| Revision as of 12:16, 30 January 2013 editMedeis (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users49,187 edits →Misplaced Pages pictures← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 00:05, 24 January 2025 edit undoScsbot (talk | contribs)Bots240,614 edits edited by robot: adding date header(s) | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Short description|Wikimedia Project Page}} | |||
| <noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/header|WP:RD/M}} | <noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/header|WP:RD/M}} | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | |||
| </noinclude> | |||
| ]</noinclude> | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2013 January 25}} | |||
| = January 11 = | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2013 January 26}} | |||
| == Young adult novel series called Blitzkrieg == | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2013 January 27}} | |||
| Does anybody remember who was the author of a novel series, aimed at middle and high school students called Blitzkrieg? It was about a high school football team and I think it was or were published in the 1970s or 1980s. --Donmust90-- ] (]) 00:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Rate of fire == | |||
| :The series was actually called ''Blitz'' and was written by Paul Nichols (about whom we don't seem to have an article). There are some examples . --] 07:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::"Paul Nichols" is the pen name of Robert Hawks (b. 1961).<sup></sup> More about him . He has also published under his own name,<sup></sup> as well as young-adult horror under the pen name "M. T. Coffin" :).<sup></sup> In any case, neither the author nor the books appear to meet Misplaced Pages's notability criteria. --] 09:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| = January 20 = | |||
| moved to the talk page | |||
| == Yokohama Chinatown == | |||
| (14:31-14:56). Please, can you help me to find the name of the dress and the sword of that Chinese antique shop's owner, and that of the statue's face? You can see also these three files: , , . Thank you. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :Don't post your question on more than one desk. Entertainment was the right place for it. --] 09:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Trump presidencies == | |||
| = January 29 = | |||
| Hello. Trump's current term is as the 47th president. The previous term, (45th), should be put together with the old respective dates in the template (2017-2021). Better not to merge the two terms together, it makes no sense, they are two different things: terms, dates and presidencies. Don't you agree? ] (]) 17:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == What name and number? == | |||
| :The reference desk is not the place to discuss this. Better venues may be ] or (since the issue transcends the specific person who now happens to be in office) ]. The problem may be due to a limitation of {{tl|Infobox officeholder}}, the design of which does not accommodate the possibility that the incumbent is a repeat offender. For the only other repeat offender thus far, ], the issue could not arise since his repeated incumbency did not overlap with the lifetime of {{tl|Infobox officeholder}}. --] 21:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Any idea why it is that some college basketball teams, such as Kansas and Baylor, have adopted jerseys with an overlaying, semi-transparent fabric through which the names and numbers of the players are barely visible? --] (]) 05:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::If I'm reading the documentation right, you should be able to do it with that template. Use the <code>office</code> field for the first term and the <code>office2</code> field for the second term, with <code>term_start</code> and <code>term_end</code> being the dates for the first term, and <code>term_start2</code> and <code>term_end2</code> being the dates for the second term. Or maybe vice versa? --] (]) 22:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :NC State had these on this past weekend as well. It's called ]. That is, there is no functional or useful reason except that it looks "cool". --]''''']''''' 14:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::These infoboxes list offices (being) held in reverse chronological order, each with a heading identifying the office in a light bluish grey banner, like {{color box|#e6e6f9|'''13th Head honcho of ]'''|border=#fff}}, below which there is an unbannered heading '''Assuming office''', '''Assumed office''' or '''In office'''. | |||
| :::The convention for nonconsecutive terms of an office held is that they are combined under one light bluish grey banner, as seen e.g. for ], {{color box|#e6e6f9|'''34th & 39th Governor of California'''|border=#fff}}. | |||
| :::The convention for current office holders is the appearance of a second banner {{color box|#e6e6f9|''']'''|border=#fff}}, immediately below the office banner but in the same style; see e.g. ]. | |||
| :::These two conventions don't combine well. --] 08:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| = January 21 = | |||
| == Peugeot models only available Europe or North America == | |||
| Does anyone have information as to the general protocol in the United States regarding when police officers have partners and when they don't. As a somewhat thoroughly law abiding citizen of NJ, my most intimate relationship with policemen is that of having seen them on TV and in films, and I was wondering, when do cops have partners and when do they not? Does it relate to them being walking on foot vs. having a police cruiser? Do detectives get partners while regular officers do not? ''']''' <sup>(] | ])</sup> 14:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Which models of Peugeot, made from 1970 to 2010, could be available only in North America if Peugeot was participating in the North American market?--Donmust90-- ] (]) 20:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think they made any model specifically for the North American market. They modified some existing models to make them conform to North American rules. The range of available models was always much smaller than in Europe. ] (]) 11:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::You may be interested in (YouTube clip). ] (]) 11:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| = January 23 = | |||
| ::My understanding (sorry no references) is that it varies by police department. On the one hand, putting two officers in a patrol car makes them both safer (and more effective at dealing with situations). On the other hand, putting them in different cars means that more points in the city have a police car and officer nearby. So it's a trade-off. I can remember on various occasions reading that a police department was considering switching from one choice to the other. ] (]) 18:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Year in review == | |||
