Miscellaneous desk
< November 16	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 18 >

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 17

Are the Wikipedians really serious about Userboxitis?

Are the Wikipedians really serious about Userboxitis, and what's so bad about them? I absolutely love Userboxes. Every one of them cracks me up with a smile on my face, and I wish I can use every single one of them on my Wiki user page. SuperSuperSmarty (talk) 02:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The correct plural is Userboxen. If you forget this world-shatteringly important fact one more time, we may have to inform the Wikipedia Secret Police and increase your coffee intake.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 07:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1, 2, 3...

This userbox is a test. Please tell this user if you don't see it.

HiLo48 (talk) 07:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. To give you an idea how old that basic joke is, at minimum, here's the second verse of the World War I song, "It's a Long Way to Tipperary": Paddy wrote a letter to his Irish Molly-o / Saying, should you not receive it, write and let me know / If I make mistakes in spelling, Molly dear, said he / Remember, it's the pen that's bad - don't lay the blame on me! That second part also sounds very familiar somehow. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a question better suited for Wikipedia:Help Desk or Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) or anywhere else. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What we really need is a userbox that says 'this user suffers from userboxitis'... Lemon martini (talk) 13:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

about ways of donation

I am a Chinese user without a credit card or a paypal account. I wonder if it's possible to add Alipay as a means of donation. This would greatly facilitate would-be Chinese donors. Thank you.

BTW about Alipay: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alipay#Alipay — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.88.2.55 (talk) 04:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are other methods of donation, including wire transfer and Moneybookers. See this page. Wikipedia:Contact us/Donations has more info, and you can contact donate@wikimedia.org with questions. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And, of course, thank you for your interest in donating to keep Wikipedia running! Your support is appreciated. --Tango (talk) 01:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diet Coke and Mentos

Just read the article, and was wondering what would happen if someone ingested Mentos shortly after drinking diet coke. Will they explode? Will the acid in their stomach neutralise the reaction? Also, is diet coke the only thing that works, or will normal coke do the trick too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.177.168.168 (talk) 09:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You'd probably vomit violently. I don't suppose you would explode - the plastic coke bottles don't. In any case I wouldn't try it. --Ouro (blah blah) 10:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or probably not. --Ouro (blah blah) 10:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article and references say that normal Coke produces a smaller reaction; they suspect aspartame in Diet Coke is partly responsible. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you search YouTube for mentos+coke+mouth there are plenty of people doing this but they all seem to have the sense not to drink the coke before eating the mentos.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coca-Cola claim you're safe to drink diet Coke and eat Mentos.To quote them:

Q. Can this same reaction occur if I eat Mentos and drink Diet Coke or Coke Zero at the same time?

A. No. Chewing the candy destroys its surface which is needed for the carbon dioxide bubbles to form.

Q. Will anything happen if I just swallow Mentos and then consume Diet Coke or Coke Zero?

A. No. The level of carbon dioxide and pressure generated in a 2 liter bottle of beverage is far greater than what can be produced in the stomach.

--Colapeninsula (talk) 14:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snopes.com says it won't make you explode or kill you but it can still be rather unpleasant to consume mentos and diet soda; they suggest that the mixture will re-emerge from your mouth and cite YouTube videos as evidence.[1] --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Verifying material in an entry on myself

The wiki entry on me – Brian Sibley – has a warning printed that the personal information may not be verified as no citations are given. How can I personally verify the correctness of information in the entry for readers?

Brian Sibley <EMAIL REMOVED> — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianSibley (talk • contribs) 14:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not include contact details in your questions. We are unable to provide answers by any off-wiki medium and this page is highly visible across the internet. The details have been removed, but if you want them to be permanently removed from the page history, please email this address.

