Miscellaneous desk
< December 17	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 19 >

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.

December 18

Wikipedia and plagiarism

I'm not sure if this would be more suited to the helpdesk, but hopefully someone can help or point me in the right direction. As a undergraduate student, we're always lectured on plagiarism and correct referencing. Without starting a debate on citing Wikipedia, what would happen if (for instance) I wrote an article on Wikipedia, and also used this in an essay I was writing (word-for-word). Obviously, it was me that wrote it in the first place, and this can be proven through the page history - but how does the licensing work in terms of my writing? As soon as it is published, does it become a collaborative effort regardless of the contribution, and as such would constitute plagiarism if my essay was found to be an exact copy?

I hope this is clear - a friend and I have discussed this at length over many a beer and I thought I'd better get a proper answer! [ cycle~ ] (talk), 01:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are the sole author of the article text, then there's no legal issue and plagiarism does not arise. You have licensed your text to wikipedia through the GFDL but you retain the ability to use it yourself without hindrance. You cannot plagiarise your own work. As soon as the article is edited by another person, it becomes more difficult ... if you copy it in toto at this point, you should follow the GFDL licence despite being the author of 99% of the content, and you are now plagiarising though to a minimal extent (or to the extent to which the article has been changed by others). --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it IS possible to plagiaries oneself under strict academic ethics conventions! See Plagiarism#Self-plagiarism. However the article points out that: “As compared to plagiarism, self-plagiarism is not yet very well-regulated. Some universities and editorial boards choose to not regulate it at all; those consider the term self-plagiarism oxymoronic since a person cannot be accused of stealing from themselves.” However to be safe and ethical you should certainly site any previous use of your own text, if only to avoid confusion. --S.dedalus (talk) 02:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the idea of citing sources is to avoid ambiguity. In any writing, either a) The ideas in the writing are completely unique to that particular work or b) they are paraphrased from somewhere else. If it is case b, even if that somewhere else is your own prior but seperate work, it is good form to cite that work. Again, it removes ambiguity over the source of the information (i.e. is this new information or did this come from somewhere else). --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ask your professor/teacher; he/she may or may not be willing to accept something "self-plagiarized." · AndonicO ^Engage. 03:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've occasionally improved articles as I've had to write something on that topic. When I do I always send the prof a note that I'm using it as an opportunity to fix/clean up the Wikipedia article. That way there's no misunderstanding. I've never had any complaint from anyone about this. In general, talk to the professor and see what they say. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of bringing up an old and over-discussed topic, the self-plagiarism is part of the reason why many teachers and professors don't like the notion of citing WP in class. As an undergraduate, you're generally expected to base your work on refereed sources and the results of experiments. As WP is not explicity peer-reviewed, and often edited by undergraduates like yourself, they won't consider it a reliable source. Your professor would likely not mark you down for plagiarism, but rather for relying on imperfect sources. If you wrote the article, you probably (we hope) sourced the information from another academic source. You should be citing them in your work.

On the other hand, if what you're worried about is the wording (i.e. you wrote the essay and then added portions of it to WP), then yes, it is potentially a source of embarrassment. A good option would be to not update the page until your essay has been marked. If your professor brings it up, the history of the article and proof of your user-name would clear up the issue. Still, it's probably best to reword your work if you're writing an essay on a topic you've written about on WP. It saves embarrassment on one hand, and on the other, the writing style between WP and an essay will likely differ because of the direct topic you're addressing in your essay and the generalist nature of WP articles. Steewi (talk) 01:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean this to sound sexist

