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.

October 28

Social choice theory paradox

How is it called when the more people are involved in decision-making, the more subjective and biased (rather than well-thought) such a decision becomes? (Suggesting that for a better decision, it should be made either by one person or by a narrow circle of people, technically implying an authoritarian approach). I guess it's somewhat similar to Arrow's impossibility theorem, but not sure. 212.180.235.46 (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not find mentions of the alleged counterintuituive effect of crowd size negatively impacting decision quality. Instead, I see such claims as, "We found that increasing the crowd size improves the quality of the outcome. This improvement is quite large at the beginning and gradually decreases with larger crowd sizes."^[1] Since the cost or effort of determining the crowd decision increases with crowd size and the rate of increase will hardly go down with increasing crowd size, in any given situation there will be an optimal size beyond which the limited gain in outcome quality does not justify the cost increase.

It is established wisdom, experimentally verified, that social influence can have a negative effect on the wisdom of the crowd,^[2] but this effect is not specifically related to crowd size. --Lambiam 10:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Choice overload" and "overchoice" were common terms about 30 years ago. I do not know how common they are now. A phrase most people understand that means the same thing is "design by committee". Then, there are many old phrases that refer to the same phenomenon, such as "too many witches spoil the brew." There are many related observations, such as the observation that the intelligence of a crowd is equivalent to the dumbest person in the crowd (which I've heard is actually translated from a Polish phrase used to describe how Hitler's speaches to large crowds were accepted so well). In opposition, there is wisdom of the crowd, which can be confused. You are asking about decisions being made by a crowd. The wisdom of the crowd asks for a specific answer to a question, such as "What is the total number of potatoes that are turned into French Fries every day?" Nobody is likely to know, but everyone will guess. Half will guess too high. Half will guess too low. If you average it all together, you get an answer that tends to be accurate. But, as mentioned, that is entirely different than getting a crowd to decide what font to use for a business presentation. 12.116.29.106 (talk) 16:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Old phrases are not reliable sources for the existence of the alleged effect. The so-called jury theorems apply to crowd-based decision making in general, not just to estimating the value of a scalar quantity. --Lambiam 17:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lambiam, taking your first finding we must assume that the premices of the inquiry (inquiries) were reasonably prepared, that the question(s) attracted the attention of a lost of the available experts aware of the related problematics, that only in the end the curious and the bystanders started joining the crowd. That specific claim they made was indeed about data collection campaigns among a preselected population of experts (your link ). Subjectivity and bias maybe would be about dealing with politics, social matters rather than technical matters. Which does not mean that the reduced comitee necessarily starts on healthy premices, that's for sure, only that the individual members of it may stand more under a possible public scrutiny than when they're and after a while lost amongst the crowd. --Askedonty (talk) 21:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The crowdworkers in the experimental setup of the paper were not selected on being experts; the experimenters had no control over the level of expertise of people signing up for the task. Discussing the problem of discrepancies between the reference data and ground truth, the authors of the paper even write, explicitly, "Even if we would replace the crowdworkers with experts, this problem would not be completely solved." Given their evaluation method, also no distinction was made between early and late signers-up. I see no argument why we "must assume" any of what you claim.

All of this is hardly relevant to the original question. Can you find any papers discussing a negative effect of crowd size on outcome quality? --Lambiam 07:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We had several examples here on Wiki where many editors voting on a particular proposal created a mess and the discussion became sidetracked, ultimately being closed as inconclusive. Don't know about academic papers, but it appears that in some cases the involvement of a greater number of decision-makers shifts the potential well-thought outcome towards inconclusive and biased as the probability of inexperienced and hotheaded people rises. 212.180.235.46 (talk) 08:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In most academic studies, the premise is that individuals first reach their decisions independently, whereupon a fixed algorithm consolidates these many decisions into a single crowd decision. If there is a preceding open discussion, there can be many confounding factors. Some people know how to sound authoritative and persuasive while they actually know next to nothing of the subject matter. Others may sidetrack the discussion by raising issues that, however important by themselves, are not relevant for the issue at hand. People may argue that A because of B, after which discussion may focus on the validity of B, although it has little bearing on the validity of A and refuting B does not tell us anything about A. See also FUD.

