Miscellaneous desk
< May 12	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 14 >

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.

May 13

long word, one vowel

what is a 9-lettre word with only one vowel? see my talk page for the answer to this riddle!!!Eddisford 21:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't waste our time with questions you already know the answer to. This isn't "Stump the experts!" - this is "Can we help you find out things you need to know". Thanks. SteveBaker 00:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whereabouts on your talkpage is the answer, I can't see it anywhere :( HS7 11:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, give me STRENGHTH! And spellcheck! STRENGTHSBielle 19:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Happy Mother's Day" in Japanese

How do you say "Happy Mother's Day" in Japanese? Thanks. —Joseph Montalbo 04:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha nohi omedeto, according to the New York Public Library. --TotoBaggins 05:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Callsign

The other day I took a flight on a United Airlines 767. On most United flights, you can hear what the pilot hears/says over the radio as in-flight entertainment (I'm assuming only I found that very entertaining). Our call sign was United 914 Lima Heavy. I've since discovered what "heavy" means, but what does the "L" mean? Thanks! --M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 05:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK it just stands for L. See NATO phonetic alphabet. Also see call sign#Aviation. --Shantavira 07:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But why would there be an L there in the first place? If it were a Lifeguard flight (ie. carrying organs for donation or something similar), the call sign would have been "Lifeguard United 914 Heavy". --Charlene 18:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on! I just checked United Flight 914, and it's an international flight. Where were you when you heard this? --Charlene 18:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LH is also Lufthansa. Star Alliance codeshare, perhaps? - Banyan Tree 20:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm still curious! So what does heavy mean?? Vespine 22:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Heavy" means it's a large aircraft (MTOW > 300,000lb), and a longer separation has to be maintained by any following aircraft so they don't get caught up in its vortices. FiggyBee 00:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evelyn Paglini

Any articles on here about this woman ? SHE is a featured guest on Coast To Coast AM,. is a witch. SHE has predicted that 2007 - 2008 will be hellish, to put it politely. By the way the show Coast To Coast AM is on Premiere Radio and/or Clear Channel Radio networks. 205.240.146.147 05:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can this be placed in the Coast To Coast AM article ? 205.240.146.147 05:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I guess :). Looks like an article could be created for her. Splintercellguy 05:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She's already there. Clarityfiend 22:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions on Christianity (Part One)

From what I've seen, incest is generally considered awful in christian communities. Then, how did Adam and Eve's children reproduce? -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 05:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is one reason that some religious leaders discourage the teaching of critical thinking skills in schools.

This is also the sort of opinion- and debate-laden question we tend to discourage on these reference desks, since it's unanswerable... —Steve Summit (talk) 05:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking for a debate, I just want to know what reasoning most clergy or devout christians use -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 05:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first off it's not just in Christian communities. Incest taboos, though varied, exist in most all cultures, as the Incest article here will show you. And in most cultures it is considered a pretty serious offence.

Secondly if you are looking for a logical or factual answer, you will be disappointed. Basically, the answer that 'most clergy' would use is that things were different then. It will be dressed up and vary from faith to faith, but what other answer could there be? If you believe that God created one man and one woman, there is no choice but for their offspring to commit incest. Following the Incest link will direct you to pages that discuss this in more detail, including examples from the Old Testament, Roman law and, of course, current law.--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 07:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This question is often posed in the form "Who was Cain's wife ?". Here are links that discuss this question from a fundamentalist Christian POV i.e. starting from the assumption that all of Genesis is literally true: [1] [2] [3]. Common elements of the responses seem to be (i) incest was not technically forbidden until God gave Moses the laws recorded in Leviticus, which was several hundred years later; (ii) having offspring with close relatives was safe in the early generations after Adam and Eve because Adam and Eve themselves were created with no genetic defects. The logic holds together if you start from the assumption that Adam and Eve were created by God and all humans are descended from them. Gandalf61 09:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the Jewish tradition the Midrash explains that there was incest. There was a special dispensation since there was no other option. Jon513 10:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the questions used by the character Henry Drummond in Inherit the Wind to refute the Bible-based arguments used by his opponent Matthew Harrison Brady. "It says right here that Cain got married after he was thrown out of Eden. Who did he marry? Was there another Creation in the next county over that the Bible didn't happen to mention?" Or words to that effect. Corvus cornix 01:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps they thought Lilith's kids were hotties?

