Miscellaneous desk
< March 21	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 23 >

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.

March 22

What's the URL?

The following audio clip is a recording of a local radio station contest URL. The URL is said very quickly and I am unable to make it out (especially the part right before the backslash). Could someone please listen to it and tell me what the URL is?

http://www.supload.com/sound_confirm.php?get=1120487487.wma

Thanks. Jamesino (talk) 00:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"hot899.com/superhookschallenge/xmtl//?[not sure about this bit]win.com" ish... --Tango (talk) 01:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He says "percent symbol backslash" in that space Tango wasn't sure about, but it's just a 404 page with a broken image for me. In fact, "hot899.com/superhookschallenge" is also not found. You might try going to hot899.com and clicking on their Contests link. --Bavi H (talk) 01:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So the URL contains "//?%\"? Given how fast it was read out and how nonsensical it seems and how it doesn't work, I'm thinking maybe it was a joke URL... --Tango (talk) 01:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity...

Tango, I think the former is true!
**~EdGl** ★ 22:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My friend, Xyttz1 never signs his name after comments. I've already tried telling him to, but he won't listen. What will happen to him? <(^_^)> Pokegeek42 (talk) 00:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to say what will happen if he doesn't sign his comments, but I'm pretty sure I know what the end result will be if he doesn't take a close look at WP:NOTBLOG. - Eron^Talk 01:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Signing is strongly recommended and strongly encouraged, and he may get pressure from his interlocutors to identify himself on talk pages, but it is not a condition of involvement in Wikipedia. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:SineBot will eventually lose patience with him and gather together its bot buddies to take over his computer and make it explode. Either that, or it will just keep signing his posts for him forever and nobody will really care. One of the two... ;) --Tango (talk) 01:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your "friend" (Xyttz1 (talk • contribs) has been dealt with at his/her own request. My opinion is that Pokegeek42 should be more concerned about Pokegeek42 ;-) -hydnjo (talk) 01:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notable people who predeceased both their parents

Here's a curly one. I'm after some names of notable people who reached a considerable age but died before either of their parents. I'm talking about people who got to their 70s or older, not people like Jon-Benet Ramsay. Who would the oldest such person have been? No restrictions as to place, time or reason for notability. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Louis, Dauphin of France (1729–1765), age 36, predeceased both of his parents, Louis XV and Maria Leszczyńska. Not that old, but highly notable. Louis XV's grandson would succeed him as Louis XVI. Mr. The Fifteeth himself was the great-grandson of Louis XIV, who had outlived his son (died age 50) AND grandson (died age 29) though both of them outlived thier mother. (as an aside, Louis (1729-1765), despite never living to be king himself, was the father of THREE kings of France.) Just a starting point. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My best so far is Higashikuni Morihiro, at 52. Still looking. Algebraist 02:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to a well known bestseller, Methusalah, at the age of 187, fathered a son named Lamech and lived for another 782 years. Lamech, sadly, died as a spring chicken at the measly age of 777, ie 5 years before his father´s death. The Book of Jubilees gives his mum´s name as Edna (and I refrain from Down Under references), but no age is stated anywhere. Still, it beats 52 by just a whisker. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we're allowing fictitious persons, then there are of course many examples. To give the first that comes to mind, in Neil Gaiman's Sandman, Orpheus dies before both his parents having lived for several millennia. Algebraist 18:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to remember one of the popes of the last 40 years had at least one of his parents attend his coronation, and popes are not known for their youth when first elected. Whether they outlived him is another question, though. (PS. The last papal coronation was Paul VI in 1963, so I guess it was longer than 40 years ago.) -- JackofOz (talk) 23:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fictitious suggestions, but I'm only interesed in real people. I'll leave it with the brains trust to come up with some names as they happen to spot them on their travels. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, wouldn't being the oldest person survived by his/her parents be a potential source of notability in itself? Anyway, some candidates (depending on how strictly you define notability): Jack Linkletter was a gameshow host who died at 70, H. Myron Kauffman Jr. was a pioneering kidney-transplant surgeon who died at 74, according to a Google preview of a 1912 NYTimes obituary F. W. Jordan died at 88, and according to a random forum Sameer Joshi was a very successful businessman who died at 90. You can find others by using "80 * survived by * parents" in Google. – 74 03:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, I've scanned through newspaper reports about many of the world's oldest married couples (some with combined ages of 210+) and almost all of them have children that are still alive in their 70s or 80s (or died from accident or disease at a young age). I guess having centenarian parents is a good omen for having a long life oneself. Rockpocket 06:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That applies to other things, too. For example, if your (biological) parents didn't have any children, you're unlikely to have any yourself. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 05:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MI5 logo