Reaching a decision through voting in which there are several alternatives, some of which are mere variants of each other (A1, A2, B1, B2a, B2b, B2c(i), B2c(ii), ...), it makes a tremendous difference how the voting is arranged and which voting system is used. Bad arrangements and systems can lead to outcomes no one wanted. This problem is well known, but independent of crowd size or pre-vote discussions. Without studying the examples you have in mind I can't tell which of these issues made it a mess, but I doubt that the number of voters was by itself a major cause. A greater number of decision makers means that the probability of having experienced, levelheaded and smart people aboard also rises. I see no clear reason why this should have a less powerful effect than the increase in know-nothings and firebrands.

We do not need more anecdotal evidence. I still have seen no references of any kind to papers discussing a negative effect of increased crowd size on outcome quality. --Lambiam 10:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but what we need is to more explicitly define what we're talking about. Studies are formatted to give a standard ranking, individual, decision-making group, wisdom of crowds. Samples here assorted with two crucial dates, 1904 and 1907. You can't count the public to not wonder whether the concept is not somehow flawed given the events posterior to that era. Then you'll have the (U.S. gov) Library of Medicine, and they do leave it there may exist other corridors behind some doors: "... group decision-making was not better than the wisdom of crowds, showing inconsistency with the results of Navajas et al. (2018)." They agree that parametrization of the sudies do play some role: "This inconsistency in result occurs because of no difference found in creativity and utilization of resources between group decision-making and the wisdom of crowds in complex information integration", "because confidence cannot accurately predict correct answers", "weighting confidence would lead to worse rank aggregation". The landscape left behind should not be so arid that the people wonder whether the scientists simply were reluctant to jeopardize their position (mustard gas, you know all that trenches stuff etc.) --Askedonty (talk) 12:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One may hope that reports on studies examining the effect of crowd size on outcome quality define the assumptions, the procedure and the quality measure. We do not have to decide that for them here. There are actually many such papers and even whole books, which use different definitions and methods. What we are still missing is references to studies that support the allegation of the OP. --Lambiam 14:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 30

Standing on the gasoline station in Poland because the car doesn't turn on

Hi there, my car did turn off while I reached by chance a gas station nearby and well I stayed there to look what's the problem. I tried to get the car running till the Battery was dead. Sure thing I took the battery and moved the care to a parking slot and told my problem, the battery is dead and the car doesn't turn on for further inspections I need to go home load the battery for 24 hours at least.

Well the worker said, yeah okay, he saw the car in the camera I guess since i told him which car.

I returned 56 hours later (battery was charging for 28 hours till the green light showed battery is full) and since it's not that easy to reach the station it took its time.

Coming there, the car immediately started with the full battery after 3 tries and than a woman camed telling me, the car is staying 5 days I have to pay and no one was informed who's car is it and why the car stands. And the car stands on a place for trucks not for cars.

I clearly told the woman, I was talking to a male worker about my car issues and that I need a load battery and nobody has informed me that there is any cost or that the car is placed wrong. I really feel disrespected since I got to understand that nobody has to inform me if the parking place is casting anything or not, it would be my job to clear that and I can't park longer than 24 hours. (You remember I told the guy in the gas station my battery will charge at least 24 hours, since I don't want to come with a half loaded battery and have only few tries till the Battery dies again, I want to have as much energy as possible till the Battery would die again.)

Do you think I really have to pay for this car leaving? --78.88.93.197 (talk) 17:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. 68.187.174.155 (talk) 18:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, so you would be also glad in this situation if nobody told you the parking isn't for free and when you come they ask you to pay instead of informing in first it's not for free ? --78.88.93.197 (talk) 19:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why did the woman say "5 days" when you were only gone for 3? And if there is an established charge per day for parking, where do they inform the public of this? This seems like an informal contract where the presence or absence of signs might be important. Speaking of which, we have a sign at the top of this page that says "We don't answer questions that require legal advice." That's because, as non-professionals, we're not very good at it and we'll make your problem worse. Card Zero (talk) 20:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, the probability of running across a Polish lawyer here is probably low. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 31

What part of Wikipedia should I go to for writing criticism about this website?