Atlant 12:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions on Christianity (Part Two)

Is there ever a reason given for why biblical figures (particularlty from Genesis and the Old Testament from what I've seen) have much longer life spans than any human ever has had? -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 05:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Asimov speculated that the ages of the patriarchs were originally counted in months and later misunderstood as years. 969 lunar months is 78.3 years. —Tamfang 06:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Herding societies and hunter/gatherers often measured time primarily in months, as the presence or absence of moonlight controlled whether they could hunt or see their flocks at night, which was of critical importance. Farming societies, on the other hand, typically measured time in years, since the seasons are important for knowing when to plant and harvest crops. Moonlight isn't quite so critical to farmers since most crops don't need to be watched at night. I believe that, in Jewish and pre-Jewish history, they moved steadily from hunting/gatherering (pre-Jewish) to herding and then on towards farming later (although there was a great deal of overlap). It's not unreasonable to suppose that they also changed from measuring ages in months to years during this process. StuRat 18:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this was really confusing a friend and I. That makes much more sense, although it still seems odd, since you'd think they would've had much lower life expectancies than that -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 06:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lower life expectancy in ancient times wasn't so much because the maximum lifespan was shorter as because not so many people got to reach the maximum. If you had 30% of the population dying at age 2, 30% at age 20, 30% at age 40, 5% at age 60, and 5% at age 80, then the life expectany would be 30%×2 + 30%×20 + 30%×40 + 5%×60 + 5%×80 = 25.6, but you would still have people up to 80 years old. I just pulled those numbers out of a hat, but the general idea is valid. Psalm 90 in the Bible implies that 70 or 80 years was seen as a normal maximum lifespan when it was written. --Anonymous, May 13, 2007, 06:37 (UTC).

Perhaps, but if you see Generations of Adam#The names and ages, they're all very long lives, with the slight exception of Enoch. Unless they simply didn't record anyone who died before a certain age, this seems odd, and even if they did, that seems like a very odd gap, of around 600 months, between the death closest above that line and second closest -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 06:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, reason given is because even though Adam and Eve were banished from the Eden they still lived in perfect Earth with optimal living conditions and eating vegetarian. It was only after the Flood that Noah was allowed to eat meat and the living conditions where changed from optimal to good that lifespan started becoming much shorter fast. Shinhan 08:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, there are many vegetarians today, and they don't live anywhere near 1000 years. Also, if people did live that long and remained fertile during that period (as the Bible seems to say), they would have hundreds of children each, leading to massive overpopulation, while the Bible generally only mentions a few children each, which is consistent with much shorter life spans. StuRat 12:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I don't have the references at hand to back this up, but some religious thinkers say that the long lives of the generations following Adam are due to those persons having lived at a time closer to the Creation, that Adam and Eve were in a more 'perfect state', spiritually and physically, and so also, those who came in the generations after. Even as people fell away from that state, they retained by their proximity to this 'golden age' the longer lifespans. Although there are some exceptions, in general the lifespans decline with each succeeding generation.

It is difficult to have any 'factual' or 'real' answer to this question (or, indeed, to your question above), because you have those who believe the Bible is to be taken literaly vs those who take it to be a more poetic expression of deeper truths. Without taking sides, I might say that just asking the questions, as you have, and pondering the many answers possible with an open mind and heart, will lead you to the 'answer' you are looking for.--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 08:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they weren't eating meat, why was Abel in the business of raising animals? —Tamfang 22:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a Hasidic Jewish response to the question: [4]. -- Mwalcoff 15:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the genetic issue of after the flood; one book on genetics asserts that after the flood, as the population of the world was decreased to 8 people, inbreeding would become so rife that terrible genetic defects became prevalent, turning the average life expectancy down by centuries. Laïka 18:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you go with this response though, then (actually, I mentioned this in my above question) shouldn't that have happened to the generation after Abel and Seth's? -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 20:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming Adam and Eve had no harmful mutations (and there's no reason why not), the number of genetic disorders in the third generation of humans would be negligible. Laïka 20:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Epic of Gilgamesh the gods decided there were too many people in the world, and after trying to kill them all they instead decided to just make it difficult for them. Pandora's box did the same thing in Europe, and I think there is a similar story in the bible. But if they were months, why does the Sumerian king list have kings living for 10,000 years?

