Miscellaneous desk
< November 24	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 26 >

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.

November 25

Possible Plagiarized Content Found

Hi! I was looking over the wikipedia description of the the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode Interface and noticed that it seems to borrow more than a few word-for-word passages from the episode description on the Trek fan site, Memory Alpha. It's possible that the same person wrote both descriptions, but I'm not sure. Also, how do I go about reporting this sort of thing in the future? --Gabeb83

Stephen Hawking's Religion

Is he a Spiritual Humanist? Half-Blood Auror 15:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No hes a physicist --Light current 15:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any serious scientist should put his own religious belief aside when conducting research. As a footnote, I think Einstein was a religious Jew, who conducted all his research to better understand God's plan. 惑乱分からん 16:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, spoke too soon... The article indicates that he has a religiosity, but that it mainly mainifests itself in a belief of a nature in harmony. 惑乱分からん 16:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The author below (from here) seem to be trying to make the case that he perhaps favors Scientism:

Hawking's frequent excursions into religion and metaphysics are another component of his celebrity. The two best-known passages from A Brief History involve the implications of Hawking's cosmology for religion. The book's famous concluding sentence declares that a complete theory of the universe would be "the ultimate triumph of human reason--for then we would know the mind of God" (175). Although this seems to accept the existence of God even as it celebrates human reason, it is undermined by Hawking's equally famous and even more controversial claim that if his no-boundary proposal is correct, then the universe is self-contained, with no beginning or end, and "What place, then, for a creator?" (140-41). As the answer to this rhetorical question is of course no place, most readers have had no trouble discerning its implications: since Hawking's work aims to provide a complete theory of the universe, the triumph we will celebrate, and the mind we will come to know, will be his. Hawking understands God better than Einstein because Hawking is the ultimate celebrity: God himself.

Such a move is the logical extension of the strand of Enlightenment science that sought to replace the authority of religion with the authority of science. By aligning himself so overtly with Galileo against Catholic dogma and with quantum theorists against Einstein's theism, Hawking positions his work in a meta-narrative about cosmology that protects it from enemies both without and within. If this exposes him to charges of hubris in the popular press and criticism from philosophers and theologians, it's nonetheless good for sales--which Hawking has said would have been halved had he cut the book's final sentence, as he at one point contemplated. 36 Instead, Hawking has minimized the potential for damaging fallout by denying he strays onto the religion side of the science/religion divide and by qualifying the theological implications of his cosmology. 37 Yet he does so even as he continues to promote the no-boundary proposal, asserting recently that in offering testable predictions the proposal wrenches cosmology out of the hands of theologians and "makes cosmology into a science." 38

--Justanother 16:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper in the new england states

I'm looking for a owner of a newspaper not sure what state but know it was in ONE OF the New England States The name of the paper unknown owner was a Morris, His son work for him the son name was Henry James Morris he took pictures for the paper who died in NY around 1925 falling from a building taking pictures at the age of 36 can you help me? Wendy

ladywendy@verizon.net

contact address for Scott Jaeck

Please can you give me a contact address for actor Scott JaeckSharonharvey2 19:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sharon

We don't have it, but you could try getting contact information through a free IMDB Pro trial at http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0415327/contact or try if we have an article on Scott Jaeck that lists an official website for him or his manager/agent. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did my e-mail address appear?

Earlier today I replied to a query in Wikipedia after properly Signing in. But I forgot to sign off the response and was horrified to see that instead, my e-mail address appeared in full. Surely that should never be allowed to happen? ps I have not Signed in before posing this question - quite deliberately. And I have since edited the offending response to remove my e-address. My fault I accept, but surely the punishment exceeded the crime????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by James@(email removed) (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia won't release your email address. Perhaps your browser has some auto-completion or auto-formfill feature? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your user name is your email address. If you sign your comments, your address will appear. Because you don't sign them, other people add a tag {{unsigned|username}} showing who made them. Someone has suggested on your talk page that you change your username, so the ball's entirely in your court. --Mnem e son 20:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you create an account, the create an account screen does say (in red) "Do not use an e-mail address as your username." -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that Wikipedia had just banned the @ symbol from usernames? Maybe he registered just before this came into effect. La ï ka 22:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You will surely be smote for such an infraction. Posting your email address on Wikipedia, UNTHINKABLE. By the way, abnerian@gmail.com -- Abnerian 22:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. CasualWikiUser 23:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James, I hereby pardon you of any crimes that you may have committed in posting your e-mail. They are even expunged from the file we keep on you. Go forth and be a law-abiding Wikizen hereforth and forthwith. -THB 03:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And anyway, the {{Smoting}} template got TfD'd last week, so this is now a no-smoting zone.