I don't know if it's just me (I'm female, by the way), but has anyone ever noticed that when they deal with a woman who's in an authoritative position or has the job of dealing with customers on a daily basis, they tend to be bitchier than their male counterparts? Especially when dealing with other women? I go to a Burger King where there's this particular girl who's incredibly rude and inconsiderate to not just me, but all of her female customers, yet she's practically flirtatious with her male customers. Someone I know had their dad pulled over by a female cop and when she asked for his number and he refused, she got all haughty with him and gave a him ticket he did not deserve (trying to get him on a date was the primary reason he got pulled over). And I could go on about the unfair treatment I've mainly gotten from other women. On TV, you see similar situations. What's up with that? --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 02:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I haven’t noticed that. Perhaps that’s because I’m male, and they’re always too busy flirting with me to be rude. ;) I suppose people are always a bit more inclined to be polite to members of the attractive sex. However this whole issue could easily be an observation based on a few unfortunate personal experiences. The sample size is not very large. Another example of why Wikipedia does not allow OR. --S.dedalus (talk) 03:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Someone I know had their dad pulled over by a female cop and when she asked for his number and he refused, she got all haughty with him and gave a him ticket he did not deserve (trying to get him on a date was the primary reason he got pulled over)" I'm sorry, but I don't believe this story. Besides the fact that she was completely risking her job, How did she decide she wanted to date the guy? He must have had some really clever bumper stickers. APL (talk) 03:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States at least any policeman would certainly know that such a ticket would be easily dismissed in Traffic court anyway. --S.dedalus (talk) 03:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may not believe it, but it's true. And a policeman (or woman) can (and have) given undeserving tickets to drivers for minor violations they never committed based on vindictiveness. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 04:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is evidence that suggests that some high-power women exhibit masculine/predominantly male behaviours - behaviours that, due to our cultural/social expectations, seem inappropriate when displayed by a woman but are 'normal' when displayed by a man. What we expect from a person plays an important role in how we react to their actions. I have worked under 4 female bosses and 2 male - each time my manager has been professional, consistent and what I would consider fair. Like S.dedalus I don't believe the ticket reason - I appreciate that tickets have been given for very little reason - I just think that story sounds like it's been exaggerated by whomever told you. Have you ever in your life driven behind/infront of a car and seen someone and decided "I want to date them"? It's just not realistic - yeah if you were madly in love with someone you might risk your job, but no you don't risk your job over someone you've just seen in a car and thought 'wow they're hot', it just doesn't sound real - I don't disbelieve you were told this, just it doesn't sound realistc. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 08:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Working the in film industry you meet a lot of female production managers and producers, and the thing about the film industry is that it can be extremely stressful and extremely fast-paced, and can teach anybody how tobe come a total asshole. Basically what I think is happening in your examples (and what happens in the film industry and the police industry) is that over time these women are trained to be very assertive and very bossy (in many cases they have to be), in fact many of them have been bossed around by assholes in the past and they start to long for their revenge, so much so that when they finally make it into a managerial position and they see people who are now below them (like they used to be) they will enjoy the opportunity to finally boss them around .. almost like how some children grow up to be their parents. Then, I can consider that either these women relate to men more so they are nicer to them, or because they see their "old" selves in other women they take out that revenge thing and boss them around. In any case I haven't really noticed them being 'nicer' to men - I just see them as being very bossy, highly strung, and very assertive.

Your stereotypical bossy female cop I believe is based on this behaviour - they are in an environment where all their seniors are behaving in this 'bossy' 'bitchy' way (in many cases because they have to) and so they adopt this behaviour and pass it on to the general public.

I hope that offered some insight, even though much of this is just opinion. Rfwoolf (talk) 14:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compton Mackenzie once wrote: "Women do not find it difficult nowadays to behave like men, but they often find it extremely difficult to behave like gentlemen". And he died in 1972. Of course, in the business world, his apophthegm applies equally to men as to women. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a good reason that the term "catty" refers near exclusively to women. Men have their own issues of course. I find a verse in the Bible to be a perfect architype of the sexes: it goes something like let your women not be gossips, and let your men not brawl. Women act catty, men just kick the snot out of each other. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with 194 here. One possibility is you just think their bitchier because you're used to bossy men but not so used to bossy women. From my (limited) experience, people (both men and women) often call a woman a bitch when her behaviour is hardly that bad and yet are far less likely to call a man with similar behavior any names. Indeed these men are sometimes held in reasonably high esteem... Nil Einne (talk) 12:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm female and work at a KFC and I noticed that the female managers tend to be a lot more bossy and critical of me than the male managers. Infact the only managers who ever tell me I'm doing a good job have been mostly the men. --124.254.77.148 (talk) 02:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Helwan (Beretta '51 Brigadier) Pistol Cocking trouble

I'm having a hard time pulling the slide on a Helwan pistol. I can do so, but it does take some effort, and I normally have to pull the slide back and forth a few millimeters repeatedly before I can pull it back all the way. DOes anyone have any idea what the problem is? I'm having no problem removing the slide and breaking down the pistol at all. It hasn't been fired in a while. Thanks, bye. --AtTheAbyss (talk) 05:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning and lubrication? The Beretta M 1951 article might tell you more. Astronaut (talk) 11:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manual v/s Motorized Treadmill

Hi

What are the pros and cons for Manual and Motorized Treadmills and which is suitable for home use.