All information on Wikipedia must come from reliable sources (e.g. newspaper articles, books), and should include a reference specifying the source. You can verify personal information by inserting references pointing to reliable sources that give the information in the article. See Wikipedia:Verifiability for what counts as a reliable source, and Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners for how to add references. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article Brian Sibley, there is a lot of biographical information that doesn't have any sources referenced. This information in theory shouldn't be included unless it has been published in a reliable source (generally something that has been professionally edited in whatever media, or produced by a reputable publishing house, TV channel, or a website acknowledged as a good source of information, not something from a blog, wiki, fanpage, etc). It should be possible to find sources for some of this - e.g. there's a quote from the Daily Telegraph that must be traceable to an edition of the paper or its website, and IMDb or the BBC website may be suitable sources for information on works he has written (some IMDb material like biographies and trivia are crap written by random people and not trustworthy, but IMDb is commmonly used for filmographies). However, I'm not sure if suitable published sources exist for many of the details Sibley's life (unless there is a newspaper or magazine profile somewhere). None of the material looks controversial, so I don't think it should be removed, but it would be nice to have some more references. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And finally, read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest before editing the Wikipedia page about yourself: you should avoid making major changes or writing anything controversial. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In case it's not obvious, Brian (and we regular Wikipedians may sometimes be guilty of forgetting to spell this out), you have identified yourself in your message as the Brian Sibley in question, and you very probably are, but we cannot be certain of that, and cases of malicious impersonation do occur - impersonation is very easy on the internet. For that reason we have to restrict ourselves to already-published sources which would have been challenged on their publication if erroneous, and which anyone can refer to as a check. We also have to make it a general rule to avoid self-published sources (e.g. your own website if you have one, or your personal communications to us or third parties) because some people may be motivated to misrepresent themselves, and because such sources are difficult or impossible for others to check. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.145 (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, your mug-shot was scanned in... Can you remember who the photographer was?--Aspro (talk) 17:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rare phenomenon

i was watching pirates of the carribean (at world's end) earlier and there is a scene in there where they discuss a natural phenomenon where a green light will shoot out from the sea to the sky, they say it is so rare that almost all men live out their lives not seeing the green light, so im am wondering, is there any natural phenomenon similar to this one that is so rare only a few people witnessed? im thinking of auroras.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arah18 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The phenomenon discussed in the movie is this: Green_flash thx1138 (talk) 18:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More generally, there are a number of rare meteorological or atmospheric phenomena that most people have never seen, including various kinds of upper-atmospheric lightning (sprites, elves, blue jets, blue starters) and cloud phenomena like glories and Brocken spectres. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 18:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Similar but not rare is the Naga fireballs. The article also links to St. Elmo's fire and Will-o'-the-wisp far more rare. --Aspro (talk) 18:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Wheels of Poseidon", [2] has been seen by few people. Note: The WP article Wheels of Poseidon makes sound as if it requires a ship – which it doesn't. The plankton can self generate the effect on their own on a large scale.--Aspro (talk) 18:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting guys, thanks. But is there any phenomenon that is almost considered as legendary for its rarity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arah18 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ball lightning seems to fit - it's still still unknown what it is, if anything, since witness reports vary widely. There may be some phenomena in the "see also" section with a similar status. Card Zero (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could check out some of the pages at Category:Atmospheric optical phenomena and related categories. The first thought I had was glories, Heiligenschein, and aureoles, but they are not that uncommon. Apparently the Kern arc is "extremely rare", with only six reported sightings, according to our page. Some natural phenomena are not rare but very hard to see, so few people have, like Gegenschein. The Fata Morgana mirage is rare and has a nice legend to go along with it (perhaps answering your second question to some degree). Also, I think the glory phenomenon (and perhaps related ones) played a role in the depiction of saints with aureola around their heads. Pfly (talk) 20:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're into this sort of thing, I might recommend a book called Handbook of Unusual Phenomena by William Corliss. It has a lot of odd stuff in it, much of which must be confused balderdash, but it all has some sort of documentation behind it (even if the documentation in question may itself be based on confused balderdash). It's available quite cheap used. It's entertaining at the very least. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another good book on natural light and color phenomena (not all "unusual" phenomena, but some, and all described in great detail) is Light and Color in the Outdoors by Marcel Minnaert. In fact, I paged through it after seeing this thread. Likely not as cheap as the Corliss book though. I found a used copy. Pfly (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Green Flash is pretty legendary, before it was photographed a lot of people didn't believe it existed. Except it unusual conditions, it's all but impossible to see. APL (talk) 03:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Akiza!