Further to the askmoses answer, I've heard in the past (sorry, no source currently) the following answer from rabbinic literature: that Adam, created by God directly, was physically perfect. Succeeding generations were close to but not quite at perfection and consequently lived shorter lives. Then, as has previously been indicated, post-Flood, the world was a much less healthy place. Traditional Jewish understanding has been that man's maximum lifespan is not "three score years and ten", ie 70, but 120; the lifespan of Moses. --Dweller 13:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone living 10,000 years would either have to be talking about 10,000 days or be purely mythical. StuRat 19:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That "the world was healthier then" thought just doesn't jive with science. There is absolutely no evidence that a person without any genetic flaws, raised in an environment completely isolated from all harmful influences, would live any longer than the maximum life-span for the rest of us, which is somewhere around 120-140. StuRat 19:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it depends on what you mean by 'without any genetic flaws'. What is your basis for comparison? One could easily say that all modern humans have 'genetic flaws' compared to the perfect human, whose genome would be sufficiently different to enable them to live as long I one chose to specify :-) After all, tortoises and trees are capable of living longer than 120-140. Could not the flawless human be closer to one of these? Oh curse the flaw that lost us our leaves... Skittle 23:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you had to redesign a human to live 1000 years they wouldn't really be human any more. They would likely need to have the metabolic rate of a turtle, for example. StuRat 05:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if humans acquired sufficient flaws to only live for 120 years, perhaps they aren't really human any more :-) Skittle 16:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need an explanation? These ancient books have been translated, copied and recopied from stories that were probably originally told by word of mouth. The written languages from those days were horribly ambiguous (for example, the Jews didn't use vowels in their written language). Surely we can put this down to exaggeration and mistranslation. A slipup between years and months is perfectly believable - an extra zero tacked onto someones' age because a translator had poor handwriting - then there is "My god is better than your god...my king/prophet lived longer than your king/prophet." - human nature supplies the rest. The very last thing we should suspect is impossibly long-lived people in a world where most people died young. SteveBaker 00:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self-negation (?)

What is the proper name for "self-negating" property of something? For example a list of things that aren't contained in a list would be self-negating, so does "first uninteresting number" which is, in turns interesting. Logically how are they treated? Thanks. --antilived^{T | C | G} 10:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is paradox what you want? --Anonymous, May 13, 2007, 10:36 (UTC).

Performative contradiction? Self-refuting idea? Skarioffszky 11:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A list of things not in a certain list are in a list of their own. These are therefore not self negating. Could be a list of negatives. All negatives + all positives = the whole thing. (A + !A =1) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.110.7.232 (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Douglas Hofstadter in Gödel, Escher, Bach uses the word heterological, so as to ask compactly, "Is heterological heterological?". —Tamfang 18:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might find Russell's paradox equally interesting, or unsettling. --TotoBaggins 18:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that we are beset with these things for precisely the same reason that formal reasoning systems are beset by Godel's theorem. Any system with sufficient expressive power to be useful is somehow required to produce paradoxes and other nastinesses.

One that bothers me is one that came up in real life a few years ago. I owed my sister a free lunch (I lost a bet)...

Me: "What day do you want me to buy you lunch? It's got to be sometime this week."
My Sister: "Any day this week - turn up where I work at noon - surprise me!"

...It sounds easy - but logically it's not. In fact it's logically impossible to surprise anyone within a finite number of days if you have to appear at an exact time. Suppose the last day of the week is Friday. If I havn't bought her lunch by Thursday lunchtime, then I've blown it because she'll KNOW I'll be dropping in on Friday to get her lunch in order to fulfill my promise. So Friday wouldn't be at all surprising so it's out of the question. But then the same problem happens on Thursday too. She knows I won't be doing it on Friday - so if I havn't bought her lunch by Wednesday, she'll know it'll have to be Thursday because Friday wouldn't be a surprise. So Thursday isn't a surprise either...proceeding back along the week, we discover that there isn't a single day that would truly be a surprise. You just can't do it. What gives?! SteveBaker 00:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like one of Zeno's paradoxes. dr.ef.tymac 01:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's the paradox of the unexpected hanging. --Anonymous, May 16, 04:24 (UTC).