… 209.195.249.118 (talk) 15:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a chat site or a blog host. If you want to express your thoughts about various subjects, search for sites that provide blogging services. There are many to choose from. If you have suggestions for improving specific articles, you are very welcome to discuss your suggestions on the talk pages of those articles. Or if there is something that needs to be fixed, be bold and fix whatever does not reflect verifiable sources, notability, and other policies. 85.76.32.204 (talk) 15:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you experience technical problems in using Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) is the place to mention them. If you think Wikipedia could be improved by specific, not policy-related changes, propose them at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). --Lambiam 19:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you think a specific article is badly written, criticize it on that article's Talk page; or you can change it yourself, but be prepared to give reasons for your changes if someone disagrees. This is how articles are improved by many hands over time. —Tamfang (talk) 01:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IP.118. You should create an account on Wikipediocracy, the self-styled "The Wikipedia Critics' Forum". You will not find a body of more intelligent individuals committed to nuanced and analytical commentary of both Wikipedia's public image and internal processes. You will be in good company; several upstanding members of this community already have accounts there, such as Users Just Step Sideways, Carrite and Levivich. Good luck! SerialNumber54129 13:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blimey, they must be intelligent! Martinevans123 (talk) 13:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Martinevans123: So good I named it twice :) SerialNumber54129 14:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah great. So not just a seething cauldron of disaffected and banned editors, after all. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia Review. Alansplodge (talk) 13:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The URL for Wikipedia Review is not working for me. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's the one where the bizarre dude rants to himself all day? SerialNumber54129 14:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't encourage anyone to look at that particular site. Also Wikipedia Review seems to be down. No great loss there. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just don't fall into the trap of finding some errors in an article on a subject you're very conversant with, and concluding that "Wikipedia is absolute rubbish and should be avoided by all serious scholars". That was pretty much the view of a friend of mine after he asked what "this Wikipedia thing" is all about, about 20 years ago. Sight unseen, he instantly concluded the concept could not possibly work, or if it did, the results would be garbage and he'd be having nothing to do with it. I must ask him, next time I see him, how often he uses WP in his academic research as a licensed psychotherapist. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 17:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editors probably need all the licensed psychotherapists they can get... But so glad not a "floating island of garbage". Martinevans123 (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't evasion of the mentioned trap just Gell-Mann amnesia? Folly Mox (talk) 14:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 1

Noodles

And by the way, why are glass noodles so much more calorific than their egg counterparts? (running at about 350 cals/100g compared to 150 cals,) Bon appetit. SerialNumber54129 13:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this cooked or uncooked? The USDA's FoodData Central database gives

351 kcal / 100 g for "Noodles, chinese, cellophane or long rice (mung beans), dehydrated"^[3] and
384 kcal / 100 g for "Noodles, egg, dry, unenriched"^[4] and
138 kcal / 100 g for "Noodles, egg, unenriched, cooked, without added salt".^[5]

--Lambiam 19:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lambiam: cooked, I think. SerialNumber54129 20:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since cellophane noodles also increase substantially in weight by cooking, I suspect that your date are for uncooked cellophane noodles. The data I find on the web for cooked cellophane noodles are all over the place. --Lambiam 21:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's why google and other search engines were invented. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Tio be fair, my question was why calorifically one != the other. It's not that important: a good dollop of bean paste mixed in with a bowlful is food of the gods :) SerialNumber54129 12:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2

New York presidential electors

Hello. The state of New York, joins the other states that punish faithless electors, with a special law. However, I can't understand one thing: presidential electors, (this year there will be 28), cast their pro-forma vote on a ballot, with the candidates' names already written on the same ballot, and so they don't have to do anything else; to cast their vote, they simply have to put it in a ballot box. But if so, since they cannot change their vote, what is the point of binding the presidential electors themselves? Unless the ballot changes: we shall see. Thank you. 93.150.80.20 (talk) 14:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That they don't have to do anything else does not imply they can't do anything else. They could scratch out the written names and write in other names before putting the ballot they were handed in the ballot box. Or they might come in prepared with an alternative ballot in hand and put that one in the ballot box. --Lambiam 19:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They could also refuse to sign. Because so many states are pre-printing the ballots, it is easier to wait until the last moment and refuse to sign than to try and trick the system with a different vote. So, the point of binding the electors is to make sure you have people who will not make a spectacle of the process at the last moment unless they agree to the punishment for doing do. 68.187.174.155 (talk) 12:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Font to ID

