Miscellaneous desk
< January 26	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 28 >

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.

January 27

Reference Desk for Entertainment Purposes

Does anyone here read the reference desk solely for entertainment purposes, as I do?

I visit it about once a week; the Misc. desk usually has the funniest questions/responses.

Some of the ideas are fascinating to learn about, but more often than not, the misc. desk makes me laugh more than learn!

Thanks, --67.177.170.218 (talk) 01:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I pretend to read it for educative purposes, and of course it's entertainment! ---Sluzzelin talk 04:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah, I do that too sometimes. --Ouro (blah blah) 07:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There certainly are some witty folks around here. The funniest page on Wikipedia, though, has got to be Wikipedia:Talk page highlights. Whenever I feel stressed, I always read that and have a chuckle. Rockpocket 07:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! I hadn’t seen that one. Wikipedia:Unusual articles is also quit amusing although not tagged as wikihumor. --S.dedalus (talk) 08:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I look at the new entries at least twice a day. Ok, I know that I should get out more! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnluckie (talk • contribs) 11:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It eats up time like nothing else. But it is funny. Gwinva (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2 by 2

Anyone notice the commercials ? They're getting 2 by 2. Too damn stupid and too damn many of them. Just seen a Burger King commercial, and it was idiotic shit. What is the most stupid commercial YOU have seen ? Wikipedia is NOT censored. 65.163.113.170 (talk) 09:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does "2 by 2" mean? Like it or not, TV commercials are made by people who have worked in advertising for many years. They know what they're doing. That Burger King ad may not persuade you to go in there next time you're hungry, but you can bet your boots it will others, otherwise it would never have been made. And don't post diatribes here. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 09:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THAT IS NOT A DIATRIBE AT ALL ? HAVE YOU SEEN THE COMMERCIALS LATELY ? SOME OF THESE ARE REALLY BAD, SUCH AS ONE SAYING YOU CAN SPRAY SOME SHIT IN A DOG'S WATERBOWL AND IT STOPS THE DOG'S PAINS !!!! 65.163.113.170 (talk) 09:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, 2 by 2 means too damn many AND too damn (whatever you're complaining about). 65.163.113.170 (talk) 09:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and do not post in all caps and bold, as this is a) frowned upon, b) considered shouting, c) not polite really. And keep in mind that ads (especially tv ads) are made for the less-than-average Joe that needs someone else to decide for him where he should eat. --Ouro (blah blah) 09:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think he posted in all caps and bold to reinforce the notion that it was NOT A DIATRIBE AT ALL. —Steve Summit (talk) 14:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ratio of ads to programme time is what is getting much worse. I tune out the sound, look away and by the time the programme has returned I've forgotton what it was all about!--Johnluckie (talk) 10:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well most '30 minute' shows run for around 22 minutes, so if you get 2 shows in one hour that should make for about 16 minutes of advertising. Advertisers will have a key demographic they are aiming for - what is stupid and terrible to you may be funny/appealing to their key market. Advertisers are aiming at millions of people it's unlikely everyone will approve of them. The most 'stupid' adverts are generally those that try to be funny/have comedy but don't quite get it right (at least in my opinion) - but for me the worst adverts are injury-lawyers and debt-consolidation ones. ny156uk (talk) 13:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Always during lunch. Ads are one of the reasons I stopped watching tv altogether. --Ouro (blah blah) 16:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is "fairy liquid" ok for washing vegetables?

My wife often uses Fairy to wash tomatoes and other vegetables before cooking them. I am converned however that active chemicals which Fairy is made of can be dangerous for health. I believe that putting that liquid on the tomato skin makes it absorb it and then you can not easily get rid of it by rincing anyway. Could anybody shed some light onto this issue? Is there any real threat or am I just paranoic? 88.112.249.11 (talk) 09:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Andrey[reply]

I also wouldn't do it, these are chemicals after all. As far as health safety is concerned, better to just wash/rinse them with tap water before cutting/slicing/dicing/cooking. --Ouro (blah blah) 09:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ouro - but a splash of ordinary vinegar in the water bowl helps to kill off any predators and freshens the veggies up. 81.145.240.42 (talk) 10:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Predators"? Corvus cornix_talk 00:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I think 81.145.240.42 meant insects that live in vegetables. 71.220.211.235 (talk) 03:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It probably is a bad idea to wash vegetables with dish detergent—but what does "these are chemicals after all" mean? Water is a chemical too, you know. -- BenRG (talk) 11:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to say they're fairly unfriendly chemical substances if swallowed (any residual traces left on/in the to-be-washed veggies apply). I know water is a chemical, too, but quite safer overall than washing-up liquid, not? --Ouro (blah blah) 11:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Procter & Gamble has set up [a web site] for product safety information. The EU-regulated safety data sheet for the Fairy Original liquid tells that "Repeated exposure to low levels (e.g. residues left on dinnerware) will not cause adverse effects." However, ingestion of the liquid as such can cause nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. In case of ingestion, you are supposed to drink water to dilute the liquid. You can draw your own conclusions on whether you want to raise your intake higher than the level you already get from dinnerware. Personally, I wouldn't worry about it. 84.239.133.86 (talk) 14:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It makes you think who they got to drink it to see what the result would be :) --WebHamster 15:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A modified version of the song I'm forever blowing bubbles quickly comes to mind.--TreeSmiler (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HMM article title has wrong capitalizations I think I'm Forever Blowing Bubbles--TreeSmiler (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not.--Koncorde (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If your wife really wants to use some sort of soap on fruits and vegetables, I'd recommend hand soap as it's much gentler and much less toxic than dish detergent. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 18:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

