Miscellaneous desk
< September 3	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 5 >

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 4

Do bipolar and aspergers ever mix in people's illnesses or disabilties?

Do bipolar and aspergers ever mix in people's illnesses or disabilities? Neptunekh2 (talk) 03:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The paper at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2590592/ reports that there is at least some comorbidity of the two conditions, and reviews other literature on the topic -- there isn't a lot, though. Looie496 (talk) 03:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warning - Anecdata: I know at least one person who has both of these conditions. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being both obsessive and manic-depressive sounds totally plausible. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What determines what race/ethnicity you belong to ?

I am 1/16 Jew (as my grandfather was 1/4), 1/8 German (as my mother was 1/4) and the rest of me is Dutch. I therefore consider myself Dutch. However, here in New Zealand, even if you have a remote ancestor who is Maori, you can can call yourself Maori, regardless of all the other races/ethnicities that make you up. This means people who are 1/128 Maori can still call themselves Maori.

How do other nations determine what your race or ethnicity is ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.56.234 (talk) 06:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that there is any hard and set rule to determining race and ethnicity. It's mainly a matter of opinion. In the U.S. before the 1960s, the one drop rule meant that any black ancestry made you black. To be honest, I primarily judge race by looks (if you look black, then I would consider you black, even if you're only 1/2 black) and ethnicity by ancestry. For instance, as far as I know, I am 3/8 Jewish, 3/8 Russian, and 1/4 Belarusian. Therefore I consider myself to be all three of these ethnicities, though I identify with the Jewish ethnicity the most (even though I'm not Jewish by Jewish law). I guess that I also look Jewish, or at least kinda Jewish. Futurist110 (talk) 07:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your ethnicity is what you identify for yourself. No government can really legislate for that. HiLo48 (talk) 07:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no single good answer. I've recently been researching my family history, and confirmed French ancestry some 8-10 generations back that had previously only been suspected. I've also been able to trace more of my Irish ancestry. I feel particularly drawn to these identities, but I haven't forgotten my strongly Welsh patriline, either. My partner's ancestry runs to most countries in Europe. Here in the UK, your ethnicity is whatever you feel is most relevant. I prefer to put 'White British' rather than any of the individual 'White English', 'White Scottish' options, where it's offered. I suspect that with the rise of Ancestry, FindMyPast, and other genealogy sites, rather more Brits will find that their roots are more diverse than they thought. If one of my ancestors proves to be a Jew from Russian-occupied Poland, rather than Irish (a question I haven't managed to get a good answer to), that doesn't affect who I am - but it might lead me down a different path of historical research. White Brits tend not to emphasise any non-British origins - despite the large number of Polish Brits who have arrived here over the past 150 years or more, I've never seen them (or any other comparable group) offered anything apart from 'White Other' on diversity forms. On the other hand, there is a tendency for non-White Brits to be discouraged from identifying primarily as British, despite the fact that a huge proportion of non-white Britons have lived most if not all of their lives in the UK, and a significant number have been here for many generations.

However, the key legal distinction here is that no ethnicity has any special standing in UK law. Affirmative action is banned, there are no indigenous groups whose lands are specially protected, and so forth. So there is no legal interest in defining closely what is and is not a particular racial or ethnic group. Racial discrimination law rests on perceptions, not ancestries. If someone discriminates against me because they think I'm Jewish (as has happened to my father) the fact that they're wrong in fact doesn't enter into the legalities. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments from me:

You seem to be confusing race with nationality.
Judaism is an odd one, as it is simultaneously a race and a religion and, to an extent, a basket of cultures, and you can be Jewish by one, two or all three of those. One thing Judaism definitely isn't is a nationality. You can define yourself as a Dutch, Jewish Maori if you like.
I agree with the comment above that your ethnicity is how you define yourself...
...but you seem to be more concerned how other define you. I wouldn't worry too much about that.

