Miscellaneous desk
< September 1	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 3 >

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

September 2

WP commemorative logos

In addition to the "regular" logos, have there been commemorative logos here on ENWP, such as 10th anniversary? Eat me, I'm a red bean (t • c) 09:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia logos has the history of Wikipedia's logos, including commemorative designs. --Jayron 32 12:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Naturism and perceptions

The question cannot be properly answered. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

If humans develop pill(s) that results in manageable penile erections, definitive internal hygiene and weight management, will it result in a plummeting of societal objection to public nudity? Or do other notable objections exist? 78.144.241.217 (talk) 11:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've made an assumption which has not yet been shown to be true; that social mores against public nudity are caused by the things you think it is caused by. What is your evidence of that? If you can't demonstrate that to be true, you've asked an unanswerable complex question. --Jayron 32 12:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict). You don't get it do you? Normal people do not want to be naked in public, they don't want their children to see it, they don't want pedophiles to get all really horny, it makes people horny (whether their penises erect or not), they might want to emphasize our civilized side, they have no desire to eliminate the nudity part of the enjoyment of sex by seeing it 24/7/365 for some weird need to eliminate happy things. Are you going to have an aging reversal pill too so I don't have to look at the elderly naked? Are you going to prevent humans from sweating, too even when it'd cause heatstroke and death? I certainly don't want to sit on a hairy man's ass sweat. (you're going to trust that he wipes his feces 100.00% too?) If people will have to carry their own alcohol wipes wherever they go and eliminate fabric seats or carry a towel and never touch the ass side or stand then that's not very natural is it? That's much more work than where you don't care where you sit because you have trousers on. Most people don't want their children to see naked people because it's too sexual (except for you), just like they don't want their 9-year olds giving handjobs no matter how nice and few months older the other kid is because that's sexual and they do not even like boys or girls yet, they should not be shoved into doing so earlier cause there's naked people everywhere and it will affect their childhood to have seen naked people since they were born. That's why showing any part of an areola for one frame makes a film automatically PG-13 if the rest is G, and a single pubic hair or vulva section or penis part for one frame is automatic R(-17) (despite them shoving too much violence into some PG-13s because we have no PG-15 and R-15 between like [[Next Day Air (film)|Next Day Air and Deep Impact). The other people can play strip poker or have a naked party or let the pedos and genders you're not attracted to ogle kids and you at nude beaches and leave our women and children alone. What happens if you like the girl in the subway romantically but you're naked and she's not? Isn't that awkward? And maybe you have a huge flaccid penis or a tiny one. There's a reason why the normal Morris stages of intimacy has nudity almost at the end, well after looking at body, eye contact, talking, holding hands, arm around shoulder, arm around waist, kissing, and making out. (that book is like 50 years old and academic and the stages is a social subject, so there's no article and everything online is a poor source like blogs instead of .edu) I don't want to see males naked, whether they're fit or fat. I'm straight, it repulses me. Learn something about the psychology of women that would not be photographed naked except maybe by someone they *know* would not share. That is not unusual believe it or not, the women you know are. They are people with personalities, not sex objects (that like to use their sex appeal to get friends and guys at nudist colonies). And what Jayron said. Or maybe you trolling? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How would anyone be able to answer that question with authority? The hypothetical situation you propose has never occurred - so no measurement can be made. No mathematical relationship applies to the networks of chaotic systems that make up the human mind - so extrapolation is impossible. A survey asking people how they'd feel about it would almost certainly fail to predict how they'd actually feel. SteveBaker (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True that. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you're asking for us to speculate - and we're not allowed to do that here. SteveBaker (talk) 14:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Societal perceptions of public nudity are heavily dependant on the society in question. I guess that you are from the US which in my experience is one of the most restrictive countries around if it comes to public nudity. What Milky Way above describes as 'normal' is nothing that I would recognise as normal. In Germany, for example, if you go to a public sauna it is normal to find everyone naked: both sexes, all ages, all shapes and sizes. Nudity per se has nothing to do with sexuality. 81.146.63.239 (talk) 23:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in a sauna it's normal. I'm sure they can't just walk into an all-sexes one without seeing a sign about that or something. They must have non-naked and sex-segregated saunas too, right? Is it really naked or does everyone wear a towel? Even with a towel that would've made me so, so, so, so horny in secondary school. I think I would've masturbated 14 times that day (in private). I went to a park at age 13 just to ogle women in bikinis (it was the only place nearby with the sexiest race). Pedophiles are going to go to your German sauna and rush home to masturbate while the memory's fresh. You people are sick if you take your kids there and that kid is too social and trusting or not minding or naive or trying to see if she's can arose a man for her own good (I tried to see at 15 if any adult woman would eye contact me for more than like 0.4 seconds and no, they're not interested). Childrens' minds are very plastic, if that's all they know till they're 18 you're going to mold them towards the fringe if they're anything close in personality to what you are. Why can't you just be naked with only mom and dad? (though that's still weird (even if you tell them most people don't do this), I would not have wanted to see my parents naked, and usually offspring are traumatized when they see their parents "doing it"). It takes a certain age to be able to make decisions yourself instead of kind of being molded by the opinons you hear. Then you're like 22 and you're like why the hell did I ever believe that? That's why they don't let under 21s do certain things and don't let under 16s-18 (depending on state) have sex with much older people. They're too "brainwashable".