Atlant 18:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am having problem searching for specific information about a quote.

The qoute is form Spock "The needs of the many outweigh the needs ofthe one." Whenever I insert that quote into the search box it tells me that no article or page can be found. What can I do to find specific information about the quotes meanig when Spock said it.

For those who may not be Trekkies, the poster most likely means Mr. Spock and not Dr. Spock since Mr. Spock says the line in The Wrath of Kahn. Dismas|^(talk) 21:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"? - Rainwarrior 21:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And there's stuff about it in the Star Trek III: The Search for Spock article. - Rainwarrior 21:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may have more luck asking Star Trek questions over at Memory Alpha's Reference Desk. They specialise in all things Vulcan. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's 'The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one'. I know those movies (the trilogy) like the back of my hand, what do you want to know about it? BTW I don't believe Spock actually says the whole quote himself. I'll watch the movies again to make sure. It's used for the first time at the end of Wrath of Khan, but Spock only says the first part, and Kirk finishes the quote for him. It's repeated by his mother in The Voyage Home, and it's mangled a few different ways, as in "the needs of the one outweigh those of the many" or something. Anchoress 22:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquote has entries for both Star Trek II and Star Trek III, where you'll find the entire dialogue segment. — QuantumEleven 12:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help with unit conversion: metres cubed to kilowatt hours (natural gas)

My domestic natural-gas supply is metered in cubic metres. For billing purposes I need the equivalent in kilowatt hours. Can anyone give me the convertion factor. Surfing has given me several different answers, - which is confusing.

From our article on natural gas:

The gross heat of combustion of one normal cubic metre of commercial quality natural gas is around 39 megajoules (≈10.8 kWh)

I should add that if you are using this for billing purposes you should contact your gas supplier and have them give you the correct number. I know that for our supplier, they test the gas for composition and heating value (Btu or, for you, kWh) when it enters the pipeline and at numerous stations along the pipeline (I just looked and it seems to be tested daily) and I can access the test results online. --Justanother 00:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may be confused with conversion of units. That is about different units for the same quantity, such as between metres and feet, which are both units of length. ~~Or indeed kWh and W (Watt), which are both units of power.~~ How much power a cubic metre gas will give you depends on various qualities of the gas, so you had indeed best ask the gas company about this. DirkvdM 07:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, W is power and kWh is energy. Apparently the OP is buying energy in the form of m³ of natural gas and billing it out as kWh. In the US, the standard conversion is 1 ft³ natural gas = 1000 Btu energy. --Justanother 19:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, how could I make that mistake? DirkvdM 06:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedias most hunted

i have an idea that will reduce vandlisim on wikipedia and other sites.1. iam sure that users who vandlize after they`be been blocked go to other wiki sites and vandlize even though adminstrators can`t stop them on other sites they can send warnings that that user might vandlize other sites.also we can inform users that.that user was vandlizing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.133.222 (talk • contribs)

Eh?--Light current 00:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some sort of interpol for vandals on all wikis I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.138.7 (talk • contribs)

Nah. It'll be like a badge of honour; vandals will behave more outrageously and incorrigibly in order to get on the list. Anchoress 01:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it need not be public. The administrators (in the general sense, not in the Wikipedia sense - what is that called?) could exchange such addresses. DirkvdM 08:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

any wiki project can block IP that have been blocked on another wiki by having a bot (with admin rights) look at the block log and automatically block the same IP for the same amount of time. However, I don't think it is really necessary, I don't think that vandals move on the other wiki site. After they are blocked they realize it was pretty stupid to start with. Jon513 12:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that vandals go vandalize other sites running wikis. Wikipedia is a big draw for vandals because it is seen by many people. There aren't any other Wikis of its prominence and so there is less incentive to vandalize. --24.147.86.187 01:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Butterfly knives

Is it legal to purchase/carry a butterfly knife in Minnesota? 70.57.145.135 23:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well following the link at the bottom of the butterfly knife page says yes. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Яussiaп F 18:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]