Hope that helps, --Dweller (talk) 11:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are some confusing terms here, and they are all basically social constructs. The concepts of race and ethnicity refer mostly to how a person interacts with other people in the culture in which they live. For example, in the U.S. being black or white isn't solely about the color of one's skin, it is mainly about how people treat you based on that color. Race and etnicity issues also come up in India, where the caste system has prevailed for a long time. In the U.S. all South Asians are treated as culturally and socially all the same, while in India the divisions are very real and very old and very unlike anything in the U.S. Nationality refers to what nation one is legally part of, in the U.S. there is jus soli tradition, which means that people born in the U.S. are Americans, period. People often speak of their ancestors nationality, such as being "1/2 French and 1/2 Scotch-Irish" or something like that. That is significant, as we often receive some of our cultural outlook from our parents (the languages we speak, the foods we eat, the general outlook we have on life), so knowing what one's parents and grandparents were is part of defining how one relates to the world. But fundementally, these are self-identified characteristics. It comes down to how you relate to your society, and how your society relates to you. --Jayron32 13:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am partly Irish, partly Scots, partly Welsh, and my ancestors even had Viking relatives. 'Viking' doesn't appear on any modern form, so I just put 'White British'. It's not important. It's who you feel you are. If somebody else really wants to delve into my ancestry to see what I really am, then they can feel free, because it doesn't matter. I was born in England, from parents who were also born in England, whose parents were also born in England (and from then on it gets complicated). I am white, and I am British. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to answer questions about my ethnicity with "yes", "no", or "human", depending on my mood. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If your mother is Jewish, you are. I had a NYC taxi-driver offer to drive me free there and back to a mikvah for a quick cleansing submersion/conversion when he learned from our discussion that my mother's mother's mother was Jewish. μηδείς (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How odd. If your mother's mother's mother was Jewish, said taxi-driver should have considered you Jewish without a mikveh - mikvaot are for conversion, after all: how do you convert a Jew to Judaism? Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 23:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I was raised Christian, ate treif, and had no bat mitzvah. As an atheist I didn't really care one way or another, but I'd love to be a Jew Jew, and would have said yes if I hadn't been in a real hurry. μηδείς (talk) 04:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you were born in a pigsty, brought up never having heard of religion, spent the day of your batmitzvah standing on your head and detested chicken soup, you'd still be considered Jewish, according to halacha. Conversely, if you'd started out as a non-Jew, a dip in a mikvah without going through a proper conversion would have left you just as non-Jewish... although you would be wetter. --Dweller (talk) 15:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In New Zealand, what happens if you claim and prove that you're at least fractionally Māori? --Theurgist (talk) 04:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, do the Māori people, as the descendants of the autochthonous population of the islands, enjoy any kinds of privileges that might make them interested in "calling themselves Māori"? --Theurgist (talk) 10:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I haven't looked into the matter, so I can't really say anything. The taxi driver was from one of the conservative sects you find in Brooklyn, although not Hassidic (no peyot sideburns) so his beliefs may not have been those of more mainstream groups. I got the impression it was a cleansing and symbolic reaffirmation, kind of like a lapsed Catholic going to confession, or getting circumcised. The issue will matter if I have kids. But almost all of my family are atheist cultural Catholics. I didn't even know my greatgram was Jewish until we went through her things when my grandmother died. This reminds me of a Jewish client who, upon being told my first nephew was to be born, insisted on knowing whether he was going to be circumcised. μηδείς (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

% of Wikipedia That Is Male & Female

Does anyone have statistics as to what % of Wikipedians are male and female? Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 07:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This gets asked fairly regularly (see here and here for example, which contain some interesting links to follow up). The answer seems to lie somewhere between "10-15% female" and "we haven't a clue because most users don't tell us". - Ka renjc 08:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there's a significant disparity with the general population, I would think that the percent of wikipedians that are male and female is extremely low. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL Bugs Bunny! Futurist110 (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Registering a Company in the EU