Thanks 59.165.151.149 (talk) 09:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manual treadmills are cheaper, they provide a small amount of resistance which is similar to running up a slight incline when they are level, and they take up less space, those are the only pros I can think of. Motorized treadmills are slightly more dangerous, since they don't stop when you do, but a manual treadmill isn't going to stop instantaneously. With a manual treadmill you have to keep your hands on the front of the machine to push against the friction in the belt. I used to sell treadmills and no one was ever happy with the manuals, they're difficult to get started and uncomfortable once you get going, also they are almost invariably made cheaply, make sure its maximum weight capacity is sufficient, they felt like they were going to rattle to pieces when I (at about 180 pounds or 80 kilos) even jogged slowly on them. Either of them is suitable for home use, motorized versions range from $100 versions that can fold up and fit in a closet to industrial strength gym versions. Don't get seduced by all the bells and whistles on the top of the line versions, most people never use these features. The best advice I can give is to go to a store and try them out and buy the cheapest one that doesn't feel like its going to shake apart when you use it.-- Mad031683 (talk) 17:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what's wrong with just jogging in place ? StuRat (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you want to go into solitary isolation and do penal punishment? Do something social instead with some exercise thrown in. Like walking or dance or rowing or, well practically anything is better than developing muscles but turning your mind into mush with boredom. You've only one life. Dmcq (talk) 08:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Endorphin rush without leaving the house" would be my answer! Plenty of people find meditative value in solitary exercise, as well. To each their own. --Fullobeans (talk) 09:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not all parts of the world have pleasant weather all year long. APL (talk) 04:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motorbike and Side-car...current

Do any of the big bike manufacturers offer for sale (brand new) motorbike and side-cars? I guess probably not but you never know. I don't want one, just interested in whether they still exist - i've seen lots on tv over the years but never once in real-life. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that I should've looked at side-car, sorry. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Common cold

Removed request for medical advice and excessive original research/medical advice. See discussion page. -- kainaw ™ 20:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St.paul

1. in which language did st.paul write letters . 2.st.paul was arrested and brought in front of three chakravarthy's. what are the names of those chakravarthy's ? anybody can please help me to find these answers . i will be very grateful to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.242.163 (talk) 15:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried our Saint Paul article? Under the "Writings" heading, we find the sentence "The letters are written in Koine Greek". However, I am not familiar with the word chakravarthy. -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming "chakravarthy" means some kind of official, the article explains that Paul dealt with several Roman officials. They include an cohort commander in Jerusalem (Claudius Lysias), the procurator of Judea (M. Antonius Felix), and his successor (Porcius Festus). (See Acts, chapters 22 - 24) --- OtherDave (talk) 17:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chakravarti is a term used in Indian religions for the ideal monarch and literally means one who rolls (or rolls with) the wheel (of truth). I have never come across the term outside of that context.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geolocate on the IP: INDIA, DELHI. That may explain your problem, Shantavira. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About any possible harm of Iron supplements tablets

Some local press reports stated that Ferrous sulfate tablets or capsules that a piece of magnet can attract is extremely harmful. Is there any truth in it? Do such tablets or capsules get attracted by magnet? Or, does such magnetic attraction show poor composites and resultant harm? 59.91.253.101 (talk) 16:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The more common problems are listed in that article. As for magnetic attraction, it would only be an issue if you just took a tablet before going near an extremely powerful magnetic field, such as the one used in an MRI machine. Do they have a precaution against this ? StuRat (talk) 17:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magnetic attraction could indicate a higher amount of iron in the capsule than is expected. If the news reports where in the context of a recall on the supplements then this could be a test to determine if you have the bad pills. Too much ferrous sulfate can cause iron poisoning so this may be the danger they are referring to. Just guessing... -- Mad031683 (talk) 18:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too much iron may cause you to get overwrought. ;-) 86.4.182.202 (talk) 23:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're a bit rusty at puns. :-) StuRat (talk) 18:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMO it seems that it would be very easy for people to confuse "danger of magnets" with "danger of magnetic material". a typical case is when a child swallows several small magnets: these can attach to each other across loops of intestine, and without surgery can perforate the intestine

