidence of a cognitive deficit, the door swings open for his predecessors to be so considered. Barack Obama made so many false statements that the Pulitzer Prize-winning Web site Politifact.com has four pages of them. Bill Clinton was disbarred and found guilty in Federal court for perjury, which is the act of lying under oath - a serious offense Clinton just missed being declared a felon for having committed. Never mind all the times that other Presidents of both parties lied.

So, it goes back to "can you prove he lied - as opposed to honestly being mistaken in his facts, or inexact in his language?" Many of the same people who call Trump stupid or insane for the false statements he may have made were passionate in insisting that the several lies Bill Clinton told under oath when sued by Paula Jones, and with connection to his extramarital liaisons with Monica Lewinsky were excusable and even testimony of his good character ("he lied to protect a woman's reputation" being a common refrain at the time).

If Trump supporters are intellectual lightweights, what's that make the people who ardently support Barack Obama for his even more egregious immigration policies (which literally ignored the express will of the American people through their elected representatives in Congress who declined to change Federal immigration law in the way Obama demanded)?

Most of those false statements Obama made shown in the Politifact Web site were made in the same amount of time (during his 2008 Presidential campaign) that the "80 lies Trump told" were made. What's that make the people who swallowed Obama's statements uncritically? It certainly doesn't speak better of their political judgment than ignoring Trump's tweets does for his supporters.

It all comes down, in the long run, to the issue of intellectual differences along partisan political axes being one more mud-slinging contest.loupgarous (talk) 15:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just that Trump lies, but rather the volume of lies and how absurdly easy the lies are to disprove. For example, the claim that 5 million fraudulent votes were cast for Hillary, and not one for him, or the claim that his electoral college victory was the largest since Reagan. This brings up the Q as to why he would lie so poorly. Does he really believe these things ? That would make him delusional. StuRat (talk) 16:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stu, the Politifact Web site shows Barack Obama made four pages of false statements, mostly during his 2008 campaign. The fact that Obama's lies are craftier doesn't make them less false. Nor does it make Barack Obama less delusional - if that can even be said of Donald Trump. Not once has Barack Obama retracted a lie he told on the campaign trail. He "regretted" having made slanderous statements about voters who opposed him (the "clinging to their faith and their guns" remark) because it was costing him politically, but did not retract the statement. That's more probative of Barack Obama's worldview being informed by falsehoods, because Trump will admit when he's been caught saying what is not true. Barack Obama doesn't ever seem to have done so publicly.

In fact, Trump's falsehoods being more palpable, while not a good thing, is less disconcerting than that Barack Obama was able to win such broad-based support for policies based on a skein of falsehoods.

The fact that the press is actually paying attention to when a President lies, after eight years when they mostly were his unpaid public relations firm, is heartening. We were closer to an elected autocracy under Barack Obama - with the enthusiastic permission of most of the people - than we're ever likely to get under Donald Trump, because people are paying attention to what he says and does - for once. loupgarous (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obama was in office for 8 years, with two election campaigns. The Donald has been in office for just about a month. He already has 7 pages of "false" statements, plus an extra 4 pages ruled "pants on fire" (Obama's fiery pants fit on a single page). 75% of Obama's statements are ruled "Half true" or better, while over two thirds of Trump's statements are "mostly false" or worse. Sure, politicians often have a flexible approach to inconvenient facts. But Trump trumps them all. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it's the motivation for the lies that is the concern, along with the volume. It's simple to understand a politician lying if they think they can get away with it. But Trump's lies are more difficult to explain, precisely because any intelligent, competent person would know he wouldn't get away with such lies. So why would one tell lies, knowing they will get caught ? If you are late for work, do you fib and tell the boss there was an accident ? Or do you tell the boss you were transported to another galaxy and just got back ? In the later case, your mental state is in question, but not in the former case. StuRat (talk)

Hamedan Airport

In what year did the Hamedan International Airport in Iran begin operating? -- M2545 (talk) 16:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heating

What is best for heating a small room; an oil filled radiator or a convention heater? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.201.241.54 (talk) 19:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Define "best". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guess convection heater is meant. Note we have articles on convection heater and oil heater.

Much would depend on your local circumstances. Is a natural gas line available? Or a propane/butane tank? An existing central heating system perhaps? Or should it be electric and, if so, is there enough power available (fuse rating etc.)?