[1] Does anyone know where I can find a hi-res (or vectory-PDF-y) version of the logo? Thanks! ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 10:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clicking your link from Wikipedia leads to a 'denied' page. This link should work. Algebraist 10:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! But that was only meant to be an example... does anyone know where there's a hi-res version? :-) ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 11:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another in color, with about the same res as Algebraist's: [2]. Here's a simplified black and white version which is a bit larger: [3]. StuRat (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat's second link also hits lavender.fortunecity's 'no links from Wikipedia' thing. Again, this should be a working link to the same thing. Algebraist 18:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weird, most sites would love to be linked to from Wikipedia, I wonder what their problem is. StuRat (talk) 18:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coal from America

I believe that America used to supply coal to the Highlands of Scotland during the war. Does anyone know if this was true, and if so why, since the UK had coal of it's own.--88.109.127.55 (talk) 11:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought as to why this might be: the wartime economy in Great Britain called for rapidly expanding industrial capacity, powered by coal. Perhaps the rate at which production of coal could be increased would have otherwise limited this industrial expansion, and supplementing local production with coal from the US removed this limitation. StuRat (talk) 15:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also coal was (is?) a person-intensive industry. In the war they got as many able-bodied men as possible to be 'in war'. By importing coal that frees up vital resource (staff) for other uses. What StuRat notes makes sense too but i'd expect that to be a factor. ny156uk (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was there a miners' strike going on? That's been a factor more than once. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be very surprised if there were any significant miners strikes during the war. I believe the reason is as Ny156uk points out - a lack of able-bodied men to dig the stuff up. It was notable that many traditionally male jobs were taken over by women during the war for precisely this reason - but coal mining with 1940's technology was one of those professions where sheer muscle power was important so I very much doubt there were many women miners back then. SteveBaker (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coal supply was absolutely essential for the War Effort, consequently, 10% of conscripts were sent downt' pit instead of to the front: 48,000 of them supplemented the regular miners. See Bevin Boys. Given the insatiable appetite for coal at the time, it's quite possible production had to be supplemented from overseas. Gwinva (talk) 02:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, there were a number of miners' strikes in the UK during WW2, such as are listed at [4] --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And more info at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 October 26#Kent miners' strike of 1942. Nanonic (talk) 02:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coal was rationed in the UK: this records a family ration of 2 cwts a month. According to this, Britain was unable to import coal during the war. Certainly, production increased massively, requiring Newfoundland loggers to help log British forests to provide pit props. I can't find anything which supports the idea coal was imported from the US. (Incidentally, the USA had pretty much switched to petroleum over coal,and were Japan's main source which this article reckons was a contributory factor in the attack on Pearl Harbor.) Gwinva (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all this. Coal was certainly brought in by ship to the Dornoch Firth, there are the remains of the jetties, a weighing scale is still in position and rusting away and I recovered from the shore line a bent, rusting, handleless coal shovel bearing the words "Made in America".--88.109.127.55 (talk) 07:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.127.55 (talk) 07:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kw vs NM