A lot of the tween boys are going to get so horny they're going to go there and then go to the bathroom and masturbate 100 times in 1 week. At least the parents can block nudity sites with software. Come on, let kids stay a little kid-like for a little longer, no need to make them masturbation addicts at 12 (also, masturbating too many years could cause difficulty ejaculating in sex, cause a torso cannot move as fast as a hand. A boy starting at 12 can be unable to ejaculate in sex by 20.) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, how about "usual" instead of normal? As something could be 10-20% or even 33% like female anal sex so is not very unusual but still be unrepresentative and something an average person is very against doing themselves which is what some people mean when they say normal. The far-right ideology of libertarianism is another insane idea like everyone going to nudism and it's probably way over a dozen times more discussed in the US than nudism. Maybe this too would surprise you?: There's more open carry activists in the US than nudist activists. They want to normalize open carry where everyone walks around with a visible loaded gun everywhere (maybe without a permit needed) and everyone goes about their normal business. That might be good for a countryside as far from help as Wyoming but I'd be shocked if that'd work in big cities. I would not be surprised if more than half of American nudist sites are just the ones that are poorly disguised excuses to make ad money without having to pay women. That only show the young, attractive women like playing tennis or something for males to rub their penises to. There are links to porn sites, ads reminiscent of the ones on porn sites and the captions are facetious or suspension of disbelief-type faux naturist trying to make males horny. A bit niche of a porn business model and their sites might still outnumber the real US naturist sites so few really believe we should be going around naked all the time. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheapest way to travel?

Is there a way to hitch hike commercial shipping vessels for cheap transport? The airfares to the US are ridiculous and I don't mind if the journey takes a little bit longer. Any idea of prices?

