Welcome to the miscellaneous section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

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.

September 15

Absentee ballot

I've already had similar requests, this is probably the last one: it may be that an absentee ballot could be like the ballot on the left, even with a county that used punch cards like PB in Florida. The ballot is almost the same only that the names of the candidates are all on one side and there is an arrow not on the hole to be drilled but on an oval to be blackened. This photo depicts a ballot from Los Angeles County, which previously used punched card systems. More or less the ballot with eyes and cross is always the same. Thank you very much. https://www.berkeleyside.com/2012/10/17/how-much-to-mail-an-absentee-ballot-1-50-or-45%C2%A2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.41.100.198 (talk) 12:32, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What's your question ? SinisterLefty (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since the absentee ballots are not punched, the ballot itself could be like the one in the link. I mean Palm Beach County. The drawing is the same, (the arrows), but the candidates are all on one side and there are no holes to be drilled, but circles to be blackened. This is my observation, request or as you prefer question. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.41.100.198 (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia 3RR

Does the three revert rule mean three reverts per page or three per individual user? Primal Groudon (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Primal Groudon: From WP:3RR "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page". You can read that page for more on it and other rules related to edit wars. RudolfRed (talk) 22:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 16

Alchohol/Flavored Extracts—where is the limit?

I know most common baking extracts, ie. vanilla, rum, and almond, are made with alcohol as to not add moisture to a recipe while also adding flavor. However, if it’s alcohol, wouldn’t it behave like it if drank straight? I don’t know the percentage, but I’m guessing high, since it tastes like alcohol if you taste it, could you taste it? I’m imagining it’s similar to drinking rubbing alcohol, which you shouldn’t do, but where is the limit where it differs from being an alcoholic beverage to a cooking ingredient? 71.246.13.158 (talk) 10:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, vanilla extract is 35% alcohol at minimum. You can drink it, but the high level of vanilla flavoring might put most people off. But see here: https://www.medicaldaily.com/vanilla-extract-binge-leads-drunk-driving-walmart-parking-lot-woman-hit-dwi-317494 . As for your comment about rubbing alcohol, that is isopropanol. That is completely different from ethanol and is metabolized differently with different toxicities. --Khajidha (talk) 11:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that alcohol tastes more bitter to some of us than others: [1]. Thus, to the more sensitive, that amount of alcohol will taste unpleasant. Of course, a few drops mixed in with a meal won't be noticeable. SinisterLefty (talk) 12:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Especially after baking (the most common use for these extracts that I know of), where most of the alcohol is "burned off". --Khajidha (talk) 12:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. Just to provide a source for your claim, according to this, it takes about 3 hours to cook all of the alcohol out of food. I don't know whether your making a cookie or a cake or whatever with your vanilla extract, but it's going to be toast if you bake it for 3 hours! There will be some alcohol remaining. That being said, it will be very small; a typical recipe might call for a teaspoon per batch of cookies, which might have a final volume of 4 cups or so. There are almost 200 teaspoons in 4 cups, so we're talking much less than 1% ABV in the final mix, even BEFORE cooking. --Jayron 32 12:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Khajidha said "most", not "all". It's also not necessarily linear. That is, if it takes 3 hours to burn off all the alcohol, that doesn't mean it takes 1.5 hours to burn off half. And ethanol, being highly volatile, can also evaporate when sitting in bowl waiting to be used. SinisterLefty (talk) 12:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So amended. --Jayron 32 12:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that your source speaks of foods "baked or simmered in alcohol". This is a far cry from using small amounts of flavored extracts, most especially if we are baking cookies where that initial small amount is spread into still smaller amounts. You can evaporate a lot more of the alcohol in less time, with less heat, once it is spread thin. Just like the moisture on a freshly mopped floor will evaporate faster than the same volume of water in a pot. --Khajidha (talk) 14:25, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