Also posibilities and energy prices vary highly around the world. Perhaps you'd be better off with an advice from a local expert. Jahoe (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that the OP was asking about two types of electrical heater. If so, then convector heaters tend to use more electricity and provide more heat, but they heat the air to a higher initial temperature. Oil-filled heaters tend to be slightly lower power (for the same size) and heat the room by radiation as much as convection. Some people find them more comfortable if you are sitting nearby because the heat is more gentle at a lower initial temperature. A convector heater circulates the warm air round the room more efficiently. Dbfirs 21:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I love my oil-filled radiator. It's virtually silent (I just hear a click when it turns on and of), doesn't stink (got to love the smell of a hair stuck on the element of a forced air electrical resistance heater), and if I keep it on low, it can't burn me or start a fire, should something flammable land on it. There are some slight disadvantages, though, such as it being slow to heat the room, and heating the ceiling, and hence the room above (might be an advantage, if you need to heat that room, too). StuRat (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This site suggests that if you are "heating a whole room for a few hours or more", a convector heater is best. [[11]] In my experience there is very little difference between the two but in general, the convector heater will heat the room quicker although not as fast as a fan heater.--Ykraps (talk) 11:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Youngest age for an erection?

What's the youngest age that it's physically possible to have an erection? Can babies even do it. What about with medically induced stimulation even? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.52.2.107 (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the womb, even. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 23:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it's a good idea to discuss that here. Jahoe (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No discussions necessary. Just search "fetal penile erection" for ample references. -- ToE 00:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We happen to have an article on erections that contains the answer to your question (article contains nude images). Before posting a question to the Reference Desk, please try looking at articles to see if they answer your question. --47.138.163.230 (talk) 00:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

off-topic

Are you talking about Californians, or just in general? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does it matter where someone is from? Why do you specify Californians? 86.28.195.109 (talk) 20:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As opposed to Brits, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you just trolling now or something? What does nationality have to do with the physiology of erections? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 00:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, Bugs specified Californians because he geolocated the OP and thought it would be smart to show the OP that he knew where he was from. He does that on a regular (but not frequent) basis. Richard Avery (talk) 07:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 19

How to play 1970s era VCR tape

I've come across several old VCR tapes that appear to be the Grundig variant mentioned at the end of this article. They look identical to this except they have a yellow "4" instead of a green "2". How would I go about playing these tapes? If I transferred the actual magnetic tape off the original spools and into a VHS housing, would a standard VHS player be able to recognize it? The tape inside looks the same as VHS tape visually.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.138.195.178 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A standard VHS player would have no idea what to do, for a slough of different reasons; the formats are very incompatible. Your best bet is to find a commercial conversion service -- I searched for "vcr" conversion service and found several candidates that might have the equipment to read these tapes. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 19:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trump vs THE WORLD

Politically motivated trolling

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

I'm genuinely worried. Every day that passes, my anxiety increases. Every deluded, paranoid, and outrageous press conference exacerbates my unease. No doubt, the POTUS is unfit and unstable to lead the most heavily armed nation on earth.

So knowing this, my question is very simple. Has anyone dared ask how seriously likely is his presidency likely to lead to nuclear catastrophe? One mad stroke, one delusional moment. If trump wants it, is there seriously anyone that's sound of mine between him and the switch? Troubling times. I don't know why this question isn't asked by the media EVERY SINGLE DAY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.229.22.127 (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a recent New York Times article on the general subject.[12] If he changes his name to Albert Shanker, head for the hills! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that most mentally ill people are not a danger to themselves and others. Also, see Doomsday Clock. StuRat (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most mentally ill people don't have access to nuclear weapons. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but even if they did, merely having a condition like narcissistic personality disorder does not make one an insane psychopath bent on destroying the Earth. StuRat (talk) 22:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not by itself, no. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is worth reading. Best not to attribute to mental illness (assuming we were qualified to do so, which we aren't) to that which can be easily explained by other things. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a problem there if psychiatrists can't suggest a possible problem unless they examine him, and he won't agree to be examined. Sounds like we need to add a psychiatric exam as a requirement to run for President. StuRat (talk) 01:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the candidate, or for the ones who vote for the candidate? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a White House physician, right? Can he do something? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stu, nobody ever has to "agree to be examined", unless they've been charged with a crime and it's suspected they're not in control of their faculties and their defence advises them to plead mental incompetence. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Declaration of Helsinki, the Declaration of Geneva and other international medical ethics codes (which have the force of law worldwide through medical licensing, if nothing else) place strict limits on involuntary medical procedures of any type, including psychiatric and psychological ones. No one who has not formally and legally been declared mentally incompetent can be examined in any way against his will. No coercion of any sort is allowable in matters of medical or psychotherapy unless preponderant legal evidence exists of mental incapacity.