| :::There might also be situations where there aren't enough cars to go around, so they double up for that reason. ] (]) 04:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| I just received the WP year in review summary. 100 million edits world wide seemed low to me, until I saw 4+ billion bytes figure. Still trying to wrap my mind around these statistics. Did WP publish any kind of "deep dive" into this statistical analysis: minor vs major edits, bots, logged in vs logged off, etc.? Thanks. ] 15:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::In small towns, there is often only one officer on duty at a time. <font face="Century Gothic"> → ] ] ] ]</font> 09:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| = January 24 = | |||
| == internet service providers default browsers == | |||
| please give a link(s) that shows the default browsers for internet providers of the u.s.a. | |||
| :I'm not sure that "default browsers of internet providers" is actually a meaningful discussion. Particularly now that internet access is virtually ubiquitous, every computer already comes with at least one browser already installed, and ISPs don't seem to make a big deal about installing browsers any longer (the various toolbar tie-ins are frequently multi-browser). I would guess that the majority of ISPs default their technical support illustrations to "how it looks in ]", as that's <s>still</s> historically been the leading browser in terms of market share. Many, though, will also provide guidance for ], ], ], and maybe others. — ] 15:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agreed. There are, however, a few ISP's which have/had their own browsers, such as ]. ] (]) 16:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Actually, from ] it looks like Chrome has overtaken IE in terms of market share, although it's a complicated thing to measure. --] 16:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Huh. That curve has moved faster than I would have guessed. Anyway, details updated per your comment. — ] 22:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::<small>How things have changed! When I got my first computer, it did not have a browser installed, and the owner of the local ISP came to my house to install one. <font face="Century Gothic"> → ] ] ] ]</font> 09:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)</small> | |||
| == microbiology == | |||
| i need the fullform of AST in microbiology and also i need explanation of AST. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :The most likely entry in our disambiguation page ] is to ]. Is that what you're talking about, and have you read that article? ] (]) 22:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == npo's and 1099's == | |||
| Do you need to issue a 1099 to NPO's you have made payments to during the tax year? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :We cannot give legal advice; consult your tax professional. I can, however, direct you to the IRS page on 1099-Misc, here ] (]) 18:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == 86.46.194.120 == | |||
| User talk:86.46.194.120: Revision history | |||
| I have never knowingly edited any wiki references or articles. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ::This just means that someone using that IP address edited an article, wasn't necessarily you. IP addresses are not always owned by people in the same way that phone numbers are - if i disconnect from my internet service provider then reconnect there is a chance i will be allocated a new ip address from their range, so someone tomorrow may be using the ip address that i was using today. It is possible to request a static ip address from your internet service provider, so that it will be constant, but this is often not done by default. In the days of dialup internet ip addresses would often be different everytime someone dialed in. ---- ] ] 17:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :The other solution is just to register a screen name with Misplaced Pages, in which case no edits should be misattributed to you. ] (]) 23:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :That Ireland-based IP has only 2 edits: The one above, and one from 3 years ago which drew a mild warning. Very unlikely to be the same guy. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 02:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| = January 30 = | |||
| ==Misplaced Pages pictures== | |||
| Hello, I was wondering where Misplaced Pages gets your pictures from that are in your articles? Do you buy them from people or they all donated? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :They are all free pics. Some we take ourselves, others are ], etc. ] (]) 03:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :''Ignore'' StuRat's answer — it's ''impressively'' incorrect and not even a good simplification. He should really know better. I suspect he does. They are ''not'' "all free pics", ''at all'', and such is a dangerous misconception. | |||
| :Correct answer: the images on Misplaced Pages fall into roughly two categories. The first are images that are available under a free license. This means they may have terms attached to how they are used, but those terms are sufficiently broad to allow us to use them here without any possible copyright violation. Many of them are in the public domain, but a huge number of them are not. Many of them have been uploaded and licensed by users of Misplaced Pages, but a lot of them are taken from other webpages, Flickr, and places where people have indicated the licenses are sufficiently free for Misplaced Pages. To get an idea of the kinds of terms that can be attached to these, see our article on ]. | |||
| :The second category are images that are in fact copyrighted by others. They are used under a clause of American copyright law known as ]. It is complicated but basically it says that it isn't a copyright violation to use other people's images without their permission under certain conditions (such as scholarly analysis), and whomever uploaded the image to Misplaced Pages thinks it satisfies those conditions. Not everyone agrees about this and often such images are removed. The conditions are complicated by our article explains them as best it can. Our policy page at ] explains how this works in the context of Misplaced Pages. | |||