True, and even more importantly, when I said "we're talking much less than 1% ABV in the final mix", at that level were not talking any meaningful alcohol even before it is baked. --Jayron 32 14:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As far as intoxication, yes, but it could still affect the taste, especially for those with a genetic sensitivity. SinisterLefty (talk) 14:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not detectable by the human tongue at those concentrations. For 4 % ethanol, means for all sensations were similar and fell between barely detectable and weak. We're at LEAST an order of magnitude smaller than that. This study found that at about 4%, alcohol had a sweet taste, but at lower concentrations was mostly undetectable. --Jayron 32 15:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your first link states "For ethanol in water, the taste detection threshold in humans (Mattes and DiMeglio 2001) ... approximately ~1.4 % (v/v). In humans, ethanol at and just above threshold has been shown to be predominately bitter (Mattes and DiMeglio 2001), although burn was not provided as a response option." And for those of us with two copies of the "bitter ethanol gene", it should be even lower (discussed here, although there also seems to be an unidentified gene involved ). The study results seem to vary widely, probably because they failed to separate people based on this gene, in which case there should be 3 overlapping bell curves, a small (low alcohol %) curve for those with 2 copies of the highly sensitive gene, a large curve for one copy, and another small curve at the highest concentrations for no copies. The source I linked to above put the frequency of this gene at around 50%, which should produce about 25% with 2 copies and 25% with none. Those who describe ethanol as sweet are likely in the "no copies" group. SinisterLefty (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1.4% is still much higher than the amount in the cookie. Even assuming 0% had evaporated during cooking, the concentration of 1 teaspoon of 35% ABV extract in 4 cups of batter would be 1/192 * 35% = 0.18%. That's well below the threshold you quote. Still, people are variable, and I would never say that not a single person would have such detection levels. I'd grant you some smallish number would. But on the balance, no, that is not a detectable level of alcohol. --Jayron 32 16:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation led me to discover (in the Columbus sense) that there's such a thing as edible alcohol. Hack (talk) 06:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to use gelatin and sugar to make the alcohol and water more solid, but another approach is to put the liquid inside a solid crust, such as an alcoholic version of a cherry cordial. The two approaches could also be combined. And if you don't mind it being soggy, something like an alcoholic version of tiramisu could also work, where instead of soaking in coffee alone, a combo of coffee and Baileys Irish Cream might work. SinisterLefty (talk) 04:13, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that non-alcoholic versions of tiramisu existed, and I've eaten a lot of tiramisu. Never with Bailey's in though, brandy or grappa are the norm. DuncanHill (talk) 10:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Underberg bitters are 44% alcohol but sold as a food flavoring in the U.S. because no one could conceive of drinking it straight. Rmhermen (talk) 12:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see your Underberg and raise you a Stroh 80 see Stroh Rum Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 13:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Hicks 125 Navy Rum is 71% alcohol, and it's a proper drink that you drink. DuncanHill (talk) 18:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are higher concentrations of spirits than that. Bacardi 151, Everclear, Bruichladdich quadruple strength, etc. --Jayron 32 19:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Although Bruichladdich X4 "reaches 92%" it is watered-down to 50% before they sell it. [2] Alansplodge (talk) 19:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those are regulated as liquor (drinking alcohol) though, not as cooking ingredients (with alcohol base). Rmhermen (talk) 20:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Italy in WWII

Hi All, I am looking for an article discussing how Italy changed sides during WWII. I was under the impression for many years that Italy changed sides midway through the war. But having skimmed the Mussolini article it would appear that he was in power until 1945 when he fled and was killed. Now I find this hard to understand. Is my long held premise incorrect? Italy did not change sides during the war? Thanks all. Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 17:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He was earlier arrested by the Italians (Benito_Mussolini#Dismissed_and_arrested), but then rescued by the Nazis, who put him back in power over the part of Northern Italy the Germans occupied. Italy "switched sides" until he was restored, but after that the "Italian Social Republic" was more like Vichy France, only allied with Germany at the point of the a gun. The 2nd time the communist Partisans got him, and were in no mood to take further chances, so executed him. SinisterLefty (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Italy in World War II might help. See also Fall of the Fascist regime in Italy (the 25th of July 1943), Armistice of Cassibile (September 1943 Italian surrender to Allies), Italian Social Republic (1943-1945, Puppet state under Musso in northern Italy), and Italian Co-belligerent Army, Italian Co-belligerent Navy, and Italian Co-belligerent Air Force (Italian forces fighting alongside the Allies). DuncanHill (talk) 17:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Before the ink was dry on the armistice, the Germans (who had poured troops into Italy in the preceding weeks) began Operation Achse, the disarmament of Italian forces. So instead of fighting Italians in Italy, the Allies had to fight Germans.