Where did Akiza go,when she left 5Ds? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.163.17.131 (talk) 19:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty vague again, Tailsman67. >_> Sergecross73 msg me 19:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that Akiza#Akiza_Izinski answers this question. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mean,where does she live? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.163.17.131 (talk) 20:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She doesn't live. She's a fictional character. If the show didn't explain where she left for, how would we know? Beeblebrox (talk) 01:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Danmit.:( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.163.17.131 (talk) 04:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CC and BCC

There are three windows in my Gmail account. A normal one (To) where I get to type in the addresses with commas, a CC window, and a BCC window. CC is for carbon copy, which means sending the same email to different people. Since I can already do that in the first window, with those commas, why has Gmail kept a separate CC window? Also, BCC forwards the same mail to different people, only now, they can't see who the other recipients of the mail are. So supposing I type one person's address in the first To window, and the other addresses in the BCC box, do the BCC recipients get to see the name of the person in the To box? 110.225.185.76 (talk) 20:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right they'd be able to see the people in the "To" "CC" and "From" fields. I don't really understand the point the "CC" field myself. Hot Stop talk-contribs 20:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"CC" is meant to be just for people to have a copy of the mail and not do anything with it, while "To" is for somebody to reply or action. If you get a "CC" it is just for interest and you dont need to reply or do anything. MilborneOne (talk) 20:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it depends on the usage of it. Some people may want a reply. Anyway, CC is just for aesthetics. It doesn't functionally mean anything different than "To". BCC actually does something different. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's just for aesthetics. If I CC someone on an email, it's essentially telling them why they are included on the email. That would be "I'm sending this for your own info but I don't expect a reply from you." It's communicating without having to spell out in the email "Hey John, this is for your info only. Don't feel the need to reply." Dismas|^(talk) 22:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is that some people use CC when they should, logically, be using the "To" line, and also misuse it when, for privacy, they should be using BCC. I wouldn't expect a reply if I received only a carbon copy. I have collected lots of e-mail addresses from people who pass on their whole address book in CC, though I have no intention of mis-using these. Dbfirs 22:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To summarise points from several of the above answers and also to clear up some possible confusions, the following is what I was taught in a formal Business Administration course leading to an RSA Certificate, and also subsequently in IT Diploma courses given (mandatorily) to new recruits at two different global multinational firm I subsequently joined. (The courses all predated the creation of Gmail, but I'd be very surprised if Gmail's usages differ.)

The 'To:' field is for the recipient or recipients who are expected to take action on or need the information in the contents of the e-mail; they can see all of the other To and CC recipients.

The 'CC:' (from Carbon Copy) field is for further recipients who are not expected to take action on or use the contents, but whom you wish to be aware that the e-mail was sent; they also can see all of the other To and CC recipients.

The 'BCC:' (from Blind Carbon Copy) field is for people whom you want to receive the e-mail without the To or CC recipients knowing about it; a BCC recipient can see all of the To and CC recipients but not any other BCC recipients, but the To and CC recipients cannot see any of the BCC recipients. Hope that helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.145 (talk) 01:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That explains it well, and it also raises an example that may not have been covered in a recent discussion about old-fashioned terms that are still used (such as "dialing" on the phone). "Carbon Copy" comes from a time when typists literally used carbon paper for making multiple copies. The need for carbon paper in that context pretty much disappeared as the xerox and the PC gained wide usage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do they even make carbon paper anymore? I suggest most younguns would never have seen any of it, much less used it -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 08:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Indeed they do. According to the description it's mainly used for making hand-written receipts. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... and it's still supplied in some bank paying-in books (the ones with a customer copy rather than a small counterfoil). Dbfirs 12:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]