What about the rest of the world too, not just the US. Seeing as I'm on an island I need to consider ships to get to pretty much anywhere if you exclude the tunnel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.27.47 (talk) 21:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These FAQ seem to answer your questions. E.g. "American flagged freighters don't carry passengers. Foreign flagged ships are prevented by U.S. law from carrying cargo/passengers between U.S. Ports." and "How much does it cost? Between $65-$125 U.S. per day." Or you can just search for "freighter passenger". Clarityfiend (talk) 21:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're in the UK? As a quasi-random sample, I'm in the U.S., and Expedia quotes me round-trip economy class tickets from London to NYC for under US$700. I'm not sure if there are differences in taxes and stuff for a UK resident, but I can't imagine they'd be that significant. It looks like the cheapest LA-NYC round-trip tickets clock in at under US$300. There's also Amtrak or bus travel. If you can't afford to outlay at least US$1500-2000 it probably isn't really a good idea to go traveling. The above site confirms what I thought, that freighter travel is more expensive than economy airfare. There's more cost for food, insurance, etc., and you're not making up for any of it with labor like the crew are. With commercial air travel, the costs are spread out among all the passengers, and airlines have become quite good at squeezing the maximum number of passengers onto a flight. As far as other destinations go, you can travel clear across Eurasia by train, though I don't know what the cost is. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 06:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The airlines go to slave ship: [1]. Note the illustration halfway down. They don't even save much space but, hey, at least they gain one extra middle seat on one row. So get a libertarian government and this'll happen, emergency exit safety be damned. Sure, [[|Ryanair|Ryanair Hyper-budget class®]] could save even more space by copying capsule hotels with (windowless?) sardine pods with soundproofing but that'd be too humane. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search finds flights from London to New York for £400 so I don't think things are that different. Anyway, bear in mind, in many developed countries if you show up and immigration finds you don't have enough to support yourself for your expected duration of stay nor is there anyone who's supporting you, you'll probably quickly find yourself on a flight (or whatever) back to your home country. I would suggest at least £12 per day, and it can easily be much more depending on the country. See e.g. [2] [3]. (You probably should aim for significantly more than £12 per day for something like the US. Although I couldn't find any guidelines from the US, despite it being a specific part of the process for those who have to apply for a visa.) Point being, similar to something 71 said, unless it's a very short trip, which would be a waste for somewhere far away, if you can't afford the airfare, I'm not sure if you can afford the trip. Nil Einne (talk) 17:50, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No commercial vessel is going to allow you to hitchhike (get a free lift) to the United States, because they would have to cover the cost of providing you with space and sanitary facilities, if not food, for a voyage of a week or more (assuming you are in the UK, as your question implies). Also, you are unknown to them, and it would be a substantial risk to have you aboard for the entire voyage. You could try to stow away, but that would be dangerous and illegal. Ships arriving from foreign ports are inspected by U.S. immigration agents. Any persons arriving on those ships who lack citizenship or legal residency status in the United States will be required to show evidence that they have purchased a ticket for travel out of the United States before the legal limit for their stay (that limit is 90 days for most UK citizens unless they have obtained a visa for a longer stay). As others have said, they will also be required to show evidence that they can cover the costs of their intended stay. If you step off a freighter looking hungry and poor, immigration officials could demand evidence such as bank statements. I would think that they would expect you to have at least $150 (about £100) per day, as the cost of accommodation alone in many parts of the United States is $100 per night or more. Marco polo (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my ex-wife's mis-spent youth, she signed on as cabin staff on a transatlantic freighter with minimal qualifications - did cooking & cleaning work on board. She was actually paid to make the trip (but not much!). Perhaps that's an approach that's worth considering here. SteveBaker (talk) 20:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What? No one mentioned simply jumping in the air and having the Earth rotate from under oneself (231.5 m/s at 60° latitude)?Asmrulz (talk) 01:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Door to door art scam

hello

my question is about the article: art student scam.

my name is Dina and i am an artist and designer. i have graduated my first degree in visual communication in jerusalem.

i promote and sell commercial art door to door.

i am from israel.

in the past years people have been selling this commercial art by saying it's their own art/for charity and etc.

now, we are doing it in a legitimate way, which means we tell people it's commercial art, that there is more then one (the artist paints the same concept several times), and the origin of the paintings (we buy them from a large art dealer that provides paintings for galleries).

we say that the paintings have been done inside studios and the artists are already paid for their work.

in the article, it says that the art is basically prints (not true and misleading), that the people involved are not artists (me and my friends are).

in fact, no matter we do to be legitimate, once people type in google "art door to door" they immediately see "scam". that, puts me in a place of a criminal which i'm not.

what bothers me the most is the fact that it says that it's prints (artists in studios work very hard to create those paintings).

i tried to put a discussion in the articles talk page, but the author erased my comment. (asked to change the part with the prints and seen other people say the same thing but it's still there).

what can i do? can i change it myself? i don't have the best writing skills in english.

it's damaging my work...

thank you, Dina (86.3.196.138 (talk) 22:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]