The rescue of Mussolini, the Gran Sasso raid on 12 September 1943, was a spectacular success; but thereafter he was a puppet of the Germans and was effectively under house arrest by the SS. He spent his time writing his memoirs. Alansplodge (talk) 19:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Dear Diary: They say they want to shoot me today. But I intend to hang around for a while. -Ill Duce" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Successful in that they rescued Mussolini, but ultimately unsuccessful in restoring Italy to a fascist state that could defend the southern part of Europe from the Allies. SinisterLefty (talk) 19:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

pin removable

how do I remove a pin from my board? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:40F:C100:69F0:B5BE:FD8B:32BA:FD3 (talk) 17:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some context would help. Please explain what you are trying to do. RudolfRed (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Want to remove a pin, which has lost it's head, from a cork bulletin board ? If so, try needlenose pliers. SinisterLefty (talk) 18:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a strong magnet, like a Neodymium magnet, may also work. --Jayron 32 18:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or is the original poster asking about something on their Pinterest account? --Khajidha (talk) 19:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a picture of the problem? Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 13:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 17

Contempt of court...?

I have no idea where to put this, so I guess this is the best spot.

On the talk page for Talk:2019 British prorogation controversy, there is a banner on the top stating that UK editors should not act in contempt of court when editing the page. How...does this work? I thought contempt of court only applied to people...in court.

Also, what would the UK government do if one acted in contempt of court by editing a Wikipedia article? | abequinn^fourteen 01:25, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was posted by This is Paul (talk · contribs).[3] He needs to come here and explain what the point of that is. It sounds like an attempt at a legal threat, which is against Wikipedia rules. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've been away for a couple of days so I missed this. The template was originally posted on the article page where I didn't feel it was appropriate so I moved it to the talk page. As I understand it the template warns UK editors not to post any information that could potentially jeopardise a criminal case, and could therefore be in contempt of court under English law. I was surprised to see it had been added to the article, but assumed good faith on the part of the person who added it, and that they'd just put it in the wrong place. Personally I wouldn't have gone to the trouble of adding it to the talk page otherwise because I wouldn't have thought it necessary to do so. This is Paul (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out on ANI, the only information that's valid for the page (or any Wikipedia page) is publicly-known already. So the template is not appropriate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some fact (the name of the accused, or accuser, for example) cannot be published on the UK because of a court “gag.” Hence, UK resident editors might be in contempt of court if they edit the page to include such information. It is highly unlikely that residents elsewhere need to be concerned about this, unless it is a national security matter (in which case, jurisdiction is fluid).DOR (HK) (talk) 05:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And supposing someone were to violate this gag order, who would the British courts go after? How could they prove a given editor really is inside the British court's jurisdiction? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors use their real name, Mr. Bugs. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Their alleged real names. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With the help of a court order, IP addresses can be used by British authorities to identify individual households [4] . Some (many?) editors might not know how to hide their identity. Anyway, Americans can do the job of editing those bits of information that are not allowed in the UK, being protected by the first amendment. I am not sure the prorogation itself needs that banner, but I can see how it is a useful banner to exist, given that there exist many court injunctions and superinjunctions in the UK.--Lgriot (talk) 11:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I keep forgetting that the British don't have freedom of speech. In any case, the notion that a British court would care about Wikipedia strikes me as overly optimistic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be ludicrous. We have plenty of freedom of speech. Other than the US though, we actually prefer to punish hate speech (rather than reward people with the presidency for it) and we value having a fair and working legal system. To each their own I guess. Fgf10 (talk) 16:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In America, gag orders usually pertain to the involved parties, not to the media. FYI, "we" did not elect the current president. That happened because of the peculiarities of the Electoral College, which our founding fathers stuck us with. (It must have seemed like a good idea at the time.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk if stating the obvious, see Contempt of court.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, to interpret a reminder to obey the law as a legal threat is quite frankly ridiculous. What's next, someone saying "don't murder people" is making a legal threat? Give me a break. Shall we close this nonsensical discussion? Nothing weird going on. Fgf10 (talk)