When comparing motor vehicle specifications such as those listed here [5] what is the relevance of Kw vs Nm ? To my mind Kw indicates "power" and Nm "torque", however at the end of the day both seem to add up to the same thing ... namely the ability of the engine to move the vehicle. Which one should I be looking at ?--196.207.33.197 (talk) 16:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Torque is more important for low-end acceleration and towing, while power is more important for high end acceleration and maximum top speed. So, if you want to tow a trailer up a mountain, look at torque, if you want to pass people on the highway like they were standing still, look at power. StuRat (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed. In a sense - the horsepower (kW) number is a measure of how fast you can go - and torque is a measure of how hard you can accelerate get to that speed. Since most cars can easily exceed the speed limit by much more than you're likely to ever want to risk, the torque number is actually the more important of the two for practical driving purposes. But even that isn't really enough to tell you very much. The numbers published are peak numbers - but that peak only occurs at one particular value of RPM. There is a vast difference between a vehicle with a very 'sharp' torque-vs-rpm curve versus one with a 'flat' curve. To pick a car I know a lot about: My MINI Cooper'S has less peak torque than (say) a VW Bug Turbo - but over a standing quarter - I'll leave the bug standing because my torque curve is very flat. So my car is pulling at close to peak torque all the way from about 3000 rpm to about 6000 - which means I have a much better 0-60 time...but also my 60-90 mph time is good also. But then you get into gear ratios and such. A 2003 MINI Cooper'S has the exact same engine as the 2005 model - but when they designed that first gearbox, they didn't have good data on the engine's performance...so they didn't pick the optimum ratios. The 2005 gearbox was designed with full knowledge of practical engine performance - and it shaves almost a full second off the 0-60 time with an identical engine, identical weight, identical aerodynamics, tires, suspension, etc. Also, when comparing torque - you have to be careful that you're getting an 'apples-and-apples' comparison - some manufacturers talk about torque 'at the crank' while other talk about torque 'at the wheels'. The former doesn't include losses in the transmission - the latter does. With turbo-charged cars, you also find a phenomenon known as 'turbo-lag' which results in a palpable delay between stomping on the gas and actually getting the torque you expect. Supercharged cars don't exhibit that problem. There is a lot more to it than just looking at the kW and Nm numbers.

Thanks !--41.15.222.101 (talk) 17:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Approach & Departure Angle (4X4)

The approach angle of a 4X4 (see previous question) is listed as 37 degrees and the departure angle as 46 degrees. I have read up on these terms and find that they are the maximum angle a vehicle can go up or down a slope from or to the level, without bumping its front or rear bumper on the ground. However does this actually reflect both i) the ability of the vehicle to actually tackle these slopes (does it really have the power, weight lack thereof, etc to climb a 37 slope, or will it hypothetically stall first at say 30 degrees) and ii) assuming it could climb said 37 slope and subsequently descend said 46 slope, is it proportioned such that it won't topple over backwards or forwards on me first ? Don't want to be misled by clever marketing-talk only to land up on my head at the bottom of a slope !!--196.207.33.197 (talk) 17:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They do not take into account anything other than the angle indicated. Actually getting up a 37° slope also relies on you having the power and traction as well. A 37° slope isn't that hard to get up if the surface that you're dealing with is a good one and you have decent tires. Would I expect my Jeep to get up that angle with mud the consistency of snot, street tires, and starting from a dead stop at the very bottom, NO! But with mud terrain or all-terrain tires and a bit of momentum, I just might. Again, depends on how long the climb is and such. It sounds as though you're thinking of taking the Suzuki that you linked to off-roading which is one of my biggest hobbies and the average speed of my Jeep on a trail has never been more than a couple miles per hour. So, you're not going to be hitting these 37° slopes at considerable speed. Not enough to send you flying head over heels. Before you make an investment into a vehicle, it would be good to talk to people in your area about what they use. I'll stop rambling now as I think I've answered your question and I'm still unclear as to your eventual intentions. Dismas|^(talk) 21:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for the reply!--41.15.222.101 (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How did China's GDP crumble like that?

2008 CIA fact book figure (GDP per capita, ppp): $6,100 (2008 est.) 2007 factbook: $7,600 (2006 est.)

That doesn't make sense. Can someone explain?