UK Parliamentary Sessions.

Given that 5 years is the maximum period a UK Parliament may persist before a General Election is called; and given that in most cases, the Government of the day usually has a majority of the Members elected to the House of Commons; and further given that the UK has no codified or written Constitution that could prevent the following actions; what is to stop such a Government from immediately voting itself into Office indefinitely, or until, say, enough of its Members died and were replaced by Opposition Members at the subsequent By-Elections so as to remove the aforementioned Majority? I appreciate that the Sovereign of the day could in theory dismiss that Parliament, but such a Government bent on securing its permanence would merely vote for the Sovereign to abdicate? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.145.241.248 (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Such actions would be so unpopular that they would likely face revolt from the citizens and the military. Knowing this, few MPs would be willing to take such a risk. StuRat 17:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two things. One, a government can't "vote itself into office". MPs are elected by the public, and once Parliament is dissolved they can't go back into Parliament and vote on anything - the Queen can have the building sealed by troops if it were necessary to protect democracy. Second, a "vote" does not make something a law: the Queen signing the Act makes it a law. So in this case, if the government were to vote that the Queen abdicate, she could fail to sign the Act of Abdication, making it not lawful. The main reason the monarchy exists these days is to preserve democracy, and the sovereign's powers (albeit never used) are greater than may be realized.

What's more, forcing an abdication is not the same thing as abolishing the monarchy. Even if it were possible to force the Queen to abdicate, Charles would become King and then what? Go through the list until you have a minor? --Charlene 18:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When the 5 years has expired, it's possible that the Prime Minister might decline to advise the queen to dissolve the parliament and call a General Election. I don't know the UK technicalities, but there would surely be some alternative mechanism preventing a parliament from being continued indefinitely. At the very least, the queen could simply refuse to give Royal Assent to any "laws" passed by such a body, thus rendering their deliberations pointless. JackofOz 22:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's really much that could prevent a majority government from turning into a dictatorship. Note that there was no general election between 1935 and 1945 -- the government of the time decided simply to delay the election until the bombs stopped falling. Same thing happened in World War I, when there was a gap of more than seven years between elections. Nowadays, UK parliamentary supremacy is limited by European law, but a British dictatorship could simply decide to leave the EU. If the Queen objected, as Jack says, Parliament theoretically could abolish the monarchy, as it did in 1649. If the Queen objected, it could lead to a constitutional crisis and civil war, as in the 17th century. -- Mwalcoff 22:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the end, the Queen is in theoretical control - she's an absolute monarch and she can do whatever she damned well likes. However, in practical terms, it's down to whether the armed forces, the civil service and the police would stand with her or with whatever government existed. If these paliamentarians were physically restrained by the police (or whatever security there is around the parliament buildings) - they would find it pretty hard to govern. In theory these forces swear allegience to the Queen and NOT to the government - so what she says goes...in theory. Whether the army would side with her in a constitutional crisis like this is quite unclear. I suspect they would stick with the side that was most obviously "in the right" - which would likely be with the Queen if the government were doing something underhand such as you describe. However, if the Queen started misbehaving (eg making dictatorial edicts and refusing to sign laws) - then I doubt she'd stay in command for very long. We Brits are a pragmatic people - I think the mere threat of this kind of upset is enough to ensure that nobody would try anything like that. SteveBaker 23:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So why not cut through all the endless possibilities discussed above and have a written Constitution with deadline election dates that are not at the whim of the incumbent Prime Minister? Isn't that the protection afforded by the US Constitution to US Democracy and Citizenry? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.145.241.242 (talk) 09:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Firstly, the existing system is more flexible (eg, no elections during wartime already mentioned). Secondly, a written constitution, like the current system, is only any use as long as everybody obeys the rules; nothing is "guaranteed" just because it's written down. Thirdly - as I'm sure you're aware with the various controversies surrounding the US constitution - a written constitution doesn't always say what you think it might say, so there might still be disagreements about whether particular actions are constitutional or not. FiggyBee 09:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, FiggyBee, as an Australian (you, not me, I am British), can I take it that you are saying an unwritten Constitution is more expedient, pragmatic, and preferable to a written one, which in the latter case, I had always thought to be a more definitive anchor-point than a moveable feast? It would surely take a brave and foolish parliamentarian to suggest extending the life of a parliament beyond its usual term as defined in a written Constitution (except in times of national emergency), whereas in the British (unwritten)case, such a suggestion would be congenially received and debated objectively without rancour? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.145.241.68 (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The British "constitution" is a generally accepted set of rules. A great many four-inch thick books have been written on the subject - yet it's not written down anywhere formally. This is useful on many levels. Firstly we don't have ridiculously obsolete stuff (like the "right to bear arms" in the US constitution) that's almost impossible to get rid of - and we don't have people reading the fine print and finding ways around it - because there isn't any fine print. The grief that the right to "Freedom of Speech" has caused in the US is amazing. The right to stand on a street corner and tell people how you feel without having to worry about getting arrested for saying it - has been gradually extended to include "The right of big corporations to spend millions of dollars on advertising to get a particular person into government office"!! That kind of incremental creep can't happen when something isn't written down - the government may simply pass a law that says "Big corporations can't do that" -

