Miscellaneous desk
< October 16	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 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.

October 17

How many have signed up for AHA?

Is there a reasonably accurate figure of the number of people who have signed up for the Affordable Healthcare Act? One report said 50,000 in New York State alone but another said a total of 5,000 in the US. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a moving target & since these questions get responses up to a week after they are asked the target will move so-to-speak. That said I think the confusion on the numbers you cite is that there are 3 numbers being counted & then in each state & by the overall federal system as well. The largest number cited is the "unique visitors" of people checking out the website, then numbers of those "creating accounts" in order to provide personal data & begin shopping. The third & lowest number of those are people that who have bought policies after receiving & studying several quotes on the site. To compare & contrast numbers by state it is important to do an apples to apples with either unique visitors, created accounts or policies bought.

From the news stories I see in the last 24 hours many states are refusing comment on the "policy bought" numbers & some even on "accounts created". What numbers do exist not only are hard to verify but are constantly changing so any true analysis might need to wait a few months.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 05:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes magazine estimated the number who had succeeded in signing up for health care on the first glitchy day was in "the single digits" out of the millions required to sign up by March. Maybe the nonfunctioning dropown menu of security questions has been fixed since. Another source reported that only a fraction of a percent of visitors manage to or chose to actually enroll in a policy in the first 2 weeks.There has not been any bragging by HHS or the White House about how many people have signed up for insurance. The administration has said they will release monthly figures, starting November 1. Edison (talk) 23:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They should have done a beta test - put it up on a website no one would know, and let people use it. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well today they said that 475,000 people have applied for insurance under the ACA. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Emery Harmon

A while back I created a page for my grandfather, Ernest Emery Harmon. Subsequent to that, I uploaded some photos to Wiki Commons. Both of these efforts were my first attempt to be a Wiki contributor. Admittedly, I have very little idea how to successfully interact with Wiki software. I spent a 31 year career in IT, but I find the Wiki interface, and associated Wiki rules/policies, to be extremely confusing. Most recently, I have been receiving emails from Wiki reviewers questioning the copyright validity of the photos I uploaded to Wiki Commons. All of the photos of my grandfather, who died in 1933, are from my family's private collection. This includes a photograph of a 4' x 5' framed painted portrait, and a photo of an original framed photograph of him in a cold weather flying suit, both of which were/are too large to be scanned. I am at a complete loss as to how to clear all this policy red tape in order to assure my well intended Wiki contributions are not deleted. My original intent was to add the uploaded photos to the Wiki page I created for my grandfather. But, given my difficulty with understanding how to use Wiki, the photos only ended up being posted on Wiki Commons. Someone please help/rescue me ... thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.25.72.235 (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you direct us to one of those pictures? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can't upload photos directly to one Wikipedia article: they must go to Wikipedia as a whole or to Commons. It's better to have the images hosted at Commons if licensing permits, because they are then accessible to all Wikimedia projects from there. The OP's contribution history at Commons should list all the relevant images. I see you've already found the Commons help desk, and that may be a better venue for this question. The good people at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions are also very knowledgeable about this kind of query. - Karenjc (talk) 21:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Price for the Elevation 2001: Live from Boston DVD

Can anyone find out what's the price for it on Amazon or somewhere? Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 16:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon is selling it at $21.85 for the basic edition and $32.98 for the collectible edition with an added $3.99 for shipping costs.Biggs Pliff (talk) 17:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What contains the collectible edition? Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 17:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it took me so long to answer a simple question but I've had a lot of trouble trying to find accurate information, U2's official site doesn't mention a collectible edition at all. The only thing I've found is a limited edition lithograph on other sites which is sold separately from the DVD and is more expensive so it may refer to that. Biggs Pliff (talk) 19:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no problem. Thanks so much for the info!! :D Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 19:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Need help with updating the DudaMobile wikipedia page with the company official logo

How do I add my company's official logo to its Wikipedia page, in reference to 'DudaMobile'?

Please let me know at ray at dudamobile dot com

Ray — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.193.38.161 (talk) 18:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a little tricky. I mean, it doesn't have to be — if you're the copyright owner, you could license it under a free license, and then just upload it. See Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard. There's a manual at Wikipedia:Uploading images. Then you can go ahead and add a thumbnail of that file to the article — if your filename is, say DudaMobileLogo.jpg, you would just add the code [[File:DudaMobileLogo.jpg|thumb|right]] to the source of the article, with other options as desired, explaned at Wikipedia:Picture tutorial.

Easy-peasy, really; some people are put off by this but if you're used to technical stuff at all you should be able to work it out in 10-15 minutes, given the links above. But there are a couple of complications, not technical but procedural.

The easier one to get around is that it's looked on with suspicion if you edit an article you have a personal interest in. This addition seems about as harmless as they get; you aren't promoting the company, just providing an image. Still, it would be better to ask a neutral editor to add it for you.

The more difficult issue is, there's a good chance you don't really want to give up your right to control the logo, which is what you'd be doing if you release it under a free license. Technically, you would retain copyright, but you couldn't do much with it — specifically, you couldn't stop anyone from using the logo any way they want, as long as they give you credit and allow others to do the same with the result.

So now your logo is what we call "non-free content", which is severely restricted at English Wikipedia (and banned entirely on some other Wikipedias). To my mind the restrictions are excessive, but they're not likely to be loosened. That means you have to follow the procedures at WP:NFCC, providing a "fair-use rationale" for the use in the article itself.

Good luck! --Trovatore (talk) 01:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LOGO is the specific NFCC guideline for logos, incidentally. Tevildo (talk) 12:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not shoot in the head instead of the chest?