st.paul

st.paul was arrested and brought in front of three empire's. what are the names of those empire's ? anybody can please help me to find these answers . i will be very grateful to them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.251.252 (talk) 16:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I gave a partial answer to your earlier question, above. You now seem to be asking about three emperors, though, not simply local officials. As a Roman citizen, Paul had a right to appeal to Caesar, who was the only "real" emperor in the Roman world. However, the word "emperor" comes from the Latin imperator, which also had the sense of "commander" or "giver of orders." So a local governor could be seen as a kind of commander, but not an emperor in the modern political sense. --- OtherDave (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Book of Acts. He stood before Felix, Festus, and, um, I don't know any others offhand; you could try reading a few chapters of Acts. Unfortunately, the above mentioned book ended before the story was really finished: he was imprisoned at that point. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This question was asked a third time below. I answered it there in detail. IN brief, Paul is tried after his arrest on four (not 3) seperate occasions, and the officiants were High Priest Ananias of the Sanhedrin, two local Roman governors (Felix and Festus), and King Agrippa II of the Jews. He asks to be transfered to Rome for a trial before Caesar. He is sent to Rome for that purpose, but there is no reliable evidence, in the bible or anywhere else, what happens to Paul after arriving in Rome. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the purpose of apartment doormen (e.g. NYC)?

Are apartment doormen an affectation of affluence, an excuse to jack up rents, or do they actually fulfill some need of which I am unaware? Or is there some other explanation for their existence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomerpdx (talk • contribs) 20:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read Doorman (profession). Secret ^account 20:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They could be helpful if your arms are full, but automatic doors can work there, too. They could also serve a security function in that the doorman keeps track of people who enter and exit, and maybe those who carry out a wide-screen TV with a chunk of the wall still attached. StuRat (talk) 00:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) Yes, an expression of affluence

2) Added convenience (though the amount is small; think butlering)

3) Provides affluent with a sense of safety. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They screen visitors and accept packages and deliveries such as dry cleaning. They call up to announce visitors. They screen delivery people and prevent them from putting menus under the door. They function as both security and convenience. And yes they add a great deal to the value of an apartment, about 10 to 15%. Here is an article with some of the negatives: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/09/realestate/09doorman.html

As I recall, in Sex and the City, Samantha managed to find yet another use for the door man. As they put it on their web site, she "gets to know the door man better": [1]. :-) StuRat (talk) 19:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Britain is an island, and people on the internet mock me for being from a little island

See on internet forums, people, like Americans, and continental Europeans... they can stand by on their big continents and laugh at people in Britain for being on an island. "A little island. A little, pathetic island where you and all your ancestors have lived quite happily for hundreds of years." Seriously, these are the kind of comments they make. And they say stuff like 'Britfag' as well. I don't know if they're just trolling but it does make me feel ashamed to be on such a little island. Like other people in the UK don't think there's anything wrong with being from an island, but I do, and it makes me feel bad every day. Can you help? I mean, seriously, do normal native British people not realise how sheltered they are for being on an island and speaking their English language? I've only started thinking about it because of these people, and it's really got to me.

So no matter where I try to go in Europe or America or wherever, I won't be able to speak another language because they don't teach you it in school to any great extent so you never master it, and I'll always be a 'Britfag' to them. This island has nothing to offer. I don't know why people migrate here. F**king little island, with all its stupid history, institutions, and bureaucracy. I'll never be as good as those on the continents. Most of the world's population lives on continents. I wish I did. I seem to have the opposite of Islomania and I need help.--Nubile Servant (talk) 20:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just remember that bit about "lived quite happily for hundreds of years", being an island has its advantages, as we discover whenever little corporals from the continent get big ideas. DuncanHill (talk) 20:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It also has its disadvantages. An island is easier to turn into a police state. I'm not going to go into my ideas about how in some ways if the Axis Powers had won WWII the world would be a better place, because I know that's too controversial, Godwin's Law et al. I mean although the Nazis were intent on committing mass genocide, at least they had standards of discipline and knew how to counter base, cowardly human vices which are rife in Britain making it the laughing stock of Europe and possibly the world.--Nubile Servant (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, the vast majority of americans either believe america IS an island, or think it would be better off as one. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In such moments of depression, remind yourself of what Shakespeare has Gaunt say in King Richard II (Act 2, Scene 1) about England specifically and the island generally:

This royal throne of kings, this sceptred isle,

This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,

This other Eden, demi-paradise,

This fortress built by Nature for herself

Against infection and the hand of war,

This happy breed of men, this little world,

This precious stone set in the silver sea,

Which serves it in the office of a wall

Or as a moat defensive to a house,

Against the envy of less happier lands ...

This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England

This nurse, this teeming womb of royal kings

Feared by their breed, and famous by their birth

Renowned for their deeds as far from home

For Christian service and true chivalry

As the sepulchre in stubborn Jewry

Of the world's ransom, blessed Mary's Son:

This land of such dear souls, this dear dear land

Dear for her reputation throughout the world ....

And then, ask the critics if they have anyone to compare with Shakespeare (whoever he was). By the way, which language were they using to make these criticisms? -- JackofOz (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but I can't like England that much, because I'm Scottish. My feelings about Scotland are more positive than those about England or Britain as a whole... but still, 'little f**king island'... can just hear them now. Seriously, what is there to like about the weather, length of days in winter, architecture, culture (all native British local cultures were hijacked by mass media such as the BBC in the early 20th century and replaced with Estuary English), food (the native food is so bad, that the British have to borrow from other cuisines all the time)... hell, looks of the women... here?--Nubile Servant (talk) 21:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're using English because it's the only language I can speak. But I wonder just quite how terribly backwards speakers of other languages consider the UK to be, really.-Nubile Servant (talk) 21:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you really dislike it that much, migrate elsewhere. If that's not possible, "if you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with". Honestly, those who mock others because their country is relatively small reveal only the smallness of their own minds, and what you do is ignore them and rise above it. Simply decide you're going to be as unaffected by their puerile criticisms as you would be by an ant crossing your path. You're a Scot, after all. That speaks for itself; and if you don't think so, take some history lessons. (It's a pity you're not English, though; because I would have trotted out Cecil Rhodes' quote: "You, sir, are an Englishman, and have therefore won first prize in the Lottery of Life". But since you're not, I won't.) -- JackofOz (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish history has been romanticised by films like Braveheart, but that has little to do with the reality of it. I gather that Scotland was originally populated by such peoples as the Picts. When the Romans invaded Britain for the first time, the population was not Germanicised - indeed, the native Britons from before that may have more in common, according to genetic studies, with such groups as the Basques. Their heritage, in turn, would have been mixed with that of the Anglo-Saxon and Viking invaders. But I'm kinda committed to staying here for the moment due to life circumstances, although I would like to go to a different country and possibly live there permanently, but I'm too young in life to really make that decision yet, and you know I have got to find a career first, which I will do... but it's not easy. Honestly, nowhere in Britain appeals to me; that's the problem. Not even really anywhere in the English-speaking world does, yet I don't speak any other languages.--Nubile Servant (talk) 22:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, what this boils down to is: You find it hard to like much about your country; anonymous dickheads on the internet criticise your country, which you get hooked into; you can't move anywhere else at the moment; you're stuck in a place you don't like very much. Apart from the advice I've already provided, which was about learning to accept what you cannot change, did you have any other question, or was this just an excuse for a whinge no matter what anybody here has to say?-- JackofOz (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and no as well. But thanks for your time.--Nubile Servant (talk) 22:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This borders on original research, but not all island-dwelling people feel bad about where they dwell (nor do all continent-dwelling people feel that great about it). People from Cape Breton, for example, are renowned (or notorious) for their feelings about a small part of Nova Scotia -- and their forerunners had fond thoughts of Eigg, Barra, and Na t-Eilean Sgithenach, too.