If information is properly sourced, a threat to hold a Wikipedia user in contempt of court would necessarily need to target the source as well. That bogus threat should be removed from the article talk page, or at least replaced with a more mildly worded caution. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to stop them pursuing others as well in a case of contempt. Anyway, there's a more relevant thread at WP:ANI discussing the notice's removal, for anyone interested. As this is the reference desk I note the Law Commission has previously explicitly mentioned that editing Wikipedia can constitute contempt (p46). That document might answer some of the OP. Also in reply to the original question, it would be a matter for the courts, not the government. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In America, the courts are part of the government. And gag orders here don't directly pertain to the media, because the government does not control the free press. Of course, if one of the parties violated the gag order, that could be a different story. But the censorship in Britain is British. It does not apply to Americans. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I did not expect that much input... The PDF that zzuuzz posted helps the most for me, but I live in the US, so I think that this extension of contempt to online publications is irrational... Thanks for your help. | abequinn^fourteen 00:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The ANI discussion makes it clear that this is a non-issue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly not aware of an instance of a judge accusing a total rando of violating a media ban during a trial. These cases, so far as I know, always involve publishers or their journalists. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:09, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Must is not a word to use to princes"

From the article Elizabeth I of England, regarding Elizabeth I's death:

The Queen's health remained fair until the autumn of 1602, when a series of deaths among her friends plunged her into a severe depression. In February 1603, the death of Catherine Carey, Countess of Nottingham, the niece of her cousin and close friend Lady Knollys, came as a particular blow. In March, Elizabeth fell sick and remained in a "settled and unremovable melancholy", and sat motionless on a cushion for hours on end. When Robert Cecil told her that she must go to bed, she snapped: "Must is not a word to use to princes, little man." She died on 24 March 1603 at Richmond Palace, between two and three in the morning. A few hours later, Cecil and the council set their plans in motion and proclaimed James King of England.

What did she mean by "Must is not a word to use to princes"? Elizabeth I was a woman and therefore could not have been a prince. Or is there something I'm not understanding about the English grammar here? JIP | Talk 11:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prince is a subtle term, and significantly different from princess.

Macchiavelli's The Prince covers some of this. A prince is the governor of a principality – to most intents a kingdom, ruled by a monarch, except that it itself owes an allegiance to a greater kingdom or empire. But within that allegiance, a prince is thus a ruling sovereign, and subject to no other authority: certainly not a courtier with an idea of bedtime. There's a literature, like The Prince, of "mirrors for princes" which are "how to succeed in management" books of the medieval period, written by those courtiers who knew how to avoid using impolitic terms like "must".

A princess in contrast is a chattel. A piece of marriageable property, to be traded from her father to her husband, to seal some dynastic bargain. Largely powerless of herself, except from some accidents of fate (such as a lack of brothers). "Prince" has a secondary meaning, which wasn't being used here, as meaning a male princess. If not the direct heir to the kingdom or principality themself, or likely to become so, then they too are relegated to being marriage bargains. Albeit with usually greater status than a princess. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary explains it all, the word "prince" here is used by Liz either as in meaning #1 or meaning #2 of [5] . Probably meaning #1 (generic term for "ruler"). --Lgriot (talk) 12:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per all of the above, in general, the feminine versions of titles of nobility did not automatically confer substantive power on their holders; those titles originally (and unless otherwise clarified) implied only the daughter of or the wife of a substantive title holder, and those women did not get the rights of those titles merely because they were called "princess" or whatever. When a substantive title is to be used, it is often (not exclusively, but often enough) used in the male form for women who hold it. Thus, Elizabeth II, in the context of the Channel Islands is the Duke of Normandy and referred to as "The Queen, our Duke" and not, notably, "Duchess". Anne Boleyn was created the Marquess of Pembroke, and not marchioness. This practice was not universal, but common enough that it indicates that they were thinking about the distinction between a woman who was merely the wife of a ruler vs. a woman who holds actual right to power. --Jayron 32 12:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The queen is also Lord of Mann. Alansplodge (talk) 21:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On a distantly related note, I find it funny that the German word for "prince" is "Prinz", but the word for "princess" is "Prinzessin", literally "prince-ess-ess". JIP | Talk 12:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

