Miscellaneous desk
< November 10	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 12 >

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 11

My School

Gahh I cant convince any of my teachers at school that Wikipedia is a vaild site to gather info on they said,"Retards and Dumbutts change things on that webstite too screw suckers like you up"(Are english techer said that seriously) then i asked if we were allowed to use any site with the words Wiki infront of the site name and i got ISS, FOR 3 WEEKS. What do i do to convice them its a vaild site when they ignore me?4.240.54.208 Hate school —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.240.54.208 (talk) 00:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it isnt a valid site to use. Wikipedia is a faluire becuase of its core polocy:That anymone can edit it. Try citizumdum or something like that. Its an off shoot of wikipedia but im prett sure all the pages are fact checked by experts. Eskater11 02:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try this. Two important things to remember are that all of the old versions at a page still exist in the history, So Vandals never actuary destroy information, and that all encyclopedias are only intended for reference. Even The big name printed ones contain errors.--APL 02:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try use the references in the article as your sources, not Wikipedia. Generally tertiary sources such as encyclopaedia are not suitable sources in general, and it's better to track down better sources using Wikipedia than outright listing Wikipedia as a source. --antilived^{T | C | G} 03:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia can be used educationally - but with care. I don't think the complaint that vandalism makes it useless is a reasonable one. There are errors in all encyclopedias and the number of errors in Wikipedia (despite vandalism) is about the same as 'big name' paper encyclopedias like Encyclopedia Britannica - and much better than other online encyclopedias like Encarta. Vandalism is easy to spot in almost every case. If the article on George Washinton says "George Washington was SO gay - just like Nigel." ...then you can be pretty sure it's vandalism. You can use the 'history' mechanism to look back at a version of the article from a day or two earlier - it's exceptionally unusual for vandalism to remain in an article for more than a day or two - so if you can see that a fact was added in the last few hours - then you should probably ignore it. So in that regard, there should be no more problems with Wikipedia than with Britannica. However, the problem with both Wikipedia and Britannica is that we are both 'secondary sources' - we report only what other books say - we don't add any new knowledge. The correct way to use any encyclopedia is to read around a subject, get a good overall view of it - then use the references in the articles to look up the relevent primary sources - which you ought to be able to find in a decent library. These primary sources are what you should be using in reports and essays at school. In my opinion, teachers should realise that Wikipedia is a MAJOR part of our modern world of knowledge. It is rapidly becoming the one source of all human knowledge - give it 10 years and I think it'll be recognised as being the biggest improvement in human knowledge collection since the invention of the library. Teachers need to teach kids how to use Wikipedia - not simply tell them to ignore it.

For example: I have consulted Wikipedia three times this evening. The first time, my kid said that he wanted to see the new movie "Sweeny Todd" - I explained that I knew the plot, that it was a very old story - but I wasn't sure if it was rooted in fact. 20 seconds later - we knew the answer (it dates back to the 1800's and it's almost certainly pure fiction). Then, I was listening to a CD-book about Einstein on the way home yesterday and I wanted to check something about Bose-Einstein condensates...again, Wikipedia had the answer. Then, thirdly, I needed to check my own article on the Mini in order to answer a question from a friend in my local car club about the Australian Mini Coopers. These are all things that I could never have figured out before - even with a $1500 copy of Britannica - there is simply no way.

But I most certainly wouldn't use Wikipedia's coverage for writing a scientific paper or a class paper. For that, I'd consult Wikipedia to find out what references were provided and head off to the library to track them down so I could read the original material. Actually, with Google Books, it's becoming possible to find a lot of that stuff without a trip to the library - but using Wikipedia to find a useful book is a HUGE help.

So teachers need to teach valid research techniques using Wikipedia (and the entire Internet for that matter) - putting their heads in the sand and hoping it'll just go away is very, very short-sighted.

SteveBaker 03:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was the best answer i have ever seen steve. Im almost about to give you a barnstar for it. Eskater11 03:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One excellent example of why Wikipedia shouldn't generally be taken on face value is our article on The Upper Peninsula War. Remove the big purple tag from the top and I doubt many would think anything out of the usual was going on with the article. If it hadn't been rumbled early on (back before the tag), I have a feeling we'd've woken up to see it in national papers farther down the line. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 06:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But you are missing the point that it ISN'T any longer a part of the encyclopedia (it's a user page) and it does indeed have a big purple tag on the top. Your reaction is "OMG! This terrible thing can happen!" - but it ought to be "Wow! Even a really cleverly designed fake will be found out and removed quite quickly." - this is the strength of Wikipedia - not a weakness. Also, we are not the only ones who suffer from this. One infamous example of this was the 1975 New Columbia Encyclopedia which contained a completely fictitious entry on "Lillian Virginia Mountweazel" that survived through two subsequent reprintings before it was caught and removed. SteveBaker 14:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're a tertiary source by the way --⁪ffroth 19:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You will never get your teachers to accept wikipedia as a valid site for research. If you are looking up something in general, than sure, you could probably use it. Like the Four moods or temperaments. I had no idea what they were, so I checked here and they gave me good explanations that helped a lot. But you definitely cannot use Wikis for a paper or cite it.

online games not intended as games

Many sites have online games [1]. In contrast, some sites are used as "games" although not intended as such, is this not so? I'm wondering if there is a list of "online games" somewhere that enumerates this latter kind of "online game".