In President Trump's case, his right not to be subjected to such involuntary examinations is reinforced by the fact that members of his party's political opposition are those most loudly calling for such procedures. That call thus has the same standing as the practice in the Soviet Union of confining political dissidents in psychiatric institutions such as the Serbsky Institute. Never mind that charges of mental incapacity are common vehicles for defamation of character.

While the 25th Amendment to the United States Constitution allows the President of the United States to be removed from office for medical incapacity, that is still a matter that must be medico-legally proven. A sitting President would have to suffer more than character disorders, in all likelihood, before he could be deposed under the 25th Amendment. loupgarous (talk) 14:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But the problem remains: How can you remove a President for mental incapacity if you can't force him to be examined ? If the US had a Constitutional Amendment requiring such an exam, maybe in order to run for President and again after elected, when requested by a majority of Congress, wouldn't that fix this problem ? StuRat (talk) 15:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 20

Exif data - subject distance

The Exif data on this photo says that the subject distance was 19.95 meters. I figured that it gets this from where it focuses. But looking at this satellite view, I was actually about 120 meters away. Why is it off by a factor of 10? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The 19.95 meters is more believable. Why take a pic of a house from 120 m away ? BTW, that's a factor of 6, not 10. StuRat (talk) 03:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, it is a factor of 6 instead of 10. But I know where I was when I took the picture yesterday. I was 120 meters away. I was that far away because I didn't want to go on private property, as you can see in the satellite view. You can also check that the focal length of the lens was 130mm on a crop sensor camera, so you can calculate the approximate distance from the field of view. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it doesn't calculate that from the focus ? Or it may just be a bug. StuRat (talk) 05:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My suspicion is that it is telling you the distance you would have been at to see the house as it is in the photo without zoom - it is telling you that 120m with your zoom is equal to 20m without zoom. Wymspen (talk) 09:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A quick calculation shows that is at least close to being right. I can experiment and check it. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Nikon cameras are notorious for calculating focus distance wrongly, which causes big problems with using third-party flashes. I tried using the Scantips subject distance calculator, and it estimates that you were 118 metres away from the house. That sounds about right. Smurrayinchester 09:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at some other photos taken the same day and I think they are all wrong. I first looked at the one at the top because I was wondering how far I was away. When I saw the 20 meters I checked with the map since I knew that was wrong. I looked at some I took from across a street and it said about 10 meters. It had to be at least twice that. Then some others said 2 meters and I think those were about twice as far. And one had no data. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Academic etiquette - letters of recommendation

I'm increasingly being asked to write reference letters for students. In this context, I am often asked to include information on how I got to know the student - which is typically before they earned their current degree. Do I use their current title and (and particular honorific) when talking about the person before he or she earned the corresponding degree? E.g. "I first met Dr. Miller when he was an undergraduate student in my algorithms class"? Or is it "Mr. Miller" in that context? I used to work around this by using first names ("I first met Max when he was an undergraduate student..."), but at least one institution suggests to avoid first names altogether. Thanks for any help! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The former. You're talking about when you met the person he is today, not the person he was then. --Viennese Waltz 10:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe academic titles are retroactive, so you can safely address them as "Dr." La Alquim ista 15:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Dr. Smith weighed 6 lbs, 9 ounces at birth." ? Perhaps "The future" should be prepended to such a statement. StuRat (talk) 16:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had considered that, but it reads very stilted, and also does not, IMHO, seem to meet the tone for a personal letter of recommendation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)This crops up in the law reports, where judges refer to previously decided cases. The formula is

"In Fulani v Doe Mr Justice Smith (as he then was) said ... " etc. 86.185.45.141 (talk) 16:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've written and read a few rec. letters in the sciences. I've on occasion just used last names when I thought it smoothed phrasing. E.g. "Schulz is a fine researcher, though he does sometimes get a bit too focused on small-scale wording changes to his manuscripts". When you say "I first met Dr. Schulz when he was an undergraduate...", that means you're talking about a guy called Dr. Shulz now. Even "Dr. Shulz weighed X at birth" is completely fine. There's a guy we call Dr. Shulz, and he weighed X when he was born -- no problem whatsoever.