Canaltea (talk) 17:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some real reasons could be the spike in energy prices and later downturn in the world economy, both of which would disproportionately hit an economy dependent on long-range transportation to ship export products around the world. It's also possible that the poorly run and corrupt Chinese agencies which collect such data messed up. StuRat (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those numbers look dubious to me. China's economy has definitely grown substantially every year for a while now. Those numbers are GDP per capita, so I guess it is possible their population has grown faster than their economy... I'll try and find some figures for Chinese population growth. --Tango (talk) 20:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The same source gives the population growth rate for 2009 as 0.655%, so I don't think it's at all plausible that there was 10-15% growth during 2007/8 (which is roughly what we be required for those numbers to be correct. The numbers are almost certainly wrong. --Tango (talk) 20:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, it's possible they were using a new figure for population and an old figure for GDP; but I'm guessing population hasn't gone up 20% in two years, though, but it could be a certain combination of factors like this influencing both measurements (say the original pop. figure was already old). - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 20:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The figures would have to be 10 or 20 years out of date. The numbers are just wrong (or, at least, not comparable - they may have changed methodologies so both numbers are right just measuring different things). --Tango (talk) 20:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, I do think your answer's more likely, I was just fielding a possibly supplementary option. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 20:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following the CIA Factbook GDP figures for some time, and they are all over the place. Remember purchasing power parity GDP figures are always estimates, and the CIA obviously changes the basis of its estimates from time to time. Examples: Russia's number went from 36.8% of the UK number (my basis of reference) in 2002 to 32.1% the following year, even though it is universally agreed that Russia grew faster than the UK that year. Japan's numbers relative to the UK from 2002 to 2007 are 110.7 - 101.0 - 99.3 - 99.4 - 104.1 - 95.8: a jerky sequence totally disconnected from the relatively steady performance of the two economies in those years. The U.S. figure relative to the UK was steadily revised down from 158.8 in 2000 to 130.3 in 2007, even though the UK outperformed the U.S. little if at all on a per capita basis over those years. The Factbook was just changing the basis of its estimates. It doesn't do this for all countries, there are many steady sequences, and sets of numbers that clearly correlate with relative rates of growth. It's mainly the comparatives for most prominent countries that get altered for no apparent reason, so I think it's just a case of some economist in the CIA playing with the numbers for countries that interest him, and replacing his predecessor's results with his own in the new edition. This is a useful reminder that PPP numbers should always be taken with a pinch of salt. (Nominal GDP per capita numbers aren't really hard facts either). Mowsbury (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I forgot to take exchange rates into account - good thinking! GDP figures in a currency other than the national one are very unreliable, especially for comparing between different times. --Tango (talk) 18:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've missed my point. Fluctuations in exchange rates can move nominal GDP per capita figures up and down like a yo-yo, but using PPP should eliminate that instability. Mowsbury (talk) 21:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you use the same methodology for determining the PPP rate and you use the use US dollars from the same time for both values, otherwise you get an contribution from US inflation. --Tango (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both figures in the OP are nonsense, based on a miscalculation called “purchasing power parity (PPP).” In the real world (i.e., outside high-level economics) PPP has nothing to do with GDP per capita or income. Indeed, it is more often misused than used with the proper data and results. China’s GDP per capita in 2007 was Rmb19,444 and in 2008 approximately Rmb22,585 (+16.1%). Population growth was indeed 0.6%, according to the official estimates. To figure out the GDP per capita in US dollars, divide by the average exchange rate for each year (7.62 and 6.96), which yields US$2,550 and $3,245 (+27.2%). Any other exchange rate, such as PPP, does not exist in the real world – no one will trade you a single unit of real currency for any number of PPP units – and so has no real value in general conversation. Strictly a macroeconomist’s play thing. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PPP is a very useful technique, it just requires people using it to know what it is. A lot of people misunderstand values that are quoted in terms of PPP, but for people that do understand it it is very useful. GDP per capita in terms of PPP is a much better measure of standard of living than GDP per capita in terms of nominal rates. --Tango (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The usefulness of PPP is limited not by the concept of it, but by the rough proxies taken in its calculation. This is especially so when applied to economies with a vast disparity of standards of living (in absolute money terms), such as China. So PPP per capita GDP tells you how much an average Chinese person earns relative to his standard of living. What does that mean? A person living in Beijing or Shanghai enjoys a far higher standard of living than that "average", while a Tibetan nomad or villager in Gansu enjoys a far lower standard. It doesn't tell you very much at all, unless you can accurately measure the distribution of the standard of living in the economy. And if you had such omprehensive data as that, what use would you have for something as rough as an average GDP per capita? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Apprentice 2009

[6] A number of promotional pictures such as the one linked have been released. They fall into the following categories, roughly:

Individual candidates
Entire group shot, candidates + Sir Alan + Nick + Margaret
Boys + Sir Alan + Nick + Margaret
Girls + Sir Alan + Nick + Margaret
Sir Alan + Nick + Margaret
Sir Alan
Nick + Margaret

Does anyone know where I could get hold of the original, hi-/full-res versions of these images? Thanks :-) ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 17:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not try the BBC Press Office? See Press pack for the upcoming Apprentice series (it's a BBC production, not an outside commission). Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I thought of that, but they only make press-pics available through BBC Pictures, accessible only by UK journalists. It was a matter of if any news site which had access to them, chose to make the full version available. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 17:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or equally, if anyone reading with access to BBC Pictures can get at them ;-) ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 17:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I was wrong: it turns out to be a commission from Talkback Thames, so you could try them. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How are the global debt /gdp and the public debt (considering FNM and FRE)/gdp in Usa?