For example, imagine if there were a game called plant that phrase where players take turns generating arbitrary word sequences, (such as, "ye shall be my concubine", or "thereupon envisaged") and then go off and try to find a Wikipedia article where that phrase fits. Players get points for phrase length, number of days remaining in the article, and other things.

Obviously, such a "game" is contrary to the purpose of a site like Wikipedia, but I bet there has to be someone out there who knows of the existence of many such "games". Anyone know if my hunch is correct? dr.ef.tymac 00:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sam~ from the first sentence im guessing such game woud be a advergameChild Unit Sam 21:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC) 4.240.54.208 (talk) 01:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google can be used for entertainment.Google Wack is my favorite, but see also [these].--APL 02:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a very vague recollection that something almost exactly similar used to happen on wikipedia. I think it was something to do with inserting completely innocuous changes into articles and earning points based on how strange you can make the wording, and how long it lasts. There was a Wikipedia-namespace article for it, but IIRC it was deleted to discourage people from trying it --⁪ffroth 19:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a totally innocuous (and mildly fun) game that can be played on Wikipedia. A player is given a random starting page (assigned using the random article button) and a goal page (chosen in the same manor). The goal is to get from the start page to the goal page as fast as possible using only in article links. Portals pages and categories are banned. Several players can compete for the lowest time, but the game is also quit addictive played solo. --S.dedalus 08:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are actually tunes of games people play on Wikipedia. Check this site out. There are many more. Check this Google search.--S.dedalus 08:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Epsom salt in Meth

Dear Wikipedia contributors, Which method(s) of producing methamphetamines, such as Birch Reduction methods and Red-P method, requires the use of Epsom salt 71.18.216.110 04:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no experience with methamphetamine synthesis, but from the instructions available online, it seems like Epsom salt is only used as a drying agent (the anhydrous form). So Epsom salt (MgSO₄) in particular isn't important; you could also use CaCl₂ or NaOH or some other desiccant. —Keenan Pepper 05:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This question has been removed. Per the reference desk guidelines, the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment recommendations. For such advice, please see a qualified professional. If you don't believe this is such a request, please explain what you meant to ask, either here or on the Reference Desk's talk page. please don't ask for illegal advice such as how to make drugs, thank you

--User:Mulligan's Wake (unsigned)

That's lame. They didn't ask for how to make drugs, they were curious about the procedure. There are many legitimate reasons someone might want to know at the chemistry of meth labs; I had a guy in my building who I suspected was making meth on the side and it was useful to be able to look up the chemicals involved before I went forward with serious accusations, etc. And this sort of question isn't exactly going to tell someone how to do it, anyway. In any case, Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored. Ease up, self-appointed representatives of censorship. --24.147.86.187 17:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not illegal to ask, tell or know about methods of chemical synthesis. DuncanHill 17:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honey dipper

Does anyone know why the honey dipper has this particular shape? Keria 17:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It provides the maximim possible surface area for the honey to stick to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveBaker (talk • contribs) 18:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Common English football/soccer chant

I've heard this tune sung many times while watching football on tv but could never make out the lyrics or where the tune came from. Here's a video I found of some fans chanting it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_7COcsadjI

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.195.96 (talk) 17:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's "Papa's Got A Brand New Pigbag" by Pigbag. Foxhill 17:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I was referring to the chant after that, in the second half of the video. But thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.195.96 (talk) 06:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's this:

And it's [insert name of team]... [name again] F.C.
We're by far the greatest/finest [varies] team
The world has ever seen

The team in the video is difficult to work out (not sure what stadium it is, either). Could be Watford F.C.'s name. Short team names don't work very well in the chant - four syllables are ideal and Watford's measly two might account for the garbled name. Then again, the second time the name is sung it doesn't sound much like "Watford" at all.

NB The objective accuracy of the description "by far the greatest team/The world has ever seen" is never an issue when this song is sung. --Dweller 07:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's Wolverhampton Wand'rers, trying to fit the name to the scan! -- Arwel (talk) 21:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wonder which is worse, 2 syllables or 7? Norwich City, btw, is just about perfect. At least that's one thing NCFC is good at. --Dweller 22:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right the second tune is the chorus to The Wild Rover, popular wherever 3 or 4 or more inebriated people may be congregating. Foxhill 20:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Olympics