German actually has two different words that both get translated into (two different meanings of) the English word "prince". "Prinz" is a word that means prince in the sense of "a member of a royal house", while "Fürst" gets translated as prince is the sense of "a sovereign monarch". English uses the same word for both senses. --Jayron 32 17:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The version I learned at school was "Little man, little man, must is not a word to use to princes", but with the benefit of Google, I see this is a quote from the 1937 film Fire Over England. The actual quote appears to be: "Must is not a word to be used to princes! Little man, little man, if your late father were here he would never dare utter such a word". Looking at the [Wikiquote page it is unclear who actually recorded the quip; I thought maybe Francis Bacon's Apophthegms, but having read the whole thing, I see that it is not. Alansplodge (talk) 19:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Partington, Angela, ed. (1996). "Elizabeth I". The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations (Revised Fourth ed.). Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. p. 274. ISBN 0198600585. has "Must! Is must a word to be addressed to princes? Little man, little man! thy father, if he had been alive, durst not have used that word", and sources it to Green, J. R. (1874). "Chapter 7". A Short History of the English People., and noted that Tierney, M. A., ed. (1840). Dodd's Church History of England. Vol. 3. p. 72. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |editorlink= ignored (|editor-link= suggested) (help) adds "but thou knowest I must die, and that maketh thee so presumptuous". It's worth noting that Cecil was a little man physically. His father, who would not have durst, was Burghley. DuncanHill (talk) 22:10, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DuncanHill, but any idea where Mr Green might have taken it from? It was nearly three hundred years after the event. Alansplodge (talk) 10:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Alansplodge: No - I had a quick look at both the books I mentioned last night before turning in, and neither gave a source as far as I could see. DuncanHill (talk) 10:40, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

use of Wikipedia text for commercial gain without attribution

I want to be able to copy Wikipedia text directly into articles on my commercial YouTube website (one that is monetized by YouTube for these articles viewing, etc.), but I don't want to link any attributions to it; I want it to appear to be written by me.

May I do that? I see this done frequently, so it seems like I should be able to, but I just wanted to check first.MichaelPDugas (talk) 19:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelPDugas: No, you cannot. The material is not public domain. Please see WP:COPY EvergreenFir (talk) 19:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for asking, MichaelPDugas, rather than just doing it. One of the purposes of Wikipedia is to make material, as far as possible, available for reuse by anybody, for any purpose, including commercial. But it is a "red line" that the creators of the material should be credited, via attribution. --ColinFine (talk) 11:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 18

Edmund Jones ‘American politician from pennsylvania

i’m An acquaintance asking that his page be updated to show that he passed away on September 15, 2019. I will not create an account to do it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.36.153.51 (talk) 23:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to create an account to do it, but you do need to cite a reliable source. I haven't found anything in Google News about him dying, and at age 101, I would expect it to be news. --76.69.116.4 (talk) 23:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Edmund Jones. I can't find a source either. --Viennese Waltz 04:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's an announcement here, but this is a different person. Is there some confusion? Dbfirs 07:04, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only in your mind, it seems. --Viennese Waltz 07:59, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

People born ten years apart tend to be different. Dbfirs 15:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Condolences. The change has been made but no doubt some over zealous wikipedian will revert the change in 3...2...1... Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 08:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not overzealous to revert a death date when there's no source for it. It's standard procedure for BLP's. And now it's gone until or if someone can find evidence. Maybe the OP can locate a website for a local newspaper obituary. As with VW, I don't see any online source. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 19

September 20

Readers' poll Rolling Stone

How do readers actually vote for a top 10, 25, 50, etc ...? They must tick the names of bands and / or artists present on the site, or they can write them directly, but where? And then, how are the votes assembled, added together? Thank you so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.41.100.198 (talk) 14:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They appear to be open-ended polls. Here is one example of a poll by Rolling Stone, which I picked at random. It says "You can vote here in the comments, on facebook.com/rollingstone or on Twitter with the #weekendrock hashtag." Thus, readers simply write in their choices, and the staff must compile them for their final lists. That example is several years old, but looking at other random polls, they all seem to run that way. --Jayron 32 15:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Second greatest man in Egypt"