and providing the Queen signs it (which she always does) - nobody can invalidate the law because "it's unconstitutional". When something happens that would be clearly covered by a written constitution (eg when the reigning king decides to marry an American divorcee) - we have to figure out what to do about it. However, the sheer force of hundreds of years of tradition means that nobody is going to even consider not having an election when they are supposed to. It's an odd set up - but it does seem to work pretty well in practice - not many countries in the world have as little internal strife and upheaval as the Brits. SteveBaker 23:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Steve. I am comforted and persuaded by your argument. Perhaps you should consider being a Parliamentarian. 81.145.242.9 08:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The right of self-defense is obsolete, and the monarchy isn't? —Tamfang 22:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify -- the American First Amendment does not allow corporations to spend millions of dollars on electoral campaigns. In fact, corporations cannot contribute a single penny to federal electoral campaigns under the Federal Election Campaign Act. The Supreme Court OK'd this in the case Buckley v. Valeo. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 expanded the definition of "electioneering communications" to include any ad mentioning a candidate shortly before the election. The courts have always held that governments can impose "reasonable time, place and manner restrictions" on speech -- for example, to prohibit anti-abortion demonstrators from getting within 36 feet of a clinic or to prevent loud political demonstrations late at night. A better criticism is the fuzziness of American constitutional law gives broad power to (usually) unelected judges to decide what's OK and what isn't. -- Mwalcoff 00:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mwalcoff, can I bring you back to "Note that there was no general election between 1935 and 1945 -- the government of the time decided simply to delay the election until the bombs stopped falling. Same thing happened in World War I, when there was a gap of more than seven years between elections." I was aware these parliaments continued for longer than normal, but can you or anyone enlighten me on the process? Was the monarch of the day consulted? Did the parliament have to pass any special law allowing it to continue beyond 5 years? What would have happened had the bombs continued falling for, say, 20 years? JackofOz 00:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In 1940, they passed a "Prolongation of Parliament Act" to postpone the election. The same thing happened under a different name in 1916. I don't know how much debate there was; you'll have to do more research on that on your own, I guess. As for what would have happened had WWII continued, that's a question for counterfactual history. It could have been like in Jordan, which had no elections from 1967 to 1989 because of the upheaval caused by the loss of the West Bank. Taiwan had no elections between 1948 and 1969 because the government in Taipei was waiting to get the rest of China back. On the other hand, the United States had elections in 1864 (during the Civil War) and in 1814 (just weeks after the burning of Washington, D.C.). -- Mwalcoff 02:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so it was an act of parliament. I just couldn't quite believe that it was as simple as "the government decided simply to delay the election". Thanks for the clarification. JackofOz 03:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So in other words, it was a legislative rather than an executive action. But there's not as much difference as you might think. Remember that in the British system, the government -- which in this sense corresponds to the US usage "administration" -- only exists as long as it retains the confidence of a majority of Parliament. But that also means that they can pass pretty much any legislation they see fit, unless it's something so outrageous that party members start rebelling and they risk losing their majority. And the monarch will sign it. The adversarial situation between the cabinet and the legislature that can occur in the US does not happen in the British system. (Naturally, proponents of each system see that difference as an advantage of the one they prefer.) --Anonymous, May 16, 2007, 04:34 (UTC).