When will chessboxing become an olympic sport? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.128.148 (talk) 18:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Impossible to predict without speculating. It would need considerably more global appeal first. --Dweller 07:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

xenophobia

in the u. s. this isn't a big issue...anymore. but if i wanted to emigrate, where would the natives hate me the most —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.128.148 (talk) 18:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that would depend on who you are. If you're a member of the fur people, don't move to Sudan. If you're a nazi, don't think of immigrating to Germany- you'll not be well-recieved. --⁪ffroth 19:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

France has a reputation for anti-Americanism, but I think North Korea has it beat in that regard. -- Mwalcoff 22:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought the US is one of the most xenophobic developed countries... --antilived^{T | C | G} 00:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Full disclosure - I've lived in the U.S. almost all of my life). United States#Demographics says "The United States has a very diverse population — thirty-one ancestry groups have more than a million members." and "As of 2004, 12 percent of the U.S. population was foreign-born." That means that about one in eight people in the U.S. came from a different country. Most stereotypes are built upon a caricature of an extreme. In this case, it seems fair to say that the stereotype does not fit the facts. There is some prejudice left in the U.S. but with one in eight being foreign-born I think it is safe to say that the U.S. as a whole isn't really that xenophobic. 152.16.59.190 04:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think one in eight is that much compared to other rich countries, I'd say it is average. --Taraborn 09:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt you'd be popular in some middle eastern countries either. To be honest in the UK we quite like americans as individuals but have problems with the actions of your leaders and government. Exxolon 22:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plus sign

I have heard the claim that in some Israeli schools a symbol similar to an inverted T is used to represent addition, rather than the usual plus sign (+). Is this a myth or correct? /Yuslo 20:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean ⊥? Table_of_mathematical_symbols says it can mean Perpendicular, Greatest element, or Comparability --⁪ffroth 20:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's in Unicode as HEBREW LETTER ALTERNATIVE PLUS SIGN. But that's all I know about it. -- BenRG 01:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's discussed on the talk page of the article on plus and minus signs, but apparently it was removed from the main article for lack of verification. — Michael J 07:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know from personal experience that this is indeed true. Jon513 15:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Authentic Nautica jacket?

Last week, I bought a Nautica windbreaker/jacket from a discount store near my house. It was discounted heavily and I am wondering if I bought an authentic Nautica jacket or a counterfeit? Are there any tests I can perform or things I should look for? --Blue387 22:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compare it to the same product from a reputable supplier? I guess you could maybe try using it within the boundaries of what they claim (i'm assuming they have things like 'works up to minus X degrees). ny156uk 23:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The company might be able to tell you some common characteristics of knock-off copies. Common give aways are typos and grammar errors on the labelling, bad or missing stitching on normally non-visible areas, and so on, but these give no indication as to the quality of fabric used in the manufacturing. Steewi 01:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tank explosions

I'm a fan of the Call of Duty series and during the game whenever a tank is shot of bombed the top of the turrert always seems to go like 20 feet in the air and seperates from the actual track. Is this that actual way a tank would react and if not how do they actualy react. Eskater11 23:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean that the turret separates from the rest of the tank and goes airborne? Depending on how the tank is damaged, yes, this can happen. It certainly doesn't always happen, and the frequency probably varies by tank model. This sort of damage typically results from an attack detonating the ammunition stored in the turret. — Lomn 19:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably coded into the game to make it clear the tank is destroyed. In real life it's possible to take out a tank with little apparant external physical sign, for instance if you hit it with an antitank weapon which doesn't penetrate fully but causes the interior to spall and chop the crew into mincemeat. The tank will simply stop moving with not much external evidence of that. Exxolon 22:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to remember reading that the classic Soviet tanks (eg T-54) tended to do this. The turret ring was weaker than on most tanks and so an internal explosion tended to pop it off. 81.2.81.111 22:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which country has the biggest dick?

I was depressed to learn that my favorite phallic monument, the Washington Monument, is actually considerably shorter than France's equally phallic Eiffel Tower. And suddenly I needed to know- what country could boast that it has the world's largest penis? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CN Tower in Toronto, Canada, until the Burj Dubai is completed in 2008, that is. Bielle 00:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the incomplete structure in Dubai has already overtaken the CN Tower. --Anon, 03:52, November 12.

Oh, I don't know. Girth counts at least as much as ~~length~~ height, so I say it's the USA with the Vehicle Assembly Building. --Milkbreath 00:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is quite a choad... --antilived^{T | C | G} 00:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No offense or anything, but I'm tired of people considering every tall, thin structure to be phallic. The Washington Monument doesn't look like a penis. It looks like a toothpick. The Eiffel Tower doesn't look like a penis. The CN Towner doesn't look like a penis.

THIS is what a penis looks like. The top, anyway. (SFW) -- Mwalcoff 02:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a giant phallus, or rather something goes on top of a giant phallus. Also, the cylinder in the head quarter of Fuji Latex is supposed to be a giant phallus is well. --antilived^{T | C | G} 03:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The United States can probably boast the most powerful Dick in the world. FiggyBee 03:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be forgetting what one great philosopher referred to as "America's wang." - Eron^Talk 16:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]