I'm trying my hand at learning vector drawing and I figured I would try cleaning up some WP images that need vectorization. Does anyone know what font is being used in the image here? The user that initially uploaded it is no longer active. Thanks! Matt Deres (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. It's Impact. Matt Deres (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sweet sweet anachronism —Tamfang (talk) 01:23, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding notable topic choosing

What is a good notable topic? Everything has already been written about. NoBrainFound (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given that determining notability is a major (and initial) part of the work of creating an article, it is unlikely that many people have spent time finding notable subjects and then not gone on to create the article.

Requested articles is a place where people have made suggestions; but in most cases they have done nothing to determine whether the subject is notable.

Your question takes me back to nearly twenty years ago, when I was a new editor, and desperately looking for a topic that I could write an article about to "make my mark" on Wikipedia. Since then I have learnt that creating articles is not the only way to improve Wikipedia. We have hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of seriously deficient articles that are crying out for keen editors to improve them (or in some cases, nominate them for deletion). For some strange reason, not many editors seem to want to spend their time in this way (and I don't much, either: I mostly spend my Wikipedia time on the help and reference desks, helping other editors). ColinFine (talk) 23:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Inventions have long since reached their limit, and I see no hope for further developments." Frontinus (c. 40–103 AD)

"In this field [physics], almost everything is already discovered, and all that remains is to fill a few unimportant holes." Philipp von Jolly, 1878. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, Frontinus' words are discussed here and translated very differently: "Having set aside siegeworks and siege engines, because their discovery was completed long ago (so I attend no further to any material from those arts)...". --Antiquary (talk) 08:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know the level at which you can contribute, but there are many notable topics on which we do not have an article. One example is pseudospin, a concept used in the description of the quantum state of two-level systems. One readable treatment can be found here; a different approach to introducing the concept can be seen here. It would probably be best to start with a relatively simple stub article. We already have an article on the Bloch sphere and a redirect from Bloch vector to that article. --Lambiam 08:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 3

Official website of Sumiton, Alabama

What is the official website of Sumiton, Alabama? The domain thecityofsumiton.com has been usurped, and I am unsure if thecityofsumiton.org is the new official site. Cherry Cotton Candy (talk) 09:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Psychology

Which of the Big Five personality traits is the most closely correlated with self-confidence? Camph26 (talk) 13:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People who score high on neuroticism are more likely to interpret ordinary situations as threatening and can perceive minor frustrations as hopelessly difficult. This is negatively correlated with self-confidence. In fact, here the neuroticism trait is called "a measure of a person's emotional stability and self-confidence". --Lambiam 13:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inheriting our looks

Another Wikipedian famously posted images of their son and daughter. Their son looks exactly like them and their daughter looks exactly like their wife. However, this isn't true at all with my relatives. All joking aside, why do some children end up looking exactly like their parents while others do not? In my family, for example, we all, both on my mother's and my father's side, take after our grandfathers, great-grandfathers and grandmothers and great-grandmothers, not our immediate parents. This also goes for my first cousins, who do not look like their parents but their grandfathers and great-grandfathers. Any ideas? And yes, I've had genetic testing done, and my parents are my parents. :-) Viriditas (talk) 23:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pure chance. An individual's more striking facial features are largely determined by a limited number of genes. Biological inheritance is a complicated subject, but the expected distribution of specific gene combinations can reasonably be assumed to be governed by Mendelian inheritance. Every now and then the random gene shuffles in combination with such phenomena as dominance will produce offspring looking much more like one parent than the other, or more like an ancestor of an earlier generation. --Lambiam 05:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Surely someone has studied the "Mini-Me" phenomenon, where a parent produces offspring that looks somewhat identical to themselves? Viriditas (talk) 09:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a very similar conversation with a reference person and he showed me multiple studies. It turned out that soft tissue is based on a very small set of genes and human facial recognition is biased by soft tissue structures, mainly the nose and ears. That is why when you look at a family, you notice that they all pretty much have the same nose and ears. It is also why there is the affect that people from a different countries tend to look alike, because your brain is simply telling you that their noses and ears look different and they all get clumped together. 68.187.174.155 (talk) 13:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then there is the issue that in mate selection there is a preferential tendency for mates whose faces appear similar to one's own face.^[6] This increases the likelihood of spitting-image offspring. --Lambiam 15:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 6