Is it possible for a citizen of one member-state of the EU to register a company in another member-state, and have the address of the main office in another member-state (or the member-state of the individual)? KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I looked into this some months ago. I can't remember everything, but I do remember that it was quite hard to find out. If I recall correctly, the website of Companies House had some information about this (and our article has some useful links too). One thing I do know for sure is it complicates your tax affairs - a lot. Astronaut (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A limited company in the UK has to have something called a "registered office", which is its "legal" address. If a legal document is delivered to that address (which has to really exist, and really be able to accept mail) then the company is said to have received it. That address doesn't need to be the company's own properly - for some it's a lawyer or accountant or other handling agent. I don't know the specifics currently, but I don't think it can just be a dead-drop like a Mailboxes Etc. There's no real definition of what a "head office" is. Businesses may also use a postal address, which can be their own premises, or which can be a PO Box, or which can be the premises of an agent. For example, I pay several utilities by cheque by post - two of the cheques (for unrelated utilities owned by different companies) go to the same building in Southend on Sea, which I assume is an outsourced mail-open-and-imaging company. As to other member states: the idea of the Single European Act is that any company in one member can trade in another, without having to create a company in each member state (or worse, in each region of each member state). For a complicated example, consider Amazon.com's UK operation, which is owned by its Luxembourg parent Amazon EU S.à r.l. More complicated still is how Amazon does fullfillment to the UK - many things (dvds and cds at least) come from Indigo Starfish in Jersey (which is British, but not in the EU) even though you ordered them from amazon.co.uk (and were dealing with Amazon EU SaRL). Amazon calls Indigo Starfish its "preferred fulfiller", but Amazon (reportedly; can't find solid references) owns a large part of Indigo Starfish. 176.250.119.189 (talk) 17:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indigo Starfish is predominantly owned by a Glasgow businessman; Amazon may have a minority stake, but I have my doubts; the article would very likely have mentioned it if so. Andrew Gray (talk) 13:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

British author with rainbow dyed hair?

Who is the white woman British author (I am not sure of her exact field, something like enviromentalism, I think--she may not be most known as a writer) on whom we have an article with a picture showing her fair hair dyed like a fruit-flavored rainbow popsicle and a band on her ear margin as jewelry? I think she may in some way be associated with Richard Dawkins. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 17:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't anyone is commons:Category:Female blue, green, pink, and/or purple hair, is it? No-one seems to quite fit your description. --Tango (talk) 18:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, this woman is some sort of academic, in her 40's-ish, and has a rainbow-like highlight fringe in our picture of her (assuming the same one is still being used). Best I can say for sure is that some of her writing or activity has been criticized ideologically as being pseudo-science by hostile readers. I have seen different pictures with different dye jobs and flamboyant jewelry more usually worn by college-age people. μηδείς (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is she Rebecca Watson? Her hair in our article is not wild but images on line are in burgundies and turquoises. I don't see any flamboyant jewellery, but she did have a run-in with Dawkins who considered one of her rants to be silly. Bielle (talk) 05:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great answer, Watson fits several of the criteria. But no. The woman I am thinking of has fair hair, probably short around the sides, and is at least 40 y/o looking. μηδείς (talk) 16:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Blackmore? Deor (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo! μηδείς (talk) 20:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

She'll be pleased to know you think she looks 40ish... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.6.114.164 (talk) 22:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I said "at least", I was thinking no more than 50, but yeah, she's had a good facelift. Funny thing is the topic came up for me in regard to the "technicolor" (i.e. colorization) thread on the Humanities Desk and how they reconstructed actual colors from B/W. μηδείς (talk) 01:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a formula, pill or shampoo that makes hair grow faster?

duplicate question from science desk

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Is there a formula, pill or shampoo that makes hair grow faster? Neptunekh2 (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't ask the same question in multiple places. μηδείς (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Symbols for affirmation and negation?