I'm certainly well aware of the Westminster system and the separation of powers principle, both of which apply in Australia. When the UK parliaments were extended in 1916 and 1940, there were no life peerages. Most of the members of the House of Lords had inherited their peerages from their fathers, and only a small proportion had been created the 1st Viscount, 1st Earl, 1st Baron etc. The political allegiances of the peers who had inherited their peerages varied considerably (I'm talking about the ones who bothered to attend parliamentary sessions and contribute to debates). The UK government, which by definition always controls the Commons, could not in those days necessarily assume the support of the Lords for any particular piece of legislation. They could not "pass pretty much any legislation they see fit". This was one of the reasons why the power of the Lords to block legislation inimical to their generally aristocratic interests was curtailed. -- JackofOz 05:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

US prepay cell phone by internet

I'm shortly visiting friends in the US, and it would be handy to have a cell phone there (my GSM phone isn't triband). I was hoping to have a super-cheapie phone from TracFone Wireless delivered to my friend's home. But TracFone's online order system won't take a non-us billing address for the credit card. Do any of TracFone's prepaid competitors also have a web-store I could try? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 16:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not have your friend buy it for you on their credit card (and you can pay them back) ? Alternatively you can just buy one from a store, once you arrive in the US, and pay cash. Since the phone will be useless once you go home, you can also leave it with your friends to use up the remaining minutes. StuRat 16:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ickyackymore

This word means the spot of reflected light from a small mirror or watch-glass etc. I had come to realise that it was a word only known to our family, but then my daughter googled it, and found it in the writings of Robyn Coburn with precisely the same definition, and thought by her to only be known in her family. There is no known connection between our families. Is the word known to anyone else?Tony farg 18:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever it's worth, it's not in my copy of the Oxford English Dictionary, though I have the old edition. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stand by for lots of speculation. A fascinating archaic dialectical word is acker also spelt aiker meaning a ripple on water and it is related to cats-paw a word with a similar meaning. Now combine these words with little often in babyish talk pronounced something like ickle and when words like this are combined there pronunciations alsoblend to allow them to fit together nicely. So littlecatspaw and littleacker meaning a little ripple or reflection may end up as twinkling reflection in these more modern less seafairing times. If you want to research your shared etymological heritage with someone else the obvious thing to look at is where your ancestors lived but also their trades are important areas for slang: have you got a shared naval heritage? Also these kind of unique, cherished family words are often much more common then they seem but they are no longer confined to villages as they once were and are now diffused. A good word is hard to make and the chances are it has a common root but it has coasted under the radar of the lexicographers. meltBanana 04:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Melt, thats fascinating, I'd like to find out more. To me it has the sound of a childs folk rhyme or counting game, which do often easily become attached to other peripheral phenomena eg tic tac toe. Mhicaoidh 08:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble with words like that is that the spelling is going to be hard to pin down - the word probably hasn't been written down anywhere formally for generations - so you wouldn't know how to spell it even if it was in the dictionary somewhere. My wife and her family (who are French with French/Algerian roots) always say a word that sounds to me like "ransafaranek" whenever they roll a dice or get a lottery ticket or something. It's a plea for good luck, I guess. None of them know where they heard it - none of them have ever heard anyone outside of the family say it - they don't know what it means or how it's spelled. It's a big family - and even quite distant cousins, aunts and uncles say it. We may never know! SteveBaker 23:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, melt. As far as I know, the word was known only by my own father's children...not to his sister's children. Therefore it does not seem to be 'ancestral' for our family. Robyn Coburn (American)believes it to be similar, and invented by her mother who was Australian. Between the two of us we cannot find any relationship nor common ground in terms of seafaring, work, residence, or anything else. Her parents were stage performers...in fact her mum and dad(from Cologne) were the interval act in the world tour of the Harlem Globe Trotters, doing juggling on a high wire. My dad was a contract switchgear engineer and my (Irish)mum was a teacher. Neither of them so far as I know ever went to see the HGT's nor left the North of England in the years when I learned this word.

As regards spelling...yes, there are variations in our family. One of my sisters thinks it was 'ickyackymo'. The others agree with my spelling, as does Robyn C. Whatever the etymology, I am still fascinated (not to say obsessed!) by the apparent simultaneous invention of the word by 2 people. Tony farg86.138.176.1 07:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tac10

On various gymnastic online stores, I have found cleaners for Tac10 surfaces, i tried to find out what Tac10 is, but all I've found is a balance beam coated in Tac10.