News, Wikipedia Praise

Just seen on the news that a rogue satellite will hit this planet. Seen it on FOX News during Obama's speeches, then no futther news on that matter. the satellite has lost power, propulsion. It is due to hit Earth on Jan 28-29, 2008.

Wikipedia is one hell of a website. PLEASE DONATE. 65.163.113.170 (talk) 11:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rogue Satellite

I just found out on the news that a satellite had lost power, propulsion, and it will impact on this planet on Jan 29-30. I saw this while watching Obama's speech (it was on a strip that is on the bottom of the TV screen). Saw this on FOX News. Appreciate the help. 65.163.113.170 (talk) 11:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All you can do is duck.--Johnluckie (talk) 10:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even something as large as the International Space Station would not impact with the earth if it reentered. It would burn up in the atmosphere. And I don't see how a satalite could "lose propulsion" seeing as it doesn't have any anyway. It's being kept up with a combination of Centrifugal and Centripetal force and for it to fall out of the sky it would need to be slowed down by a fair bit TheGreatZorko (talk) 09:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as Centrifugal Force. It's not a force. 71.220.211.235 (talk) 03:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One hell of a site

This is one hell of a website. It has helped ME. Please DONATE. 65.163.113.170 (talk) 11:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we heard you the first time. I think most of us know about the 'rogue' satellite and realise that it is extremely unlikely to cause any significant damage at earth groundlevel. And most of us agree that Wikipedia is excellent. Richard Avery (talk) 11:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The news about that satellite is hardly secret. I saw it on Google News yesterday, and there are plenty of articles today. —Steve Summit (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The news of the satellite is hardly secret, but info about the satellite is still hush-hush right? --f f r o t h 15:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supposably, that means you shouldn't reveal those sensitive details you have. --Ouro (blah blah) 15:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you want to read something on Wikinews, such as Disabled U.S. spy satellite to fall to Earth. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 05:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

how can I use virgin mo bile

Am in Kenya and I want to use virgin mobile, is it possible?please help.am kindly in need.phone no. <removed> serial no.<removed> please connect me to Virgin mobile.YOU CAN CALL ME ON MOBILE NO <removed> KENYA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.178.100.254 (talk) 11:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify whether this will involve my bank details. Richard Avery (talk) 11:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed your personal information - you should not post this on a website as it may fall into the wrong hands. And for goodness sake, don't post your bank details online! Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it is unlikely we will be able to help you with anything more than general information. You probably need to get in touch with Virgin to activate your phone for use internationally (from personal experience). Their website is here and there's information about using your phone abroad here. If you're already in Kenya and can't get in touch with them, your best bet may be to buy a phonecard - they're reasonably easy to use. Kateshort forbob 14:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's the UK website - the US one is here. And Richard Avery - I'm sorry, I don't know if your question is related to this one --Kateshort forbob 14:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK Kateshortforbob, my response was alluding to the Nigerian scam which this question immediately put me in mind of. Richard Avery (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Making a joke based on someone's nationality (really just his continent of residence) that's not at all related to the question is not exactly appropriate... -Elmer Clark (talk) 05:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... it does, actually. I'd rather have someone (unsuccessfully) trying a scam than someone stuck in a foreign country without being able to ring home! --Kateshort forbob 22:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How many people speak Finnish?

Finland hasn't more than 5 million people in it, and many of them speak Swedish... how many actually speak Finnish? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.51.253 (talk) 13:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My 2002 edition of the SBS World Book says 93.4% speak Finnish and 5.9% Swedish (these figures are listed as "official"). A 1972 publication "The Book Of The World" says 92% Finnish and 7% Swedish. A fairly consistent percentage over a 30 year period. --TrogWoolley (talk) 14:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our Finnish language article says the language has about 6 million speakers, but the figure is unsourced. The Ethnologue entry for Finnish says 4.7 million in Finland and about another 500,000 in other countries. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 15:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why only tasteless book covers?