When I was in Mallorca, I watched a German detective series in the original German language, without any subtitles. I understood most of what was going on. The plot concerned a woman who was hiding from the mafia in a witness protection program, and had remarried, and her past was unknown to her new husband. At the end of the episode, a mafia hitman posing as a single father pushing a pram shot the woman in the chest. However, it turned out that the victim was really a German female police officer in disguise, and she was wearing a bullet-proof vest. Now immediately after seeing the episode, I got to thinking, why didn't the hitman simply shoot her in the head? As far as I know, it would have made for a more sure kill, as the brain is an absolutely vital organ, and easier to hit than the heart (assuming you hit the target in the first place), and more importantly, people can't (at least inconspicuously) wear bullet-proof vests around their heads. Was this purely for the sake of the plot, or is there a real-world reason for this? JIP | Talk 18:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The chest is an easier shot. (You don't have to hit the heart, you'd bleed to death pretty fast from a bullet to the chest.) Going for a head shot if you expected a vest is an idea. RJFJR (talk) 18:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In real life with the pressure cooker of a shootout most are lucky enough to hit anywhere near a target, the OPs premise that this is somehow doctrine is more an invention of movies and television where a much more dramatic ending is created with the famous "last words" from a chest wound instead of a head shot. Some films such as Striking Distance even have the 'oops you shot me in the chest but I was wearing a vest the whole time haha' worked into the plot. I wouldn't go strictly off what tv and movies portray as the teachings of top law enforcement or military, tho for various reasons the real world types do sometimes teach chest shots from my memory and as RJFJR states above, you are more likely not to miss.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 20:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A head shot is exponentially more difficult than a torso shot under pressure. Most LEOs are taught to fire two rounds to the torso, quickly evaluate effect, and either continue to fire torso shots until there is no longer a threat or fire a different shot if required. If the evaluation is that torso shots are not effective, two options are a shot to the pelvic girdle to immobilize the threat or a head shot to terminate the threat. TV shows are useless for determining tactics. GregJackP Boomer! 23:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone accounted for the make-up aspect here? It's easier to show a red splodge on a vest or a bullet stuck in a vest than show the body with a hole in the head and black eyes. It's arguable more family-friendly for daytime tv also. Just putting it out there ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 08:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, the head is targeted when in the case of a suspected suicide bomber with explosives concealed on his torso. See the sorry tale of Jean Charles de Menezes who was shot in the head seven times by the police at very close range, although it later became apparent that he wasn't carrying explosives nor was he involved with terrorism in any way. "There is no point in shooting at someone's chest because that is where the bomb is likely to be. There is no point in shooting anywhere else if they fall down and detonate it." (Sir Ian Blair) Alansplodge (talk) 09:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How to attack this type of question?

Five racing drivers, Alan, Bob, Chris, Don, and Eugene, enter into a contest that consists of 6 races. The results of all six races are listed below:

Bob always finishes ahead of Chris.
Alan finishes either first or last.
Eugene finishes either first or last.
There are no ties in any race.
Every driver finishes each race.

In each race, two points are awarded for a fifth place finish, four points for fourth, six points for third, eight points for second, and ten points for first.

If Eugene finishes two places ahead of Chris in the first race, all of the following will be true EXCEPT:

(A) Bob finishes ahead of Don.
(B) Chris finishes two places ahead of Alan.
(C) Don finishes fourth.
(D) Bob finishes immediately behind Eugene.
(E) Chris finishes ahead of Bob.

How do you attack this type of question or any question that asks for a particular arrangement or order? 140.254.136.151 (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

THis might do better posted to the mathematics desk. μηδείς (talk) 20:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In general this style of question requires you to systematically analyse each statement, eliminating and confirming possibilities gradually until you are left with one remaining solution. Many people draw grids to keep track of relationships (example) and help them solve such a puzzle. However in this particular instance the wordy question is intended to deceive. By throwing a lot of unnecessary information it distracts you from the obvious answer. Hint: one of the of statements in the second set directly contradicts one from the first set. AJ Cham 20:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to expand on this though, if we were taking this at question at face value; ordering the drivers based on the first five statements and the fact that Eugene finishes 2 places ahead of Chris we could work out as follows:

There are only two possible finishing positions for Eugene. If he finished two places ahead of Chris, that only leaves one of them - put him there. We can also put Chris in the correct place.
Alan also has only two possible positions, and one of them is now unavailable - put him in the other.
Of the two remaining places, where must Bob go, relative to the other drivers already there?
Don goes in the last remaining spot.

Also, as it happens, the grid picture isn't fully relevent, as in this you're only matching one piece of information to one other (driver to position). Those grids are more useful when you have several items of information to group together (the example picture seems to be matching a person to their birth year, and favoured wine and cheese). AJ Cham 20:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So basically, how do you do the problem? 140.254.136.151 (talk) 21:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AJCham's just shown you how. What else are you expecing? --ColinFine (talk) 21:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And, amazingly "Beetlebaum" wins all six races. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the generic, we don't do homework questions for you, response? --Onorem (talk) 22:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could say 'obligatory'.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 23:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would have posted such a template, but for the fact that the OP asked for advice on how to approach solving the question, rather than outright asking for the solution. Hence my attempt at subtly guiding them in the right direction. (Or not so subtle - one could quite reasonably argue that I was a little too on the nose, even if the OP was unable to follow it) AJ Cham 00:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a time constraint involved (like an IQ test with ten of those to be solved in 5 minutes), you may consider that solving them completely (working out the position of everyone) would take too long, then there might be a shortcut. In the example given, one of the phrases A to E contradicts one of the five rules given, so the answer (E) can be found without determining the position of any of them. Ssscienccce (talk) 13:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Ssscienccce. As a matter of fact, it is timed, because the LSAT is timed. Because the LSAT is timed and predictable, the implication is that practice depends a lot on recognition. 140.254.227.55 (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]