Miscellaneous desk
< November 1	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 3 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 2

ADHD meds

This question has been removed as it may be a request for medical advice. Wikipedia does not give medical advice because there is no guarantee that our advice would be accurate or relate to you and your symptoms. We simply cannot be an alternative to visiting the appropriate health professional, so we implore you to try them instead. If this is not a request for medical advice, please explain what you meant to ask, either here or at the talk page discussion (if a link was provided).

Catskin coats

What is the euphemistic term used to describe a fur coat made from the pelts of domestic cats (i.e. to make the origin of the fur non-obvious to the consumer)? Someone told me once, but I've forgotten. I was thinking for a moment that it was sable, but that's not it. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Domestic cat is not listed on list of types of fur. Are you sure this practice is commonplace? I would think fur-farms prefer "high quality" fur animals, e.g. with more fur per square inch, and so on. This website, whose authority I won't vouch for, says cat fur is sold as "wild cat, katzenfelle, rabbit, goyangi, mountain cat or is even sold as 'fake fur.'" Nimur (talk) 01:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds to me very much like an urban legend, (Someone told you a secret way to identify something unpleasant?) but there's no mention on snopes.

In any case, trading in cat pelts is more or less illegal in the USA and EU. So, if there's a 'standard' euphemism you won't see it in stores.

(Personally, If I were trading in car pelts, I'd call it "African Wildcat". Very exotic sounding, but also more or less true. )APL (talk) 14:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No way you could legally sell cat fur as "fake fur" People with cat allergies who bought a fake fur coat would sue the pants off you when they started having allergic reactions. Googlemeister (talk) 15:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether they're still sold anywhere, I doubt it, but "catskin comforters" were common 200 years ago in Europe and America. – OhioStandard (talk) 17:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ADHD meds are a scam

The removed question above a couple back has ADHD medication as its topic. It roused feelings in me and I answered it, as I have experience with ADHD medication. The Google search "ADHD meds are a sham" yields 60,000 results, so it must be a common thought. To further make this question not a request for medical advice, I want to see what the thoughts about the American (and international) pharmaceutical industry in general that are out there and to what extent they teach the public that what they have can be cured with a pill. Thanks Wikipedians! schyler (talk) 02:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure what you're asking, but don't place too much weight on how many results Google returns as being an indicator of truth - for example i have been abducted by a ufo returns me 384,000 results, while i am jesus returns me 118,000,000. FWIW Pharmaceutical_industry#Controversy_about_drug_development_and_testing discusses controversies in the pharmaceutical industry. --jjron (talk) 02:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would rephrase your suggestion to "teach the public that what they are can be cured with a pill". My view is that we have a huge spectrum of behaviours and a huge spectrum of "treatments". Some of these behaviours may have been fine in larger, better structured, better run families in the past, but don't work in the modern world. Some of the treatments work well for the patients. Others work well for the drug companies. As a teacher, one of the worst aspects of the public diagnosis of ADHD is when a badly behaved kid at school responds to criticism with "I can't help it. I've got ADHD". HiLo48 (talk) 02:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(As a former student with ADD, my experience is that most professionals in the field would stress that having ADD should never be used as an "excuse" to try to get away with any kind of "bad behavior" – I think your students may be trying to "pull one over" on you about that, HiLo48, as of course kids in general will. ;) You would be quite right to have no tolerance for that sort of thing). WikiDao ☯ (talk) 15:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Schyler. It's understandable that you're frustrated with "over-diagnosis" of ADHD as a syndrome or a disorder. But the reference desk isn't the place for you to declare your opinions - it's just not the right forum. Your viewpoints are shared by many - including experts in the fields of education, psychology, and medicine: even a cursory study of published research on ADHD indicates that many experts believe that ADHD is over-diagnosed, over-treated, and over-medicated. Many professionals oppose ever medicating or even treating ADHD; others just want more discretion to be used before providing medication or treatment. In fact, there is so much debate about what ADHD is, and whether it should be treated, that we have an entire article listing some of the numerous controversies. Our article Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder management discusses issues and concerns about "over-medicating". This section of our article discusses concerns about whether it should even be classified as a "disorder." So the long and short of it is - yes, there is significant debate about ADHD. We can point you and other questioners to some of the many resources on Wikipedia and elsewhere. But we will not participate in diagnosis of ADHD and we definitely will not answer questions about consequences of taking or not taking medications if they are posted on the desk. It has been well established that Wikipedia is not the appropriate medium for anyone to evaluate the positive or negative effects of medications for specific individuals - that constitutes medical advice and we will not do it. If you disagree with this policy, please consider bringing up your concerns at the talk page and consider reading our medical advice policy. Nimur (talk) 04:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this search is what you are looking for http://www.google.co.uk/search?aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=adhd+medication+effectiveness . Maybe someone with a background in this could sift through it to find relevant info.Sf5xeplus (talk) 06:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also this http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=adhd%20medication%20over%20prescribed&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=bks:1&source=og&sa=N&tab=wp - concerning whether or not doctors are giving ADHD drugs too freely - some say yes, others no. I'm not a doctor so I can't qualify which can books or studies be taken as reliable and which not.Sf5xeplus (talk) 11:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the reference desk is a resource for researchers, but it is also a place to post those little thoughts which may have an academic approach. It is not for opinions and answers should always be drawn from a scholarly work or from a respectable source. All this, yes, I do understand. All that being said, thank you wikipedians for your help and linking to relevant articles. schyler (talk) 13:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In summary, we were able to direct you to the Wikipedia article that using WP:NPOV notes that Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder controversies exist, but regardless of how a question is posed, the Ref. Desk will not debate this or any other medical controversy. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is clearly a lot of controversy about ADHD and its treatment, but I do not think it is reasonable to say that medications for it are a "scam". I'm sorry to hear, OP, that you feel your experience with ADD meds was problematic.