I have been trying to find the book Lolita in its original form for a long time. All I can find in on-line book stores are tasteless new editions with 32x32 JPEG screenshots from the movies scaled to become a "cover". It's insane. I don't even know how that is legal, or how this can be. According to Wikipedia, the original is very tasteful. The same Wikipedia article also shows a "recent cover" which looks really good too, but that one is not available anywhere where I can see. I live in Sweden, so I have mainly looked at local ones like Adlibris.se. Amazon seems to have the same ugly, cheap covers that they couldn't pay me to accept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.51.253 (talk) 16:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Because they draw the eye when they're on the shelf. And it's pointless to print two covers, one for brick and mortar stores and one for online stores. Dismas|^(talk) 16:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to find an old edition of this or any book, you can't look at sellers of new books. abebooks.com (maybe there's an abebooks.se too, I don't know), for example, sells used books, and I bet there are dozens of others who do too. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want a USED book! Sheesh! I want the ORIGINAL, printed at any time, unused. Not some cheap remake crap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.51.253 (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend getting the annotated edition [1] which, in addition to having a simple, unassuming cover, has a plethora of supplemental information that really expands upon the whole experience. Since Lolita is the kind of book one would (or should at least) tend to read multiple times, the notations are excellent for a second or third read after you've absorbed the flavor of the prose. Poechalkdust (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Used isn't 'remade' it's just pre-owned. Also gotta hope the above is meant tongue in cheek otherwise it's rather mean spirited. Anyhoo here (http://www.fulmerford.com/waxwing/lolita.html#shop) has a lot of different editions. I have no idea which will meet your requirements for cover-quality but they range in cost. This one (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0679410430/waxwing) has a pretty non-dubious cover. ny156uk (talk) 17:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first edition of Lolita (Paris, Olympia Press, 1955) has a plain olive-green paper cover, with an inner rectangular border of a white line and an outer one of a black chain. Inside them in black capital letters are the author's name, the title, and the name of the publisher. Xn4 18:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. - I've uploaded an image of this and added it to the infobox. Xn4 19:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a great "Library of America" edition of Nabokov's works that features Lolita, Pnin (hilarious), and Pale Fire, all great books, in one very fine volume with a picture of Nabokov on the cover. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 19:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stochastic matrix (few questions)

copy of discussion from RD/math removed by Meni Rosenfeld.

Please do not cross-post (as it says in the guidelines at the top). If you do not get an answer to a mathematical question on the Mathematics desk, it is very unlikely that you'll get one on the miscellaneous desk.

It seems to me that Lambiam has patiently answered your questions. He says above, "State 1: cat in the first box, mouse in the third box: (1, 3)". --ColinFine (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stochastic matrix (few questions)

Considering the fact that many Reference Desk helpers, don't frequent the Mathematics desk, and I am still confused, and no one has replied for 2 days, I am posting the above question here. --Obsolete.fax (talk) 16:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't remove, please discuss in the talk page if you don't agree in the question being here, and state your position there. --Obsolete.fax (talk) 17:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copying this question here is wrong on so many levels that I don't know where to begin. It splits the discussion to several places which is bad for both you and respondents. It is rude to take away space from this page which makes it harder to follow the other questions. It is vain to assume that your question is more important than those of others and deserves copying, cross-posting and bumping. It is certainly unacceptable to continue this after being told not to. And of course, people who don't frequent the math desk are much less likely to be able to help you. A slightly less offensive way to attract more respondents is to simply place a link to the question, which I will do for you - the question is Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics#Stochastic matrix (few questions). -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Furthermore, in restoring your question, you deleted my response, which is also contrary to the guidelines.~~ Oh, no you didn't: you just crossposted a complete second copy. My mistake. --ColinFine (talk) 17:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Meni. It is absurd to intentionally spam a clearly math-related question to multiple desks to try to attract undue attention to it. Despite your request, I am tempted to remove this question (and feel I would be completely justified in doing so), and I strongly suggest you remove it yourself. -Elmer Clark (talk) 05:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of Clerical Collars

When did priests first start to wear 'dog collars?

86.27.92.178 (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on clerical collars discusses this in some detail. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cost-of-living websites

I'm trying to find some good websites for comparing the cost of living in different locations. I've found two reputable sources (http://cgi.money.cnn.com/tools/costofliving/costofliving.html and http://salary.monster.com/CostOfLivingWizard/layoutscripts/coll_start.asp) but I was wondering (a) which one would you believe if the two of them show substantially different results for the same location and (b) if anyone can recommend additional good-quality websites for this purpose. Thanks so much! --24.211.242.80 (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might see if the U.S. Department of Labor has a standardized way of doing this on their website. I've used their cost-of-travel estimates for calculating grant proposals and things like that when visiting different cities (it costs a lot less to visit some cities than others)—even that data, while not quite the same thing, would tell you quite a bit in terms of relative cost of living. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 03:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

release date for "felix castor : thicker than water" by Mike Carey ?

Hi Im a huge felix castor fan, just finished "dead mans boots" and wondering when the next one is released, it says 2008 so its this year, but does anyone have an idea when? early, late, april, september? any info will help thanks

Rob —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.253.24 (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SP Artillery exploding in Iraq

Hi, I came to remember an incident a few years ago, where a TV camera caught on tape some ammunition (or similar) exploding inside a coalition Paladin. Does this have its own article, or are there details mentioned anywhere? It was said that there weren't any casaulties, but I remember the blast looking awfully massive. Thanks in advance. 81.93.102.185 (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google explosion coalition Paladin. 152.16.59.190 (talk) 03:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]