Miscellaneous desk
< September 13	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 15 >

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.

September 14

please how can i compile a kernel which can be used in the cdrom:/isolinux

Question moved to the computing reference desk. --ColinFine (talk) 11:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Special type of ladder

Hi there,

not too many people reading here, so I'd like to put my question here, hoping to find more readers ... --Schwäbin (talk) 11:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Variously called a hook ladder, a pompier ladder (from the french for firefighter) or scaling ladder, although scaling can be one or two beam, when used in heraldry they are usually called scaling. meltBanana 12:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Chicken ladder" seems to be related [1][2][3]. Bus stop (talk) 12:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your hints. --Schwäbin (talk) 08:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

request to delete contributions

I want to delete all the images I have contributed to this site. Since none of them are verifiable, that is you need to trust that I was accurate and you can't trust one persons opinion or report. So I wish to delete them completely and not have them used on this site. I will NEVER contribute to this site again.

Thank you,

Dan Breyfogle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtbrey (talk • contribs) 15:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for requesting links and references to help with research. We cannot help you here. If you click on an image you have created and it says "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. Information from its description page there is shown below" then click on description page there. Click on the link at the top of that page that says discussion. Edit the discussion page to add {{delete}} and save it. The process will not be complete at that point, follow the instructions given. If you have future questions please direct them here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk as we cannot help you further at this desk. Please also consider asking an editor at the Help Desk to advise you on how you can recreate your deleted article and sufficiently source it so that it will not be deleted again. μηδείς (talk) 16:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That information is not correct in this particular case, but the advice to ask at the Help desk is the correct advice -- Dan, please do that. Looie496 (talk) 17:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I gave instruction for deletion form wikimedia commons, since another editor earlier said your files were hosted there. Instead click on the lins below, and cut and paste the bracketed information onto those pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gardner2006.jpg {{subst:db-reason-notice|File talk:Gardner2006.jpg|header=1|author requests deletion of unused file}}

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gardner2006T.jpg {{subst:db-reason-notice|File talk:Gardner2006T.jpg|header=1|author requests deletion of unused file}}

Again, before you do this, you may want to ask at the help desk how to successfully recreate your article. μηδείς (talk) 17:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, looking over your contribs, you've released File:Gardner2006.jpg into the public domain (ditto your other image upload). As such, you technically no longer have any rights regarding the image. That said, deletion of an unused image shouldn't be particularly controversial -- but I figure it's worth warning you to be careful about what rights you relinquish in the future. — Lomn 18:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Similarly, your Commons uploads appear to be under a Creative Commons license, which is is not revokable. Again, deletion of unused files is generally non-controversial, but you should be prepared for the possibility that not all of the files will be deleted. — Lomn 18:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. Breyfogle, if you follow my instructions, and the above naysayers do not act with good reason to oppose you, your files will be deleted as you request. If you have any trouble, please feel free to leave a note on my talk page. I have successfully had my own material deleted in the past. μηδείς (talk) 01:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your uploads are in scope, so they won't qualify for deletion at Commons; please note that attempts to get images deleted as a form of dissociating yourself from this site won't be accepted. Nyttend (talk) 06:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently one image is at wikipedia and the other at wikimedia. Spite may not be a relevant reason for deletion, but inverifiability is. Breyfogle can simply argue the image has no use and is unable to be verified. He should read WP:NOTIMAGE while people who have not helped him as a newbie could benefit from WP:BITE μηδείς (talk) 20:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Military service: Romney and Obama's families