I don't see how you can do anything about the article. There are art scams. The fact that there are people selling art door-to-door legitimately has no bearing on that. Also, your talk page comments were probably deleted because you included a link to your portfolio. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the deletion of your talk page comments. They are a totally legitimate contribution to the debate on the content of the article, which is exactly what the talk page is for. --Viennese Waltz 07:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not what you're asking about, but it might help if you could create a web page that describes your legitimate business activities, and includes real contact info for some of the people associated with the business. If you put "art door to door" or "art student sales" etc. on the page, it might even start to come up in people's searches! You can't remove our article on art student scam, but you can create your own web presence to help your business. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

use of images

We are a community group in Papua New Guinea creating a interactive dictionary of our language (Roro/Waima) with volunteers (i.e. no funding). It is good if we can illustrate our entries and we find great images in Wikipedia. For instance, we would like to use: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catfish#/media/File:Ameiurus_melas_by_Duane_Raver.png in our entry for ne'u which is our name for catfish. There will be other images that would be helpful to use. We are happy to acknowledge the source of images. We are asking for permission to use images we find on Wikipedia/Wikimedia. Please advise how we go about obtaining permission - do we need to do it each time or just advise you periodically of images that we want to use? Your advice would be appreciated. Maeaka Tohana Team — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maeaka Tohana (talk • contribs) 23:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Maeaka Tohana: thanks for stopping by. Wikipedia content (images and text) is dual licensed under GFDL and CC-BY-SA which does not require permission for reuse, but does require proper attribution. Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content covers how to properly attribute Wikipedia content you intend to reuse. If you do intend to reuse images posted at Wikipedia, please pay attention to the licensing and location of each image. Some images (mostly those hosted locally here at en.wikipedia) are NOT licensed for reuse, but are instead being used under the fair-use doctrine; these images are rare and only represent a small proportion of images you find at Wikipedia, still you want to check every image page (found by clicking the image directly) to make sure it is under a free license. The vast majority of images at Wikipedia are copyleft-licensed under CC-BY-SA and GFDL and are hosted at Wikimedia Commons, the media hosting arm of the Wikimedia Foundation, the parent organization of all Wikipedias. Please read Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content carefully, and check each image licence page by clicking on each image. As long as you follow the rules, and stay clear of the few images which are not under the correct license, you're free to reuse content with attribution. If you have any more detailed questions, The Media Copyright Question page is a good place to ask volunteer experts in copyright policy. Hope this was helpful! --Jayron 32 01:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that only text has to be dual licenced under the CC BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL [4]. Images on wikipedia that aren't NFCC, and any on commons can have any suitable free licence (or require no licence i.e. in the public domain or equivalent). I think single licenced under some CC licence is the most common, probably followed by images which don't require a licence. The later is actually something of a winkle, particularly if the image is on wikipedia and not commons, because it's always possible that the image requires a licence where you live, even if it doesn't in the US. (Of course there's often also some small risk that the image is incorrectly tagged and isn't actually under a free licence or requires no licence.) BTW, if http://maeakatohana.com is your website, it seems to have problems. Nil Einne (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just spot checked 5 images at commons. 1 was public domain, and four were CC-BY-SA. So, experimentally, it holds. Plus, I'm not entirely certain why you take a tone that disagrees with my advise, and then goes on to agree with everything I said. What I advised him to do was check each license, and comply by it. I also told him that locally-hosted images were likely under fair-use claims. So, basically everything you said, before you said it. --Jayron 32 19:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because I'm not agreeing with what you said? Your general advice on what to do was good advice and I agree with and am glad you provided it to the OP. But IMO some of your claims about licensing were not, so I wanted to clarify them. For example:

Wikipedia content (images and text) is dual licensed under GFDL and CC-BY-SA which does not require permission for reuse, but does require proper attribution

The vast majority of images at Wikipedia are copyleft-licensed under CC-BY-SA and GFDL and are hosted at Wikimedia Commons, the media hosting arm of the Wikimedia Foundation, the parent organization of all Wikipedias

Not true, as I explained. Text from our contributors is dual licenced. (In terms of the rest of text, a small amount will be CC only if copied from somewhere with such a licence, public domain if copied from such a source, NFCC if copied from somewhere without a CC licence which isn't in the public domain, or unwanted copyvio content.)