Fake vote

Hi, I am reposting my request with the hope of better luck. Now, with the understanding that the thing itself is worthless as obvious, the image in the link depicts fake Arizona electors casting their “votes” on a fake ballot for Trump in 2020. If you look at the image, I even tried to enlarge it but couldn't understand much, how were these “electors” casting this fake vote? The ballot seems drawn in such a way that maybe they had to put their signatures on it, but you can't see much. It's just a little curiosity, but I want to take it off anyway. Thank you. https://eu.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/arizona/2022/01/22/how-arizonas-trump-electors-planned-deliver-him-victory/6604574001/ 93.147.230.249 (talk) 17:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your link is behind a paywall, so it is not accessible. 68.187.174.155 (talk) 18:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page 353 of the final report of the January 6 Select Committee contains an image of the true and the fake Arizona ballots, side by side. It can also be seen, with a lower resolution, here. --Lambiam 07:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 7

Vote-counting mode

Hi. Ballots are counted by scanners in a central counting station, along with postal ballots. If there is this general counting mode, why can the machines (again optical scanners) placed in polling stations with closed ballot boxes, since they are configured to do so, also print the results, before the ballots can be transported to the counting center? If then the central count and precicnt count do not match? Thank you very much. 93.147.230.249 (talk) 13:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your question does not make sense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to specify exactly which voting location you are referring to. There are many wildly different methods of voting across the United States. 68.187.174.155 (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take Miami-Dade County. This county uses ballot-counting machines (optical scanners), which print the results on a paper ribbon once the polls are closed. After counting at the precinct level, the ballots are equally transported and counted in a central facility?

I’ve been an official poll watcher, a few years ago. I got to stay and watch the ballots be counted at the polling place immediately after voting was done. We had witnessed that the ballot boxes were empty before voting started, that only ballots properly given to registered voters for that precinct went into the box, and that the number of ballots at the end of the day equaled the correct number. The ballots went through tabulating machine and the totals were printed out, with a copy for each party, for the reporters who stopped by and for the city clerk. Printout and ballots were turned in. Local counting and multiple copies would have made it evident if ballots had been altered or replaced. Today we can select electronic voting or a paper ballot. With electronic voting, a paper ballot is printed when done, and the voter oks it if it reflects his choices. Again the votes are locally tabulated and the totals preserved in multiple copies, as a check against fraud, but totals are sent in electronically to the clerk for quick reporting. Edison (talk) 22:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Language

I want to know more about English language.when it started 105.234.178.192 (talk) 13:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See History of English. --Wrongfilter (talk) 14:07, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 8

is Hong Kong and Macao "sovereign" states?

i just found this (List of sovereign states by Internet connection speeds) article and it lists both hk and macao (all are parts of the PR China), so that makes me wonder: are these two even be considered "sovereign"? Coddlebean (talk) 06:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously not, a cursory look at Sovereign state would've disabused you of this possibility. They're clearly there because the article is titled or scoped awkwardly and their inclusion in such a list seems worthwhile, not because that claim to their sovereignty is actually being made. In general, you should double-check and then discuss problems with pages on their respective talk pages, not obliquely litigate them at the Reference Desk. Remsense ‥ 论 06:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Their existence in the article comes from a time before the article was moved in 2022. Whether it was the move, or is the current inclusion, that is questionable is an exercise for editors and if necessary the talk page. Also @PK2: who made the move. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 11