I read that neither Mitt Romney nor Barack Obama saw fit to serve in the US military, but I got to wondering how many ancestors of either are known to have served in any army on any side in any historic conflict. Edison (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It completely baffles me the concern that US voters have that their politicians did military service. Astronaut (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So many assumptions in such a small font. Shadowjams (talk) 20:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But this is a very interesting sub-question. The answer to Astronaut is that in the US there was both compulsory military service and numerous chances to duck out of it. In the UK by contrast, the last PM to have served in the military was James Callaghan. It seems that all French presidents of the 20th and 21st centuries served. Hollande was exempted for myopia but appealed and is still an officer reservist. Chirac served in Algeria. Mitterrand was called up to the Maginot line, then deported to a prison camp in Germany, then in the Resistance. Quite different national cultures. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The US President is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, so one theory is that he might have more of a clue about the military if he actually served in it. An additional theory is that if he's been in combat himself, he might be a little more prudent about sending our children overseas to die for us. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And is there any empirical support for the latter? —Tamfang (talk) 20:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean "Does it really work that way?" I wouldn't bet the family jewels on it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, Barack Obama Sr.'s father Onyango had traveled widely, enlisting in the British colonial forces. After the attack on Pearl Harbor, Ann Dunham's father joined the United States Army, serving in the European Theatre of World War II with the 1830th Ordnance Supply and Maintenance Company, Aviation; and her mother worked at a Boeing plant in Wichita. Astronaut (talk) 18:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a lot more information (more than I care to read) about Mitt Romney's family, probably due to the LDS' interest in geneology. Romney family and Pratt family have links to all the details including "William Pratt (1609–1678) was an early colonial settler, a lieutenant in the Pequot War..." and "Anson Pratt (1801-1849)... fought at the Battle of Nauvoo. Astronaut (talk) 19:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what the OP means by neither of them "saw fit" to serve. That expression is pretty pejorative, usually used in a strong criticism of someone's alleged failure to act in some expected way. Is there some unspoken moral requirement or community expectation that people voluntary serve in the military in the US? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The OP said "saw fit" because service was a choice available to each of the two individuals, and they chose to do other things. I don't know how you would prefer it to be phrased. Make a good suggestion and I might rephrase the question. Edison (talk) 00:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They had the choice to do many things. They could have become train drivers, or librarians. It would be a really dumb thing to say "...neither Mitt Romney nor Barack Obama saw fit to become farmers". The question is obviously built around a belief by the OP that there is something special about military service, and that it's undesirable that neither took part. THAT IS the real guts of this question. Why are Americans so obsessed with military service and presidential candidates? HiLo48 (talk) 01:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not all people, but it's a plus for a Presidential candidate. And having dodged the draft, particularly by getting rich relatives to pull some strings, is highly unpopular with voters. Former President Bush may have avoided combat in that way. See George W. Bush military service controversy. StuRat (talk) 21:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found this survey. As it backed up my personal opinion, I stopped searching there -true, but irrelevant.

A substantial majority of Americans say serving in the military is a sign of patriotism.

The military is one of the most positively viewed institutions in the country. In Gallup's June 2011 survey, 78 percent had a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in the military. It was the highest ranked institution in the poll.

Although historical data on college students' patriotism are not available, a near majority of them (48 percent) in a poll taken soon after 9/11 described themselves as very patriotic and another 44 percent as somewhat patriotic. In October 2004, those responses were 39 and 49 percent, respectively.

Please note: I am merely saying that I would agree that this is how Americans generally feel. I am not an American. Bielle (talk) 21:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks StuRat and Bielle. I was of course aware of the Bush allegations (not that it dented his being elected twice). But now that the draft is a thing of history, I'm surprised people would be viewing presidents or candidates through the prism of whether they voluntarily served or not. I mean, sure it'd be a plus to be able to point to having volunteered for military service. But is the absence of a plus automatically interpreted as a minus? That sort of makes a mockery of the abolition of the draft and the voluntary nature of military service these days. I guess when it comes to politics, anything's possible. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's only recently that viable presidential candidates were born late enough to have been post-Vietnam (in other words, post draft), so the issues of avoiding service are very much still in play. Shadowjams (talk) 23:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A comment purely from narrow personal experience... I have got to know a few Americans from West Virginia. They've told me that joining the military is possibly more popular there than elsewhere in the US, not for patriotic reasons, but because it's one good source of a decent job and income in an area that's been economically depressed for some time. Presidential candidates generally don't seem to come from economically depressed areas. HiLo48 (talk) 22:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that it's possible to have too much military experience. A presidential candidate who has never done anything outside the military might be considered insufficiently qualified to be President, as ordering Congress to do what you want tends not to go over very well. :-) StuRat (talk) 23:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about that. It didn't seem to hurt career soldier Dwight D. Eisenhower any. Both parties wanted him to run under their banner. Ulysses S. Grant and Zachary Taylor got in on their military credentials. Also, Colin Powell and Douglas MacArthur got some support to run. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, after winning a major war, generals are a bit more popular than is typical. The rest of the time, they don't do as well. Also note that Eisenhower did do some things outside the military to broaden his experience, prior to his presidential run: Dwight_D._Eisenhower#President_at_Columbia_University_and_NATO_Supreme_Commander. StuRat (talk) 18:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was a former career soldier in de facto control of the White House on 30 March 1981 when the president was unavoidably detained. Haig ran for the Republican nomination for president in 1988 but went nowhere fast. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 11:19, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another sign of the American interest in this is the existance of List of Presidents of the United States by military service and List of United States Presidents by military rank. A lot of generals there. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