I have seen the following schemes:

O for affirmation, X for negation (common in Japan, I believe)
check mark for affirmation, blank for negation
X for affirmation, blank for negation
X for affirmation, O for negation (see bottom of page, here: [[1]])

Do we have an article on these? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.239.254 (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Tick (check mark).—Wavelength (talk) 20:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For further reading, you may want to check out the Symbols section of the List of international common standards article. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's also X mark and O mark. I am delighted to learn that a tick means "wrong" in Sweden. Card Zero (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also in certain sectors of the US educational system. In primary school and perhaps secondary as well, teachers would put a check mark next to wrong answers. Then at some point I had to get used to a check mark being applied to a correct answer, or sometimes just to an entire homework assignment that was considered acceptable (in classes where the bulk of the grade came from your performance on exams, but you might get a little break if you were on the borderline between two grades and you'd done most of your homework). --Trovatore (talk) 03:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Every now and again I find myself having to fill out a form that requires me to indicate which of several choices applies to me by putting an X in a box. As a teacher, I routinely use X to indicate a negative, a wrong answer, in students' work. So using X to indicate a positive seems counter intuitive. HiLo48 (talk) 21:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do you handle voting? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I use the numbers 1, 2, 3... as required by Australian law. HiLo48 (talk) 00:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They never, ever use paper ballots? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Always on paper. To rephrase, I write the numbers 1, 2, 3... as required by Australian law. (Yes, I know it takes a higher level of literacy and numeracy than just putting an X in a box, but we pride ourselves on our skills in this area.) HiLo48 (talk) 02:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You lost me. What do the numbers mean? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Electoral system of Australia#Preferential voting - You get to rank candidates in order of preference. Unfortunately, this system requires more thinking than is really necessary (especially if you know anything about Australian politicians). It would be more sensible to rank them the other way. Start with the repulsive liberal/green/commie/neo-fascist/whatever you hate most, and mark him number one, then the second most repulsive and so on. When you've made your final choice, that's your 'preference' ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is truly bizarre, unless you have an option called "none of the above". A guy could finish second on every ballot and still win the election. That would suck. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why would that suck? Suppose you have three candidates, A, B, and C. 40% of the voters like A best but the other 60% would move to Syria if he won. 40% like C best but the other 60% think she wants to nuke Denver. Candidate B, on the other hand, is basically acceptable to everyone, including the 20% who put her as first choice. Shouldn't B win? If not, why? --Trovatore (talk) 08:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) "I am unfamiliar with that" does not equal "that is truly bizarre". If, after preferences are distributed, no other candidate got as many votes as the guy who's second on every ballot, of course he should be elected. Who would have a greater claim? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 08:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have run-off elections? And the point I'm making is that if you hate a candidate, you shouldn't be compelled to inclde him on your numbered list at all. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but it does feel good placing someone last. HiLo48 (talk) 11:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this straight. You don't know whether we have run-off elections or not (we don't), meaning your level of knowledge about our system is less than rudimentary, yet you still have the gall to characterise what vanishingly little you do know about it as "truly bizarre". Give me a break, Mr Bugs.

To answer your last question, most Australian legislatures require that all the candidates be accorded a preference. Leave off the last two preferences in a field of 50, and your ballot is declared informal. The New South Wales Legislative Assembly uses an optional preferential voting system, meaning you can rank as few of the candidates as you wish (minimum 1) and ignore the rest. Whether this system will ever extend beyond NSW is a moot point. Suffice to say that the Reference Desk is not the place to be telling other countries, or even your own country, what it “should” or “should not” be doing. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 11:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not telling you what to do, I'm just trying to understand the reasoning behind it. First you're forced to vote, then you're forced to rank them (except in NSW, apparently). If you hate all the candidates, shouldn't you be able to rank all of them as 999 or something? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you did tell us what to do (... you shouldn't be compelled to inclde him on your numbered list at all).