According to the page on Thomas Cook, his son John Mason Cook brought much tourism to Egypt and was called "the second greatest man in Egypt" for his success. Who was the greatest man? It feels like this was a joke at the time I'm missing. 165.225.80.120 (talk) 15:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Undoubtedly the Pasha, being Abbas II of Egypt at the time. --Jayron 32 15:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

War horses

Are war/battle horses likely to be stallions, geldings, or mares? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:59, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

82.44.143.26, this is a better place for your question. Drmies (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies - you can see my logic - the people editing the 'horses in warfare' page are the most likely to know the answer. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:40, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What do these dresses signify?

The above picture shows a street party in Ladywood, Birmingham, England. Perhaps the 1937 coronation?

Why are there four women wearing the same dress, each with a large label attached? What does the pattern on the dress represent? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how we could hope to figure this one out. (Based on their weight and the table to their left, I'd guess they are judges tasting some very fatty food.) :-) SinisterLefty (talk) 20:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We could hope that someone would remember similar things shown in other photos of the era, or perhaps would have access to newspaper archives where the celebration might have been reported and photographed. Personally, I'm stumped. --76.69.116.4 (talk) 06:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: There's actually five such women in the pic. The middle one has her head turned away. HiLo48 (talk) 06:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think competition judges would have dressed uniformly in this era and milieu. My guess would be that they are members of a singing (or similar) group taking time out between performances. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.202.210.107 (talk) 13:05, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 21

boiled rat

Apparently rat-on-a-stick is a thing. Given that, just how big a health problem is boiled rat likely to be? Would the hazard come from infections the rat might be carrying, toxins such as pesticides/rodenticides, or what? Just wondering, not looking for recipes. Thanks. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 02:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If boiled long enough, it should be sterile, but since it was in soup, it may not have been boiled long enough, especially if it just fell in. So, if you actually ate the rat, disease would be a concern. And yes, several poisons used for rats are also harmful to people, but unless you actually ate the rat, I doubt if you'd get much effect from the soup. First, only a small portion of the poison would transfer to the soup, and second it would be rather diluted by the soup, and third, the mass of a person is so much greater than a rat that it would take far more poison to have an effect. So, quite unlikely to be dangerous, just seriously gross. SinisterLefty (talk) 03:32, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I guess I'd try to not freak out too much then. "Waiter, there's a fly in my soup!" except it's a rat, but most of the usual responses should still work. I still wonder how the rat in the bowl made it out of the kitchen, and always suspect the restaurant patron of bringing it themselves. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 07:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Free dating website

Is there any popular dating website that doesn't charge money? Most websites will ask dollars for sending direct message to other members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.110.203.192 (talk) 04:55, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The alternative would be a site supported by advertising. But dating sites might be a Veblen good (service, technically), where customers spurn free options, fearing they might attract inferior (unemployed and broke) prospects. SinisterLefty (talk) 06:00, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Absentee ballot

Since the absentee ballots are not punched, the ballot itself could be like the one in the link. I mean Palm Beach County. The drawing is the same, (the arrows), but the candidates are all on one side and there are no holes to be drilled, but circles to be blackened. This is my request. Thanks. https://www.berkeleyside.com/2012/10/17/how-much-to-mail-an-absentee-ballot-1-50-or-45%C2%A2

What is your request? I have read your posting three times, and I have no idea what you are asking. (Mind you, I know nothing about voting systems in foreign countries). --ColinFine (talk) 14:32, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Smearcase

Hello,

             I see where "Smearcase" redirects to "Cottage Cheese", which is not incorrect, but there is a different meaning for Smearcase, per this Washington Post article, and it has nothing to do with cottage cheese:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/recipes/smearcase/11230/

It would appear that the search term "Smearcase" perhaps be designated for ambiguation?

Many thanks.

Joe Riley (CrashRiley)