EU 100% (talk) 18:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does this help at all? --Tango (talk) 20:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NO,but i thank YOU!.EU 100% (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you looking for some backup on your unsourced and controversial claims on the Talk:United States and Talk:European Union articles? I thought you said you had already done "the simple maths" required. TastyCakes (talk) 18:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are mistaking.I want to know these two datas,to verify if they are the same that a guy gave me.If you have no answers please don't disturb!EU 100% (talk) 20:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear on what data you seek. Global debt / GDP is not something I've ever encountered. US public debt / GDP, on the other hand, is readily available at the Congressional Budget Office website (cbo.gov): in 2008 it was 40.8% ($5,803 bn / $14,224 bn). DOR (HK) (talk) 02:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked the( Us public debt +FNM and FRE debts)/gdp.It's very clear! Thank YOU,but your numbers are too old and don't answer to my question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EU 100% (talk • contribs) 10:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that those are the most recent numbers available. Thanks, Genius 101^Guestbook 23:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No,DOR didn't answered me at all.The meaning of the question is very clear!EU 100% (talk) 11:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes an approximate answer is the best you can get. Apparently your question was not clear enough as at least two editors consider data to be an answer you don't think is sufficiently so. (BTW do you notice that you have a habit of insulting editors who are friendly trying to help you) Arnoutf (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:EU 100%, a couple of points:

1. It might be helpful if you spell out what you mean by FNM and FRE. Are these Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

2. Please clarify what you mean by "considering". Do you mean counting them in the total, or not counting them in the total?

3. Please clarify what precise measure you are referring to as "debt" - is it total US public debt?

3. An issue of capitalisation. I realise that English may not be your first language, but in general, we would capitalise GDP, and not capitalise YOU in "thank you". Writing "Thank YOU" may come across as sarcastic and rude. We also capitalise "USA" when referring to the United States. "Usa" is a city in Japan, among other places.

GDP for the US is easily available. Total public debt is also easily available. The amount of funding on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is available from public sources - Google can help here. Notice that the support given to the two organisations made available to them a facility to access public funds, rather than providing them directly with a cash loan. According to our articles, the US national debt ceiling, post Fannie Mae-Freddie Mac, is now US$10.7 trillion, an increase of US$0.8 trillion. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found the answer in two banks! Usa Public debt + FNM and FRE debts/ gdp is 115% and Usa global debt(private+public)/gdp is about 862%(a very high level!).I found myself in Official Institutions the answer without many unuseful talkings.(Arnoutf,PalaceGuard and so on!) Thanks.EU 100% (talk) 10:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I have pointed out to you every time you have quoted this loaded and misleading statistic, perhaps 862% is an accurate number for total debt, but what is really concerning is external debt. According to the CIA world factbook, the US was at about 100% in March 2008. Is it healthy for a country to have part of its population owe another part of its population a huge amount of money in terms of loans etc? Perhaps. But I would suspect that this number is dominated by mortgages, which by their nature are huge, long term loans. Having a lot of American homeowners in debt to American banks for their mortgage does not strike me as particularly out of line with the rest of the world, or as particularly sinister. Please stop your loaded talk-page trolling. You have never added anything of any value to Wikipedia and have annoyed countless people with your own misunderstandings, incredible bias and acerbic personality. So again: please, stop. TastyCakes (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No,my rude and ignorant guy.These datas are referred at February 2009.May be you haven't understood the meaning of the question.Please don't disturb,the problem is solved!EU 100% (talk) 17:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No rude and ignorant guy. If the majority of people does not understand your question it was a bad question, not unhelpful answers. Arnoutf (talk) 18:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My dear Arnouft he(TastyCakes) wrote me a racist thing!Isn't there a way to stop him ?In EU he would have had some problems!Look at his "inviting" in my page! Ask me before than talking!EU 100% (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure "racist" means what you think it means. TastyCakes (talk) 19:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote what you wrote.In EU you'd have had legal problems! Be quiet.Somebody should stop you!EU 100% (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand how "laws" work, in the EU and elsewhere. TastyCakes (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't misunderstand and i hope somebody to cancel you from Wikipedia.Anyway you could be indicate to police here in EU.If you arrive by plane don't be sure to be not stopped!EU 100% (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much as you might like to live in a world where people you disagree with or call you out for the troll you are get put in jail, that is not the reality on Wikipedia or in the EU. To suggest so is immature and inane. Please stop bothering me and others on the articles you edit. I will not respond to you on this page anymore since it is obviously not the appropriate place, if you want to continue this argument please leave a message on my talk page (not my user page). TastyCakes (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Double negatives are generally seen as confusing in the English language. TastyCakes (talk) 20:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrow you'll be in the black list of Police in EU!Game OverEU 100% (talk) 20:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<aside> Could someone ban this guy from the ref desk please? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MR PalaceGuard, TastyCakes should have be banned since yesterday for his words.If you support him it means that Wikipedia should ban you too!I banned TastyCakes today from EU...i'd like to see directly his face.It's enough!EU 100% (talk) 09:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how Wikipedia works. Please familiarise yourself with the rules before making nonsensical claims. Arnoutf (talk) 13:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all is important the respect of civil rights and behaviour and then also Wikipedia.You are defending a position of a racist and i can't allow this(mr TastyCakes should be banned and Wikipedia is sleeping!).Anyway i indicated him to Police.Don't trolly!EU 100% (talk) 20:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for acknowledging that civil behaviour is important. Now try to live by your own statement.