You seem not to understand the concept of "preference". Giving 2 or more people the same number is not exercising a preference at all. The system works by eliminating the person with the least number of primary votes (No. 1) and distributing their preferences; then repeating this process as many times as necessary until one candidate has a majority. That's assuming nobody had a majority outright after the ballots were counted. The first requirement is that you turn up and receive a ballot paper; what you write on it is basically up to you, but since you're there anyway you may as well use it make a valid vote. That means telling the system who you would prefer to be your representative. And if you can't have them, who would your next preference be; and if you can't have them, ..... and so on, all the way through all the candidates. NSW went some way to recognising what you're on about. There, if you hate any candidate, you simply don't give them a vote at all; the system requires you to hate at least one of them a little less than the rest, if only because many people would otherwise say "I hate them all, and there's no point in my turning up at the polling station at all", which would make the election compulsory in name only. Since we do have compulsory voting, the system cannot undermine itself. Whether we should have compulsory voting is a different question, not relevant to this topic. ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Whether you should be compelled to or not is a matter of opinion. It is in your interests to include him, though, so that you can indicate that you would prefer anyone but him. Not numbering someone means you are indifferent between that person and all the others you haven't numbered. Being indifferent between two people is very different to hating one of them. (Our article says Australia does require you to number everyone, although whether they actually void your vote if you don't, I don't know. A lot of preferential voting systems do let you stop numbering once you no longer have a preference.) --Tango (talk) 11:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having worked in polling stations and knowing a bit about our electoral laws, I can tell you that only NSW has the optional preferential system where you can stop numbering candidates anywhere after No. 1. Elsewhere, if there is any ambiguity in your vote for any of the candidates on the ballot paper, your entire vote is eliminated from the count. Problems with having to number every single candidate on huge Senate ballot papers led to the introduction of above/below the line voting, whereby you can still number every candidate individually if you like (I always do), or you can choose to tick a box that says "Please use whatever order of preferences Party X has officially specified before the election". -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a ploy by the big parties to make it more difficult to vote for anyone else... what harm does not expressing a preference between some of the candidates do? If you get down to needing to look at 24th preferences, then you can just discard those ballots then. --Tango (talk) 21:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place to be having a discussion about the perceived pros and cons of the Australian or any country's electoral system. Firstly, it would change nothing (except maybe bolster the self-righteousness of certain people). Secondly, it's against our own guidelines. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just kind of disappointed, as I assumed that the citizens of Australia were freer than it turns out to be. C'est la vie. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is freedom and there is freedom. HiLo48 (talk) 10:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did somebody mention "self-righteous"? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 11:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC) [reply]

American exceptionalism? HiLo48 (talk) 11:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what that's supposed to mean. If we have "no preference" then we don't vote... OR, we write in a candidate we approve of. Compelling every citizen to vote and mark a "preference" for a slate of hated candidates would be regarded here as tyranny, frankly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've been very vocal lately about not giving advice about drinking potentially toxic substances, using the "No medical advice" rubric. We have another rule here: "No speculation, no debate and no opinions, unless absolutely necessary". Why do you uphold one rule so staunchly but flout the other so totally? (NB. It's not just you, by the way; I just happen to be talking to you at the moment. See my new post at the Talk page about the broader issue.) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs - you seem pretty determined to tell us that the American system is better than the Australian one, when you knew nothing at all about the Australian one two days ago, and obviously have only very limited knowledge now. You're keen to tell us that you think Australians would be better off with the American system, despite very limited knowledge. That's pretty close to the definition of American exceptionalism. I'm happy to explain what I can about the Australian system, but won't use this place as a forum to tell you what I think is good or bad about the American one. HiLo48 (talk) 23:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let me ask you this: When you fill out that ballot, does anyone look over your shoulder to make sure you're doing it "right"? Or is it on the honor system? That is, could you take the ballot into the booth, "pretend" to mark it while actually leaving it blank, and then drop it into the ballot box with no one marked? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is a practical option exercised by some. HiLo48 (talk) 08:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The law might purport to require us to vote, but all it can ever actually do is force us to turn up at the polling booth (or lodge an absentee/postal vote), on pain of a fine. It can't go any further because what a voter writes on their ballot paper is utterly secret and private. So we have freedom to that extent. Some take advantage of this freedom to write messages for the government, usually in somewhat less than savoury language. Some doodle all over it. Some just leave it totally blank. Some put ridiculous numbers in boxes, like 492.339 or the square root of 19. But most people want to participate in the process and want their vote to mean something, so they're conscientious about doing it properly. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 08:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here in Detroit, I use a check mark as an affirmative and an X as a negative. No mark means it isn't resolved yet. Crossing out the text means it doesn't apply. For example, if I was making a guest list, the check mark would be added if I invited that person and they said they would attend, the X would be added if they said they couldn't attend, a question mark would be added if they weren't sure, I would cross out anyone I decided not to invite, and leave blank anyone I was (so far) unable to contact.