I think this point, from our ADHD article, is pertinent:

"Methods of treatment often involve some combination of behavior modification, life-style changes, counseling, and medication. A 2005 study found that medical management and behavioral treatment is the most effective ADHD management strategy, followed by medication alone, and then behavioral treatment. While medication has been shown to improve behavior when taken over the short term, they have not been shown to alter long term outcomes."

"Coaching", another form of treatment usually more for adults with ADD, can also be very helpful, whether in combination with medication or not. Everyone is different though; if you have been diagnosed with ADD, you should work with doctors and other professionals to arrive at a treatment for it that works best for you. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spurious Bank Account alerts online.

I suspect I already know the answer to this but here goes anyway. I keep getting e-mails telling me to re-register my account details as there "has been an attack on your account and it has been suspended", or some such attempt to get me to enter my account details and passwords. In fact, I don't actually open them anymore, simply reporting them unopened as Spam. But I can't help wondering even now after all the warnings about these scams, do nutters and fools still respond to them and enter their details as requested? But I guess the reason I know the answer already is because the scammers still keep up the pressure and so it would seem they must occasionally score? Or are they by now merely being mischievous? 92.30.114.79 (talk) 11:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that it still pays. The cost of sending spam to millions of people is very low to them (they use other people's PCs via botnets), so if one person in a million is that stupid then it would still probably be worth their while. Experience tells me that a lot more than one person in a million is that stupid! -- Q Chris (talk) 12:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an article about Phishing which notes that Microsoft estimated as recently as 2008 that the annual loss to this scam in the US is US$60 million. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers in Phishing#Damage caused by phishing are a few years old and vary wildly, but damages were put at at least millions of US$ or GB£ in 2007. This article from The Register claims "0.47 per cent [One in 200] of a bank’s customers fall victim to phishing attacks each year" and claims losses of $2.4m-$9.4m (US, presumably) per million customers per year. The Register has more articles on phishing here. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 13:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Poinciana

To whom it may concern: I was reading a article about the Royal Poinciana places where they can grow. I live in Poinciana,Florida:Can I grow The Royal poinciana in my yard? I have about ten Royal Poinciana(Flamboyant)growing in pot. What is the chance they can grow? Can somebody help me. Please.

