Miscellaneous desk
< January 1	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 3 >

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.

January 2

Deletion

I have moved this question to the Wikipedia Help Desk and responded there. Rockpocket 08:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

environmental studies

please help me by defining the topic cement jungle related to environmental studies. define cement jungle.

points related to the topic are given below.

cement jungle building up due urbanization industrialization deforestation.

This sounds suspiciously like homework, I mean: "points related to the topic..." ??!! 惑乱分からん 11:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sounds like homework, so here is a hint rather than a full answer. You could start your research by looking at our articles on concrete jungle, urbanization, industrialisation and deforestation. Gandalf61 11:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gandalf, for providing the original poster with some concrete answers. Hopefully, he'll be able to cement them together into a report for school. StuRat 12:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sheppard Smith & The Fox Report Mugshots

I noticed at the end of each year on THE FOX REPORT, Sheppard Smith often presents mugshots of celebrities that circulated that internet, and he gives recaps on them. I know that a few years back, Sheppard Smith himself was arrested for battery and his mugshot circulated the internet. How did they deal with when they had the mugshots episode? Did they not mention his mugshot at all, or just quietly drop the mugshot feature for that year?

I can't confirm it because specific dates are not mentioned, but looking at Shepard Smith and Fox Report, it does not appear that Shep was the host of the program at the time of his arrest. It also appears that his arrest was incidental to covering the 2000 Florida vote recounts. --Measure 22:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

archived

Would some one please provide me with a link to the ref desk archived pages. thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.144.161.223 (talk) 13:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It's actually at the top of the page. Here it is anyways. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 13:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From 2000 to 2010

We refer to the 1920s as the '20s. Is there an expression for the years from 2000-2010? The "Zeros"? Are the years 2010-2020 referred as the teens?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.194.22.39 (talk • contribs)

For the first part of your question, see 2000s.--Shantavira 15:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the second part, the article 2010s engages in some crystal-ball gazing. --Lambiam ^Talk 15:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

since we are approaching the end of the 2750s no, it isn't going to affect us for a while.

Who are "we"? Is that some Chinese calendar, or what? 惑乱分からん 15:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The press in the UK like to call 2000-2009 the "noughties", which is a bit twee. I think we should call them the "aughts" like they did a hundred years ago. Nicknack009, 22:04, 3 January, year of aught-seven (UTC)

Tic Tac Toe

In Tic Tac Toe, why is a cats game called a cats game?

--24.39.182.101 15:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, which I couldn't find a definitive answer to. Here are some thoughts and suggestions on the matter, though. --Maelwys 16:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Men/women telephone bills

What do men, compared to women, spend on average for their phone bills? 216.194.22.39 15:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that anybody has ever done a study on that, sorry. The study would be fairly meaningless anyway, since that varies so much by provider and area. And many people now offer flat rate service now, so somebody that uses a phone for 5 minutes a day could be paying the same as somebody that uses it for 5 hours a day. So basically it would be a combined question of which sex is a smarter shopper and spends more time looking for deals, as well as (possibly) which sex spends more time on the phone, and which sex talks to more people that live far away (to incur possible long distance charges). And when you combine that many criteria, the relevance of 1 sex over the other becomes pretty unimportant. --Maelwys 15:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that anybody has ever done a study on that, sorry.

I don't believe that for a minute! I'll bet any telephone service provider could tell you the exact answer, but probably won't. Atlant 16:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That assumes they know the gender of the subscribers. And it ignores the fact that this may vary by provider. --Lambiam ^Talk 18:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be more blunt: I'm not assuming that they got the answer by casually data mining their billing records. I'm sure this exact question has been explicitly researched by many carriers and they have used this data to "fine tune" their marketing efforts. Atlant 18:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question is nevertheless ill-posed, taking no account of geography, for instance. Presumably the average expenditure by Indian females is not the same as of USian females. Even if there were easily available figures allowing such an average to be calculated, it would be somewhat meaningless. I suspect I hear an axe being ground somewhere in the background. --Tagishsimon (talk)

That point is well-taken. What is almost certainly known – for major carriers in developed nations – is the detailed breakdown of telephone users by age, sex, income, and geographic locale, along with their pattern of usage: time of day, total minutes, weekdays versus weekends versus holidays, etc. Presumably one could make a statement about usage by men versus women after you controlled for the other factors. As noted above, the telephone companies view these figures as competetive information that is very closely-held.