However, note that some lists are never marked with a negative. For example, if I have a grocery list, I would check off things as I got them, and leave the rest blank, meaning I still intend to get them, but at a later date. If I decided not to get them at all, say due to an excessive price, then I would cross them off the list. StuRat (talk) 03:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do likewise except I put an X in front of something I decide not to buy. As regards checkmarks vs. X marks, in American voting on paper ballots you have to put an X that crosses within the box. Outside the box is not counted, and a checkmark is not counted (unless you remember to convert it to an X, in which case it's no longer a checkmark anyway). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a bit of an 'in-joke', but a 'Resolved' box here would be lovely! 83.104.128.107 (talk) 13:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Very good. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are they right book for me?

Today, I noticed this book named Why Customers Do What They Do: Who They Are, Why They Buy, and How You Can Anticipate Their Every Move by Marshal Cohen at local book store. But before buying any books, I always look for its customer review in amazon.com. This book does not have any customer review in amazon.com except the "Advance praise for Why Customers Do What They Do" by some renown corporate professionals. My background is HR and I am on the way of entering my MBA program. I have keen interest in learning new things in different areas of business. Marketing is one of them. Should I give it a go?

I also noticed another book on grammar, Grammar Builder Level 1. I already own two books of Raymond Murphy which I bought a few years ago - Essential English Grammar for Elementary Student and Intermediate Student. As I am bit impressed with Grammar Builder book after reading few pages of it, but couldn't have the chance to compare with Raymond Murphy's Essential English Grammar for Elementary Student. I don't know whether there are any similarities between these two books as I don't want to get any books that cover same topic over and over. Should I buy this new book on grammar?