Thank You, Augie Sanchez —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.52.1.88 (talk) 17:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might be able to. According to this article, some references say the Royal Poinciana is hardy in zone 9b, others say it is only hardy in 10 or higher. This map of Florida hardiness zones puts Poinciana in 9b, but just barely. My guess is that if you have a sunny area that is also protected from winter winds, you might have success, but be sure to read the full discussion in the first linked article. --LarryMac | Talk 10:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i can see clearly now

what are the lyrics in "I can see clearly now" about? 70.241.22.82 (talk) 18:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are a clear expression of unabashed optimism following the end of a period of depression or unhappiness, primarily expressed with metaphors about the weather. I'm not sure there's a whole lot more to them than that. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on that, there may be some specific event in the life of the songwriter which inspired the song (in this case, Johnny Nash), or there may not have been, it could just be a general "feel good" song. The Wikipedia article on the song, I Can See Clearly Now, implies that part of the source of popularity for the song comes from the fact that it stood out, both musically and in subject matter, against other hits of the time. --Jayron32 21:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks! :) 70.241.22.82 (talk) 22:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"WCA"?

I live in the US. Over the past couple of weeks, we have been getting phone calls from some organization which claims to be "WCA", offering a variety of different solutions to several different problems, from needing wheelchairs, to legal services, etc. They start off with a taped message by someone who gives their first name (always different), telling us to press 3 to opt out, or press 1 to speak to a person. Twice now, I've pressed 1 and asked to be put on the do not call list, but they continue to call. I have no idea what WCA is, but it certainly seems like a scam. Nothing really informative shows up on a Google search, that I have been able to find. Does anybody have any clues as to who they are, how their scam works, and how to get them to stop calling, since they are obviously violating the law by continuing to call after I asked them to put us on the do not call list. Corvus cornix_talk 20:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the complaint form for the do-not-call list, but I don't know if the complaints are ever acted upon. This enjoyable read is from a guy from Washington DC who used small claims court to sue the caller for US$500; he won the suit and collected; because there's a federal law prohibiting recorded phone spam (with a few unfortunate exceptions for nonprofits; but it doesn't sound like your annoying caller qualifies, to me). Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Googled for a while, and "WCA" does show up as a telemarketing company, mainly on sites where people share information about nuisance calls, here, for example. They sometimes call themselves "WCA Offer Clearing House", but seem to have various incarnations, and to use a variety of phone numbers. The taped message and the "press to opt out" elements seem to be common to many people's experience, and there are indeed a number of complaints that pressing to opt out just triggered more calls, presumably because (like internet spam) it proves that the number is a "live" one. I found this online complaint form for the FCC as well as the do-not-call one that Comet Tuttle links to - it would probably do no harm to complain to both. Ka renjc 14:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may find these links helpful. I especially like the second one, where you get to ask what kind of toothpaste the caller prefers. ;-) Cheers, – OhioStandard (talk) 17:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia smartphone question

Is there a Nokia smartphone that is essentially similar to the Nokia C6-00 but without the touchscreen? I distinctively remember seeing one. JIP | Talk 20:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two French defence businesses...same or different?

Does anybody know if the French military/defence companies Directions Techniques Des Constructions Naval and Direction des Constructions Navales (now DCNS) are different companies, the same company, or the same company at different times? -- saberwyn 21:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to this site, "Direction Technique des Constructions Navales" changed its name to DCN. Warofdreams talk 01:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Public Domain Whale Sounds?

Does anyone know where I could download public domain or otherwise free-to-use whale sounds? CGPGrey (talk) 21:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Commons have some free-to-use whale song here. Antiquary (talk) 22:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See FindSounds. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. --CGPGrey (talk) 12:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]