As to the amount spent, that's more difficult. You could take the usage figures and plug them into the known prices of various rate plans from different providers to get an estimate of what they might pay. Of course, if you're just arguing with your wife about who uses the phone more you're just going to have to put a stopwatch and a clipboard by the phone. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... I've read all the posts, and I'm still scratchin my noggin trying to figure out how (excluding cell phones) billing info could give telephone companies any reliable information about demographics. Most people do not live alone, and because home telephone service is billed to one individual householder, any data gleaned from the activity of the phone line in that person's name would be IMO hopelessly corrupted. Just a tiny for instance; for the first two years I lived with my ex BF, the phone was in my name, the last four in his. I've lived alone for two years, but my phone is still in his name. I wonder how useful our usage statistics are? It also discounts the demographic impact of the thousands of people (in North America at least) who run businesses out of their homes with residential phone lines. Surely a) business-related phone calls would factor differently in the original poster's question, because much business communication isn't voluntary, and b) employees and others using the residential line would, over time, skew the stats. Anchoress 21:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, to simplify my question, any available studies on how much time each gender spends on average speaking on the phone in the US?216.194.22.39 21:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not the US but there's a lot of data on usage differences between men and women in the UK in 1998/99 here. This file claims that 89% of females and 83% of males have/had a mobile and that females use up all their minutes more often. Maybe you can combine all these with something like this and get some estimates of amount spent for whatever price structures the phone companies have where you live. JMiall 23:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, JMiall. Very helpful.216.194.22.39 03:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wind in the Willows - not PC in 2007

As a child, many years ago, I played the judge at the trial of Toad after he had stolen a motor-car and driven dangerously and crashed it. I enjoyed my short acting career and the whole storyline immensely. And I have grown up to be a responsible, law-abiding citizen, notwithstanding the flagrant criminality portrayed by Toad, and others, in the book by Kenneth Grahame. But on reflection wasn't I the lucky one? My question? Having just watched a TV production of WitW with the animal and rodent roles played very well by humans; and having revisited the non-stop criminal actions therein, would WitW be considered today as suitable set-reading for young and impressionable children? I am thinking not only of Toad's car-thieving and dangerous and reckless driving, but also of his conspiracy with the gaoler's daughter and the bribery of the washerwoman to escape from Gaol. And also of his attempt to defraud the railway company by obtaining passage on a train (as a means of escape from lawful custody and arrest) minus a ticket. What about his attempt to fool the bargee into giving him a lift to Toad Hall by pretending to be a washerwoman; and his subsequent theft of her horse? And what of the housebreaking into Mole's burrow by the hedgehogs and the illegal occupation of Toad's Hall in his absence. The carrying of Guns and Clubs and their liberal use in expelling the squatters left me agape. And at the end, in the middle of a huge garden party, we see Toad lusting after his new ambition, an aeroplane. All this would seem to my 2007 senses to suggest to young innocents that they can do whatever they want, including breaking the law, escaping from gaol, and getting away with it. Should not such dangerous books be severely censured in future so that our civilisation is not imperilled by the criminal havoc that might otherwise result?

Translation for Americans: gaol = jail. StuRat 02:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible to frame the same sorts of reservations about the most (seemingly) innocuous books - see the ugly truth about Peter Rabbit ..., for instance, and the ripostes at Murder among the cucumber frames, from recent editions of the Grauniad. I'll not conjecture on The Wind in the Willows, but note that our article lacks a summary of the plot: you seem like an excellent candidate for adding such a thing, if you would. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Wind in the Willows, to me, seems to be a commentary on the silly nature of people (and anthropomorphic amphibians) in general. At the time, the lawlessness you described was unheard of and foolish. The events in the story go to develop Toad's character as a silly, fun-loving creature who gets into trouble for his exploits. As for censuring the book, good luck. ^_^ V-Man737 21:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about Little Black Sambo? -THB 23:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cute. Just, ...Cute. V-Man737 23:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wind in the Willows, in my estimation anyway, is the best children's book ever written. For true shock value you might try reading an unabridged version of Peter Pan. Clio the Muse 01:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The moral-educational value of those scenes of misdeeds and mayhem cannot be underestimated, especially in today's world. Besides the real threats of bullies and gangs (some of whom use weapons), children encounter situations in which friends, or they themselves, are tempted to misbehave, break rules and even laws. Acknowledging the fact and consequences of bad or criminal behavior is part of growing up, and literature in the home and the classroom can be a positive force for learning to cope with difficult circumstances. While children appreciate being told the truth, attempts to hide it from them may cause irreparable harm to their sense of trust in and respect for adults. -- Deborahjay 10:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sandals in Christmas

During Christmas, I see ladies wear sandals to their friend's house in Canada when it is -18 degress Celsius. How come?

Some more information would be handy, such as the country in which this outrage took place. Why do you think it strange to see sandal wearing females? --Tagishsimon (talk)

Possibly for the same reason that well-off American teenagers would rather stand at the school bus stop freezing their anatomies off rather than wear a coat, especially if their parents suggested they wear said coat. Apparently, it's "un-cool" to wear seasonally-appropriate clothing. See The Fantasticks for more details of why the kids put beans in their ears.