Any suggestion would highly be appreciated. Thanks--180.234.70.27 (talk) 21:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On your first question, you might be able to find other reviews of the book elsewhere on the web. There is one here, for example. There's also a couple of star ratings for the book on Goodreads [2]. On your second question, are you studying English with a teacher? If so, I would take their advice on what books to use. On the face of it, if you've already got the two Raymond Murphy books (which seem to be well regarded) I would stick with those rather than go with this Grammar Builder 1 book which does not have any reviews. --Viennese Waltz 07:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Wlatz. But is this book - "Why Customers Do What They Do" intended for US consumers only?? I am Asian. I found from its table content that it has a chapter regarding America - "The Supersizing of America" (http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0071460365/ref=sib_dp_pt/191-6771161-2095310#reader-link) and the first review you mentioned that it emphasizes on data about US consumers (4th paragraph). So I am bit confused whether I would get benefit from it from International perspective. I do not want to buy a book that only tells about their own country's marketing agenda rather than consumer marketing concepts as whole.Thanks--180.234.60.127 (talk) 21:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All things being equal, yes, the book is for you. It undoubtedly will have useful information in it. The more difficult question is one of opportunity cost, since you do not have enough time to read every marketing book, nor money to buy them all (nor access to a library that has them all). I think in your position I'd be searching on the web for "required/recommended/indicitive reading" lists for university marketing degree courses; or for courses run by professional bodies such this example from the Institute of Commercial Management - at the foot of each of the elements of the course structure you'll find their recommended text or texts. (The Chartered Institute of Marketing may have educational resources.) I very much doubt you'll find Mr. Cohen's book on any of the lists (though I stand to be corrected). Not least, I think you'd be best off starting with a book on marketing, fullstop. Not merely the aspects of marketing Mr. Cohen chooses to cover, but a grounding in the very broad academic concept of marketing. ICM, for instance, recommends Marketing: HND Mandatory Unit 1. BPP Professional Education ISBN 0-7517-1243-4, Fundamentals of Marketing - W G Leader & N Kyritsis (Stanley Thorne), Marketing Principles and Practice – D Adcock (Pearson Publishing), and Principles of Marketing - Kotler (Prentice Hall). Only once you understand the basic scope and principles will you be able to understand what aspects of it Mr. Cohen is addressing, and which he is not addressing. It is fairly certain that he is not covering all aspects of marketing. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have keen interest to take any marketing degree courses from the institutions you mentioned or from any other institutions available out there. I am HR professional and just want to get some insight about consumer behavior.--180.234.31.16 (talk) 06:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The title of one book in which you are interested reads How You Can Anticipate Their Every Move (my emphasis). If you believe that a book can tell you how to anticipate customers' every move, then I think you should read a book about "critical thinking" before you read any other.

I assume that he wants to sell copies of his book. His provision of "every" within the title is sufficient for me to infer that he is one or more of: a fool, a charlatan, and a blowhard. I don't suppose that he intended this. Therefore, if my assumption and supposition above are correct, the very wording of his title shows that the claim it embodies is false.

But then again he could just have been let down by incompetents at his publisher, who mandated a moronic subtitle. They can't even spell. Quote from the back cover (as reproduced at Amazon): "EVALUATE the process yearly to create and manitain [sic] customer loyalty". He hasn't got mine, poor fellow; so there's nothing for him to "manitain". -- Hoary (talk) 04:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

University Degrees

What is meant by a degree 'with honours' compared with a normal degree grading? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronboyman (talk • contribs) 22:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the school but graduating with honors could mean the student got a very high GPA in their studies, for example. See Latin honors for more explanation. RudolfRed (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does vary a lot with schools. I went to a school that offered an honors degree which required the student to complete additional course work and independent study. All students could graduate with a bachelor's degree or an honors bachelor's degree. This was independent of grade point average, which is used to assign the appenages "cum laude", "magna cum laude", etc. to the end of the degree. --Jayron32 22:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In British Universities, almost all degrees normally offered are honours degrees. A student who fails the first part of their degree may be allowed to continue studying but only be awarded an Ordinary degree. --ColinFine (talk) 22:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our page on British undergraduate degree classification is a good place to find out more about this use of the term. Marnanel (talk) 00:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Australia undergraduate degrees are offered with an honours option, which requires additional study—classically being a year of discipline specific research preparation—with a small thesis, marked on a I IIa/b III fail grade. Degrees are awarded in the form BA Hons., as opposed to a BA. It is used for determining immediate entrance into higher research degrees, such as PhDs, and access to research stipends. Honours degrees are also an entrance requirement for higher administration in government departments, and a recruiting tool for senior positions in private industry. In some professional fields honours is offered as an undergraduate stream and assessed on the basis of average marks across the professional undergraduate degree. This system is under threat from Bologna model 3+2 degrees, such as in the Melbourne Model. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States it can not only vary with schools but also within specific departments at each school; the requirements for honors in History might be completely unrelated to honors in Biology. At the various departments I've been involved with, they have all had very different honors requirements. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]