Another thing to keep in mind: wherever you go, there you are -- and some folks will love the place (I knew people who thought Hobart, Indiana was just a smidge shy of Shangra-La) and others who long to escape.

And, as George Bowering wrote:

nobody

belongs anywhere

even the

Rocky Mountains

are still

moving

--- OtherDave (talk) 22:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Among islands Manhattan, too, has its fans. —Tamfang (talk) 21:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent oh no!) Well, I (an American) like the British because of the accent. Although I will admit that nothing else catches my interest... (Little Britain may be the one stirring up all these anti-Brit feelings) flaming lawye r^c 23:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is, on this fine internet, a class of person known as the Ignorant, Needlessly Belligerent Twat Whose Opinions Are Many And Never Worth Listening To. A person of this type is capable of causing great hurt, anger, and self-doubt if we are caught unawares by him. Fortunately, he has a demonstrated tendency to identify himself unequivocally by using words like "britfag" in conversation. Ignore these people. There are plenty of reasons to like Britain, and Scotland, but it'll be impossible for you not to overlook them so long as you're feeling so incredibly negative. You'd be better off traveling. Travel has a tendency to make people appreciate things about their home that they've always taken for granted. In rarer cases, it makes people realize there are places in the world they'd much rather be, and they leave home never to return. Fortunately, as a native English-speaker, you should have no trouble finding information on the internet about places to travel to. You can even browse the 2,664,476 articles written in Provincial Islandspeak on this very encyclopedia in search of some leads. It's always handy to learn snippets of other languages while you travel, but you'll find yourself able to eke by, in most places, due to there being at least one English speaker in every crowd. In fact, in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, people may actively seek out conversation with you. Antarctica may employ you, thanks to the large presence of British scientists there. Americans and Canadians will sleep with you, reliably, because of your accent. Europe will thank you for not stumbling around with a rugby team all night singing drunkenly at the top of your lungs. And Australia... well, don't go there, it's just some dumb island. But your options are many, and your currency is like gold. You may even find employment teaching English abroad due to the inexplicable international fascination with this backward tongue. You'll be hard pressed, though, to find a place without its own stupid history, institutions, and bureaucracy, but perhaps you'll find you can more readily forgive other nations their foolishness. Just avoid telling any cash-strapped people from cash-strapped nations that they sure are lucky they're not from Britain, as they are unlikely to take you seriously from then on. Also probably avoid using Nazis as smalltalk, since the merits of German National Socialism are, by definition, not of interest to the vast majority of people in the world. Suffice to say, the trains would be running on time, but I would be dead twelve times over, and therefore incapable of offering responses on the reference desk. Fin. --Fullobeans (talk) 23:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, out of the 6 women I've slept with, 4 were Scottish, 1 American and 1 from continental Europe. So I guess it does work out after all. As for employment and actually living the life elsewhere, I dunno. I want to do it but I'm bound to what I'm doing at the moment for a few years at least...-Nubile Servant (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Australia is not an island but a continental land mass. That's why Greenland is the world's largest island, and not Australia. So there. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was taught in kiddiegarden that Australia is both the world's largest island and its smallest continent. (For us there's no such thing as "Oceania", you know -- Indonesia is part of Asia from the American perspective, and New Zealand is not part of any continent, not that we give NZ much thought, but if we did we'd say it's not part of any continent.) --Trovatore (talk) 00:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If ever you fancy giving NZ some thought, then bear in mind that it is on the Zealandia continent. Australia is, indeed, its own continent. Australasia and Oceania are geo-political regions. Gwinva (talk) 00:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Continental land mass? Poppycock! Clearly Australia is surrounded by water, whereas the rest of the continents are surrounded by... uh... magic continental ectoplasm. Actually I, too, was taught this largest island/smallest continent business. I would rob a small child of her textbooks to see if this information has been revised, but the likelihood of the Quincy Public Schools having bought new textbooks in the past twenty years seems slim. --Fullobeans (talk) 00:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er...the UK is hardly a "little" country. In terms of area it might not be incredibly large but throw these facts back. Permanent seat on the UN Security Council. Nuclear power. Fifth largest economy in the world. 60 million people (3xAustralia, 20% of USA or pop of California&Texas combined.) 3rd largest military budget in world. We ruled the largest empire the world has EVER seen - etc etc. Exxolon (talk) 02:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, bub, the Roman Empire trumps yours by far (with known-world inflation considered). flaming lawye r^c 02:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sun set every day on the Roman Empire, at its peak of power, but it never set on the British Empire at its peak(discounting "known-world inflation." Did the Romans know, as their predecessors the Greeks did, that the world was a globe?) Edison (talk) 05:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that most people in civilised times have known, or strongly suspected, the world is a globe. It's only the official dogma that said otherwise, and ordinary people were wise to not gainsay it publicly. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quote:

My feelings about Scotland are more positive than those about England or Britain as a whole... but still, 'little f**king island'... can just hear them now. Seriously, what is there to like about the weather, length of days in winter, architecture, culture (all native British local cultures were hijacked by mass media such as the BBC in the early 20th century and replaced with Estuary English), food (the native food is so bad, that the British have to borrow from other cuisines all the time)... hell, looks of the women... here?

Nobody says "f**king". They say "fucking". People who pepper their speech with "fucking" when they don't have copulation in mind are unimaginative and dull. Seriously, what there is to like about, say, architecture is plentiful; it's a building in your native Scotland that has a pineapple roof. The ideas that (1) "all native British local cultures" were hijacked by the mass media, (2) "all native British local cultures" were replaced by Estuary English, (3) the BBC was promoting Estuary English in the first half of the C20, etc. etc. -- Constrained to be polite here about the views of others, I'll merely say that your views are, uh, stunningly different from my own (and, I think, from the facts). Anyway, if you want to learn a foreign language, then learn a foreign language: those who want to do this can easily find ways of doing it (and those who don't really want to can easily find excuses for not doing it). Tama1988 (talk) 09:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Britain wasn't always an island. It was attatched to France until about 10,000 years ago, when the post-ice age melting caused sea level rise and flooding. See also geology of Britain. Also, if you could say that any landmass surrounded by water on all sides is an island, then all the continents are islands. In fact, what makes the difference between an island and a continent? A continental shelf? If so, Britain has one, it's called the North Sea, but it's attached to mainland Europe. You could also say that Greenland is a subcontinent, although it's mostly just a low-lying landmass under a huge chunk of ice. Same for Antarctica, in fact, if not for the ice, most of Antarctica would be below sea level. The British Isles are among the largest islands on Earth. Lots of places are inhabited islands, for example Montreal is the second-largest French-speaking city (actually, most people there are bilingual) in the world, and it's on an island. If you are upset you're on an island, find out why you're on an island, how it was made, and how you got there. ~A H 1^(TCU) 19:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World's fastest Indian

In the movie, The World's Fastest Indian, starred by Anthony Hopkins, Why is he called an Indian even though he hails from New Zealand?- § —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.88.91 (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It refers to his bike, a 1920s Indian, if I'm understanding Burt Munro correctly. See also Indian (motorcycle). I would presume, fwiw, that Rakesh Sharma is in fact the world's fastest Indian. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Freaking etiquette

What is the proper etiquette for freaking? There are always those times when you have a significant other to dance with, and there are always a few people on the dance floor who are likewise spoken for (though it’s sometimes hard to tell). In all other cases how should one handle the situation without awkwardness? (I’m trying to find something a little bit more sophisticated than “get drunk” here. :) Thanks everyone, --S.dedalus (talk) 22:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no real etiquette for that. It's kinda the same situation as mosh pits - you don't start it, it just happens. flaming lawye r^c 22:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moshing has it's own ettiquette though - basically don't drag anyone in against their will and if someone goes down, pick them up. Exxolon (talk) 01:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. We don't want another Black Friday trampling every time there's a decent concert... flaming lawye r^c 02:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There’s etiquette for everything. I wonder what Judith Martin would say about this question. :) --S.dedalus (talk) 23:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From your link Miss Manners says, "if you behave in a way that offends the people you're trying to deal with, they will stop dealing with you...There are plenty of people who say, 'We don't care about etiquette, but we can't stand the way so-and-so behaves, and we don't want him around!' Etiquette doesn't have the great sanctions that the law has. But the main sanction we do have is in not dealing with these people and isolating them because their behavior is unbearable." She supposes you will soon find out. Julia Rossi (talk) 07:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]