Atlant 00:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Partly that, but also, in my opinion, the eagerness of growing numbers of people to embrace the Los Angeles styles modeled by their favorite celebrities. If the latest pop idol wears it at 25C in Los Angeles, his or her slavish fans will wear it at -25C in Winnipeg, no matter how uncomfortable it may be. Marco polo 02:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate wearing my coat, even in winter. I always feel far to hot with it on, and never seem too be too cold without it. But it never gets below freezing here, which might help. 172.159.156.28 15:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard Geordies talking about how their women wear "Clingfilm overcoats" in winter, while parading around the "Toon" wearing their underwear as overwear in subzero conditions a polar bear might find unfriendly. Perhaps these women are wearing "clingfilm Galoshes". --Dweller 15:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(FWIW, I understand children put beans in their noses, not their ears.) ;-) V-Man737 21:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'll just have to go see The Fantasticks (or buy the soundtrack album) ;-).

Atlant 02:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also this comic strip. --Anonymous, January 4, 2007, 23:22 (UTC).

alien

ive honestly just been abducted by a alien 3 hours ago, not much happened but i have scars, what should i do, really beinfg serious here, help

saw t in my room (could have been a dream) but i was suurew i was awake, blaced out a few hours just remember a beeping noise and pulsing and seeing scissors that were blurry, have scars ion back of neck

Go to a hospital or your nearest doctor. Get it all checked out. Skittle 21:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure it was an alien as opposed to a demon or ghost, or perhaps even malicious burglars? I wonder what must have happened for there to be scars on the back of your neck as opposed to new wounds? Do you think perhaps you've always had scars there and only recently noticed them? (I like Skittle's approach to the IANAD policy.) Also, when you get some time, I'd suggest you read our article on hypnagogia. V-Man737 22:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your experience may have been caused by sleep paralysis: "In a typical sleep-paralysis episode, a person wakes up paralyzed, senses a presence in the room, feels fear or even terror, and may hear buzzing and humming noises or see strange lights. A visible or invisible entity may even sit on their chest, shaking, strangling, or prodding them." [1] Skarioffszky 22:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watch some X-Files. The truth is out there. -THB 23:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a classic case of daemons. Vranak

If they stitched you back up and your cuts have healed to the point where they're scars, then it seems like they know more about human healthcare than we do and you shouldn't worry about it --⁪froth^{T C} 03:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a list of support groups at alien abduction.--Shantavira 09:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also sometimes have scars that I don't remember getting. Also cuts can heal so they are just scars in a few hours. What did it look like?172.159.156.28 15:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Type of gun?

What's the gun shown in this [2] video around :58? 67.169.56.188 21:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like some kind of AA gun --⁪froth^{T C} 21:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sound reminds me most of the MG3. The Germans may have made dual-gun versions of its predecessor, the MG34 (and other versions) and mounted them like this for infantry AA. 81.93.102.185 21:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I am 78% sure that that is a dual MG3 mount. :) 81.93.102.185 21:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second edit: I am actually MORE sure that it's an MG81 Zwilling (twin, dual). The MG34 article mentions this in particular, so there's your answer. The third, but as accurate as any I could provide. 81.93.102.185 21:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's an MG of some series, the MG81 hypothesis is probably close, though I didn't get a good enough look at it, it didn't really look like an MG88 to me. As to the smaller guns, they had everything in there, from a MAC-11 to what looked like an MP40... awesome vid lol. Wintermut3 06:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RfA

Hi there,

Is it possible to delete my own Request for Adminship? I have someone that is willing to nominate me for the adminship, however, for some reason, I ended up nominating myself. Is there a way to revert this? --Smcafirst or Nick • Sign • Chit-Chat • I give at 23:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This question should go on the RFA talkpage or the WP helpdesk page, but I believe you can remove your own nomination. Anchoress 23:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone with a sig like that does not deserve to be an admin. --Tagishsimon (talk)

I wouldn't go that far, but you really should tone it down. It's beyond distracting. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who thinks that a sig like that should keep someone from being an admin does not deserve to be an admin. :-P V-Man737 23:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try asking at the help desk. Also, just to point it out, you deleted Anchoress's comment when you changed your sig (I've put it back). –The Gre at Llama^{sign here} 23:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Part of being an admin is about judgement. As I noted when opposing Smcafirst's nomination, the sig indicates to me that he/she shows more enthusiasm than sense. Your cues may vary. --Tagishsimon (talk)

LOL! I didn't know what you meant at first, then I realized that Smcafirst had changed his/her signature. I thought you were overreacting. ^_^ V-Man737 00:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]