Images don't have to be dual licenced. They don't even have to use either of these licences. I believe, although I admit I don't have good evidence that most images are probably singly licenced under the CC, followed by public domain i.e. content that doesn't need a licence. (I'm not even sure if GFDL or dual licence CC + GFDL is the next most common in terms of licencing.)

Also, there were parts of my comment which you didn't touch on, but I felt were important for the OP to understand. For example, the possibility of incorrectly tagged images. The possibility of images which aren't NFCC, but which the OP may not be able to use because these images are only public domain, in the US.

The OP would hopefully have learnt about these if they read the appropriate pages as you suggested to them. But then they would have hopefully also learnt about the other stuff, like the existence of NFCC images. Or the attribution requirement for many but not all images (even those which are licenced). You felt these were important to emphasise (and I agree with NFCC), I felt additional things were.

Nil Einne (talk) 16:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'll also mentioned I felt the attribution part wasn't ideal, but not worth clarifying. While you did say to "check each image licence page" and "follow the rules" and later to seek clarification where needed, the only real rule you emphasised to follow was that of attribution.

Although this isn't such a big deal for an interactive project, for certain content the requirement to include a full copy of the licence can actually be more problematic. For example, it's generally suggested if you're following a GFDL licence of an image, you have to print a copy of the licence along with the image wherever you include it. You can't simply include a pamphlet with the licence or something like that. This creates problems when using the image on a shirt, or worse a cup. See e.g. Commons:Commons:Requests for comment/AppropriatelyLicensed/FAQ#What is Commons current policy on GFDL and other licences inappropriate for images? & Commons:Commons:Requests for comment/AppropriatelyLicensed#Where would this lead us to? for some discussion.

The sharealike/copyleft requirement is another one that can create problems for some. And I'm not familiar enough with all the acceptable licences for images to comment on whether there are other issues that could crop up.

I didn't mention these because for the OP I didn't think they mattered that much. But I still don't think attribution is the primary rule the OP has to follow, they have to follow all the licence requirements and even for a use case like the OP, all of these can be equally onerous (i.e. not much but still have to be followed).

This isn't a completely theoretical issue either, some more traditional media still seem to have problems understanding free licences. And so they do stuff like attribute the person, or worse wikipedia but otherwise fail to follow the licence (e.g. have no indication the image is licenced under whatever licence for licences that require it). It's possible some of these are actually fine, and the person was contacted privately and agree to allow usage of the image in that fashion. It's also possible in some cases that the copyright holder doesn't actually care even if they weren't contacted, which is their choice. But from comments of at least some uploaders, I'm pretty sure it's not always the case. (I also expect many uploaders will want to be personally attributed rather than wikipedia if they agree to seperate licencing terms.)

Nil Einne (talk) 16:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One very important thing to know is that some images on Wikipedia are NOT free for use under any license. Some are used here under the "Fair Use" exemption of the copyright laws - which allow you to use an image that is most certainly not free under certain very special, very particular situations that tend to apply here.

HOWEVER, the WikiCommons site (which hosts a lot of Wikipedia's content) DOES NOT accept "Fair Use" images - so using things from WikiCommons should always be OK providing you attribute the image correctly and accept whatever free licensing terms (if any) apply. Be VERY careful about images that are only on Wikipedia and NOT on WikiCommons because the main reason they haven't been moved over to commons is because of fair-use copyright status.

ALSO, note that both WikiCommons and Wikipedia are hosted in the USA and abide by US copyright laws. Elsewhere in the world, you may find that you have different laws, which might allow you to use images that wouldn't otherwise be allowed - and might prevent you from using other images that are perfectly acceptable under US laws.

SteveBaker (talk) 18:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, when Steve says "WikiCommons", that's short for Wikimedia Commons, mentioned by Jayron. --65.94.50.17 (talk) 23:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]