THIS IS YET ANOTHER REFERENCELESS INVITATION TO DEBATE THAT NEEDS HATTING OR REFERENCE TO ANI. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANYTHING NON-PARTISAN AND NON-POLITICAL TO ADD? IF NOT, CAN WE PLEASE HAT THIS? μηδείς (talk) 01:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There have been plenty of references so far. What are you complaining about now ? And all caps is considered rude here. StuRat (talk) 01:33, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"how many ancestors of either are known to have served in any army on any side in any historic conflict". Come again? Even if some people are taking that as an invitation to debate, that's still not a reason to yell at the whole room and ask for the thread to be hatted. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Links to irrelevant articles are not references, and in no case do they justify invitations to debate, which are forbidden. Your opinion that there are no rules is quite well known, there is no need to repeat it. μηδείς (talk) 01:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see some relevant refs, someguy, or this goes to ANI as another a good reason to shut down the ref desks as a pestilence. (I do remembert someone else saying we should remind each other constantly to provide valid refs. μηδείς (talk) 01:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I do not see why the original question should have set you off to the extent of your all caps vehemence.You get mad for no apparent reason and want to hat discussions and drag the matter to ANI, or to eliminate the Ref Desk entirely. You appear to be demanding references in the question itself, or to be claiming that no reliable sources could exist to answer the question. Which is it? It is a request for factual referenced information that might exist in a reliable source but is not readily found in Wikipedia. To make it less broad, lets stick to the years since 1776, to avoid someone claiming ancient warrior kings such as Charlemagne to be ancestors of either or both who fought in wars. For the US at least, pretty good records of military service back to 1776 have long been linked to genealogies.So far Obama's two grandfathers were in the military, with one on WW2 and the other vaguely in some British colonial force, not specifying whether in wartime or peacetime. A Pratt ancestor of Romney fought in the "Battle of Nauvoo," in 1846 in which Mormons were fighting non-Mormons in Illinois (We do not actually have an article on this "battle.") By the US Civil War, the Pratt and Romney ancestors seem to have been in Utah. Did those Utah residents stay out of that war, in general? There might be 6 or more generations of ancestors back to 1800, and only 3 persons have been identified above who might have fought for their country or tribe or faction. The links to the articles on the Romney and Pratt families are useful. Romney's father George was of the right age to have fought in WW2, but for some reason was a spokesman for car companies during the war rather than a fighter, per the article. George's father was the right age for the Spanish-American war, but had fled with his wives and kin to Mexico some years before. A Pratt had fought for a European power, but deserted the US Army while fighting the Mormons to join the Mormons.There seems to be less coverage, for fewer generation, of the Obama ancestors in Wikipedia than the Romney ancestors. The article on the Obama family could use more generations like the other articles mentioned. News stories have discussed Obama's ancestors back to the 1600's in America, so references must exist somewhere. Comments about Eisenhower or the Bushes seem off-topic. Edison (talk) 00:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now, let's all debate Medeis' comment... HiLo48 (talk) 01:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although British voters have always eschewed politicians of high military rank - the exception was the Duke of Wellington who was about the least popular prime minister ever - military service is almost compulsory for male members of the Royal Family. So not so great a cultural difference as some posters are suggesting. Alansplodge (talk) 22:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding it difficult to recall when military service (or not) was a significant part of the persona of a major Australian political figure. We don't seem to think it matters either way very much. Only one Prime Minister comes to mind, John Gorton, who was PM in 1968 to 1971. His air force career seemed to be mentioned from time to time. HiLo48 (talk) 22:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whitlam (1972-75) served in the RAAF, like Gorton (1968-71). When Gorton became PM, he wasn't exactly a non-entity but he was a relatively little known Senator, and the Australian populace had to be quickly brought up to speed about this bloke. We heard about his RAAF service and how he survived being shot down three times, which explained his facial scarring. But other than that, his RAAF service counted for nothing politically. It was never significant in Whitlam's public career either. See List of Australian Prime Ministers by military service for some others. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 23:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Jefferson ladder?

What is the name of this type of ladder where the steps don't go all the way across? The example that I've seen (and used) had three uprights and the rungs went from left to center, right to center, left to center, and so on. I've heard it called a Thomas Jefferson ladder but neither of our articles on ladders or Thomas Jefferson mention it. I'd like to know if Jefferson actually had a hand in inventing it or if his name just got attached to it somehow. And if there is a proper (however you want to define that) term for the type of ladder. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 19:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The page you linked, calls it "alternating tread stairs". Sounds like a reasonable name to me. Astronaut (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean ladder or stairs? The ladder looks ordinary to me. Shadowjams (talk) 20:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a tough one. One of the leading manufacturers calls them "alternating tread stairs" as well [4]. Jefferson is widely believed to have invented/promoted them, but you already knew that :)

This thread discusses how to build them [5], and someone there claims that the brochure at Monticello credits Jefferson as inventing them (the same thread also mentions Ben Franklin as a possible inventor) From Monticello.org, "According to architectural historians, who removed a modern staircase in 1979, the space was reached either by a ladder or a steep ladder-like stair." [6]. What might be confusing the issue is that Jefferson did invent and popularize a collapsible ladder [7], so the two may have been conflated along the way... SemanticMantis (talk) 21:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternating-tread stairs are are quite old: I've encountered them at Lindisfarne Castle (pre-Lutyens) and at Glastonbury Abbey, both in stone blocks. While it's the sort of thing that would have appealed to Jefferson, the concept was not invented by him. Acroterion (talk) 22:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]