Maddiekate 20:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a proprietary fabric used to cover gymnastics equipment. It's slightly tacky and prevents the user's hands from slipping, but because it's tacky it can become dirty quickly. I can't find out at this moment who manufactures it. --Charlene 21:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expected life time of a sweet gum tree

I have a 40 year old sweet gum tree that is about 60 feet tall and has been in good health until this year. There are no leaves growing on about half of the branches, especially the lower branches. Does anyone know about the normal life time of these trees? Is the tree dying of old age or disease? I cannot find the answer in reference material.

This site [5] says that American Sweetgums (I'm assuming you're in the US? Many Wikipedians aren't) normally live 150 to 300 years. Edited to add: for diseases common to sweetgums, see List of sweetgum diseases. --Charlene 21:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Yes I am in the U. S.

Replanting Lilacs

How would I plant a new lilac bush/tree from an already existing one? I have one in my yard, and want to have a new one closer to the house. Do I just cut off a flower and bury it or is there a more complex process? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.117.135.99 (talk) 22:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Burying the flowers will do nothing to help you. Lilac bushes/trees grow sucker shoots. You will see them around the base of the main trunk, and they have leaves on them just like a lilac tree. Dig around one of these young suckers until you find its own root system. Detach the sucker and its roots from the main trunk, and replant. This is the time of year to be doing this, so good luck. If you go to Lilac and click on the photo of the White cultivar so that you get the enlarged version, you will see that the "bush" is really a whole collection of individual shoots that have been left to proliferate in one place. Bielle 22:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles

I am checking to find out why a articel that I created on an American author named Joseph Alexander Suchorski was deleated according to the information below.

01:22, 13 May 2007 CambridgeBayWeather (Talk | contribs) deleted "Joseph Alexander Suchorski" (CSD A7: Unremarkable People, Groups, Companies and Web Content)

It states that Joseph Alexander Suchorskiarticle was deleated because he is unremarkable people. Joseph Alexander Suchorski is an American Author from Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

I want to know why Wikipedia has an article about actress Heather Graham from Milwaukee, Wisconsin and they find her important? But this American Author from Milwaukee, Wisconsin wikipedia does not find him important.

Sincerely, Mark K. Johnson—Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkKJohnson1976 (talk • contribs)

<email removed for security purposes> Rockpocket 06:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:V, WP:N, WP:5, and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Feba (talk • contribs) 00:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

One indication might be that "Heather Graham" has over 1.5 million Google hits, while "Joseph Alexander Suchorski" has only 4 hits, all of which appear to be part of his family tree/generalogy, not dealing with him as a famous author. StuRat 00:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Googling "Joseph Suchorski" does bring up more hits. 7, actually. Including his website with 141 hits so far. Aaadddaaammm 05:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WP:CSD#A7 - the criterion under which it was deleted - suggests it was because the article did "not assert the importance or significance of its subject". That means that the article did not even claim the author was notable enough to have his own article. Having reviewed the deleted content, I can tell you that is indeed the case. The only mention of his significance as an author is:

Joseph wrote his 1st book called Knights & Castles in 1991 at Rawson Elementary School as a school project. Joseph is currently finishing up writing his latest book called The Fear Factory which should be out by the end of 2007.

To assert significance or notability, one should demonstrate the author has published a book, not just written one (in elementary school). Though I do hope his forthcoming epic The Zombie Zone [6] does get published, as it sounds like my sort of book. Rockpocket 06:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some of the guidelines for deciding whether an author is worthy of a Wikipedia article:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
The person's work either (a) has been displayed in a significant exhibition or as a monument (b) has won significant critical attention, or (c) is represented within the permanent collection of a significant gallery or museum of more than local significance.

The guidelines are even more particular for living people - we have to be more careful with living people because of the risk for lawsuites!

I strongly suspect this author fits none of those criteria. If they do - then you need to say so. If there are citations of his work - point them out in the article. If his work is novel in some earthshaking way - say why. But more likely than not - this is a typical self-promoting vanity article - which Wikipedia truly doesn't need. SteveBaker 00:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]