You can of course attempt to clarify via "I met the future Dr. Schulz when he was..." but IMO that sounds very awkward, and if anything would indicate you had been using some sort of time travel. "I met the man who is now known as Dr. Shulz..." avoids that particular problem, but sounds even worse. Recall that readers of rec letters value concise and clear writing - not unnecessary gymnastics that use up a lot of words to clarify something that nobody was confused about in the first place.

Just call them Dr. if they've earned the title, or Shulz if that seems better in specific sentence. That's the advice I've received and followed, your mileage may vary. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Also searching "[title] was born" is a great way to find tons of examples of this usage, from blogs to books to newspapers. Almost nobody was a priest or doctor or king or president when they were born, but that's ok. E.g. here's a selection of scholarly articles that use "president was born" [13].) SemanticMantis (talk) 17:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (all), that's really helpful. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And there is nothing wrong with attention to detail in writing! If you expect people to read it, put in the effort. If not, there is no point in writing it in the first place! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not! Sorry, didn't mean to insult you, just having a little light-hearted fun with my example sentence:) SemanticMantis (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Me too, as I hope is clear ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article on slavery

Why is there no mention of Democratic lead segregation in the South and the KKK in the article on slavery?Petitechatterousse (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)petitechatterousse[reply]

The usual answer to questions of the form "Why is X not mentioned in article Y", Petitechatterousse is "Because nobody has added it. If you have reliable published sources for the information, you are welcome to add it to the article; or if you are not confident in doing that, or if it is likely to be controversial, please start a discussion on the article's talk page". --ColinFine (talk) 19:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which article do you seek more information about? The Wikipedia article titled Slavery is a very general overview and does not deal with Slavery in the United States extensively. The article Slavery in the United States specifically mentions the Democratic Party's position on slavery in the section on the 1850s. The Ku Klux Klan did not exist until after abolition. --Jayron 32 19:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Solid South for the era when segregationist white Democrats controlled the Southern US. StuRat (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luggage bag

What kind of luggage bag is currently used by many (human beings) that could take weight of up to 23 Kg or more for migration purposes from country to country? 103.67.158.199 (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's article on this subject is at Baggage. You can peruse that article to find information about many types of luggage. You can even follow links to more articles about individual kinds of luggage, and come to your own conclusions about a bag appropriate for your needs. --Jayron 32 19:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A trunk (luggage) ? Note that if you will have to carry it yourself over a distance, you will need wheels. See luggage cart and wheeled luggage. You will want to avoid any soft-sided containers for such weight. StuRat (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Military backpacks/rucksacks can take up to twice that weight - and soldiers going into combat may well carry such a load. Wymspen (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 306: / Line 306: @@
 :See [[Solid South]] for the era when segregationist white Democrats controlled the Southern US. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] ([[User talk:StuRat|talk]]) 20:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
-== Drug Mushroom ==
-How do I grow the drug mushroom? A step by step guide please? [[Special:Contributions/116.58.205.128|116.58.205.128]] ([[User talk:116.58.205.128|talk]]) 18:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
-:Presumably you mean [[Psilocybin mushroom]]s.  You can read about them there, however you are unlikely to find a "how-to" guide on growing them at Wikipedia because [[WP:NOT#HOWTO|Wikipedia does not publish how-to guides]].  Your IP address geolocates to Bangladesh, and the [[Legal status of psilocybin mushrooms]] does not list Bangladesh one way or the other.  You may wish to check with your local laws.  --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 19:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
-::If you really want to trip, buy untreated morning glory seeds ([[ololiuqui]]) from [[Burpee]].  Make sure you get the untreated variety, since they know people use these to trip.  You'll be terribly sick for a month.  This is medical disadvice.   Do not do this, it is a horrible idea.  Weed is legal in various places, and a hell of a lot better.  Oh, and if you really want to kill yourself, google [[nutmeg]]. [[User:Medeis|μηδείς]] ([[User talk:Medeis|talk]]) 20:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 == Luggage bag ==