About this thread, it is already archived and anyway not going anywhere, hence I suggest to close. Arnoutf (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree because now there's the official answer and the legal decisions have been taken.EU 100% (talk) 11:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Football - Fair Play league

Why is there such a strong correlation between the rankings in the main UK Premier League table ([7]) and the Fair Play table ([8])? I've noticed it in previous seasons as well, so it doesn't seem to be a coincidence. --Tango (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand the sources correctly, maybe it's because winning teams have less reason to complain? People tend to get annoyed more when they're losing, hence a lower FairPlay score and League points are linked. Just an idea though. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 20:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly plausible. --Tango (talk) 20:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inferior teams are probably also less likely to play positively. Algebraist 20:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Playing fairly is probably their best hope for getting a UEFA cup place - I would expect them to make an extra effort. --Tango (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But playing negatively is their best hope of getting draws (or even lucky wins) against superior opposition, and maximizing league performance is more important than trying for the fairplay title. Algebraist 21:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But disrespecting the ref, etc., isn't going to help you win. I could understand why they might be more willing to risk yellow cards, but that's only one small portion of the fair play points. --Tango (talk) 22:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jarry has already suggested that losing teams are more likely to complain, which probably leads to a lower 'respect to the ref' score. My earlier comments were restricted to the 'positive play' score, but having looked at UEFA Fair Play ranking, I see that 'returning the ball to the opponent at a throw-in' is given as an example of 'respect to the opponent'. That sort of thing will clearly lower your chances, so you might do it less if you're at a disadvantage already. Algebraist 22:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It only lowers your chances if the assistant ref is blind enough to let you take your opponent's throw in. I can see there are various things that will make a small bias, but there seems to be a pretty strong correlation. --Tango (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Algebraist was talking about people taking their opponents throw in rather if you don't return the ball it will take longer for the opponent to be able to take it giving your team more time to get in position to defend. There's also the psychological warfare issue, of trying to put the opposing team off their game, provoke them to retaliate etc. As it stands, it looks to me like in most cases the difference can either be explained from the fact a losing team is more likely to want to push the limit in the hope they'll win (cards, positive play, respect for the other team) or the losing team is more likely to be pissed off (whether deserved or not) and behave poorly (all the others of course as well as respect to ref, behaviour of officials, behaviour of fans). There's also I expect some belief (accurate or not) that applying some pressure to the referee and other officials may influence their decisions positively (for your team). Of course there's also the fact that a well disciplined and oiled team etc is more likely to play well in general. In any case, trying to argue from a statistical standpoint that it may make more sense for them to behave properly in the hope they win the UEFA fairplay award is a bit silly since we're presuming people always behave rationally and analyse things from a logical, scientific? viewpoint which anyone with any understanding of human behaviour should know is rarely the case. In other words, even if it's true they'd be better off behaving extremely well, which we just don't know given the complications that have been discussed, there's no reason to presume people are going to think of that let alone do it. Nil Einne (talk) 11:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might also want to consider that there are suggestions that top teams have a greater influence over the refereeing profession than might be healthy. In particular, Sir Alex Ferguson's comments to Keith Hackett come to mind - see this report from the BBC for example. Astronaut (talk) 15:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]