| :The bottom line is that Misplaced Pages pays ''no one'' for its images, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are being used with permission, or even free for other people to use. You will have to view the individual license pages for any images on here (just click on it) to see what the terms of its use on Misplaced Pages are, and what implications that has for its copyright status. --] (]) 03:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::You apparently misunderstood what I meant by "free". In the context of a Q about whether we pay for them, this means no, we don't: "They are cost-free". You must have thought "free" meant something else. ] (]) 04:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::The personal attack portion of 98's comments could justifiably be zapped. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 04:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :All Misplaced Pages pics are free as in free beer. Some are free as in free speech. See ]. --]''''']''''' 04:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :: Not all are free as in free beer. Some are stolen as in stolen beer. Things people steal may not cost them any money, but that doesn't make them free. The flowers in my garden are pickable by any passing stranger, but that doesn't mean they have the right to just take them without my permission. They might be freely accessible, like many of the photos we're using, but they are not free. -- ] </sup></font>]] 07:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *All entertainment at[REDACTED] such as that above ��is free. ] (]) 12:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Clinical trials funded by pharmaceutical companies == | |||
| Are clinical trials funded by pharmaceutical companies but conducted by reputed universities reliable? I mean is it possible for a company to manipulate the result in their favor? What are the measures taken to prevent this? --] (]) 03:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :It's probably not easy for them to overtly influence the outcome, as that could get them in major trouble. On the other hand, they might tend to select universities, which, in the past, have provided results favorable to their company. Knowing this, universities might tend to subtly alter their results to accommodate the companies. ] (]) 03:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::They can exert pressure, most easily by digging up flaws in the methodology if the result comes out in a way they don't like. That happened in the lab where I was a graduate student, and it was a pretty unpleasant experience for my advisor (who didn't give in to the pressure, by the way). ] (]) 03:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ah, a fine example of a StuRat-makes-stuff-up answer. References, who needs 'em? --] (]) 03:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :"Another really famous case was where an investigator did a clinical study that was sponsored by a manufacturer of a thyroid hormone, a drug called ], and the university didn't have publication rights. When the investigator submitted to a medical journal, the sponsor made him pull it." . (It doesn't sound like the paper submitted was sufficiently positive.) ] (]) 04:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::The full quote is "When the investigator submitted to a medical journal, the sponsor made him pull it. I think that was a case where the university really learned the importance of protecting the academic freedom of investigators." It's not talking about submitting faulty information to the FDA. To be clear, I'm not defending the actions made in the allegation... but I'm just saying, that snippet from a TV interview is out of context given the OPs question. ] (]) 08:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :"They found that there was a statistically significant relationship between funding source and qualitative conclusion. Unfavourable conclusions were reached by only 5% (1/20) of drug company-sponsored studies, compared with 38% (9/24) of non-profit sponsored studies." . ] (]) 04:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hmm, this makes sense. --] (]) 06:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Add to that the fact that hundreds of trials are undertaken each year the results of which are never published because the results are unfavourable to the pharmaceutical companies. This hidden information is an international disgrace, Ref: ]. ] (]) 08:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :As usual Stu has no expertise or even research into what he's talking about, he's just building on a relatively good education and making educated guesses. That gets a little annoying, especially when he gets things wrong. | |||
| :The FDA requires extensive testing in what are known as ], which have distinct phases. The drug companies themselves pay for those trials. The vast majority of them end in failure. We have at least 300,000 articles on soccer, but we don't apparently have an article on ]s, which we should, which would go into detail about the specific steps. ] appears to be the closest we have to that procedure. | |||
| :Long story short, clinical trials are necessarily funded by the drug companies, and no, those, under the supervision of the FDA show very little evidence of being biased. The penalties for falsifying data are high, and the benefits are slim (because it won't take long to find out). You might look at ] to see an extreme example... one in which the process wasn't perfect. The FDA gets as much criticism btw for ''not'' approving drugs that are approved in other areas (mainly Europe). ] (]) 08:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Not that I disagree with the gist of your statement, but I think there's been evidence of a problem in the way clinical trials were done, namely while drug companies may not have much influence over the outcome of the trials, they frequently have had the choice whether and when to publish them, even in cases where it's an approved drug. This has been an issue in the Vioxx case but is also generally considered a wider issue. . Some of the data from the trials may be provided to the FDA (and other regulatory agencies), but this still makes it difficult for others to evaluate the available data such as in a ], for example when deciding which drug is the best choice. Things have changed a lot in the past few years so things aren't quite so bad although many still think we have some way to go. ] (]) 11:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I think two things are being mixed up here. Big pharma can fund pre-clinincal research in universities, where bias and pressure are most definitely a risk and have happened, as StuRat has correctly cited. Then there are Phase 1 and further clinical trials, which are done under the authority of the local drug regulation agency, eg FDA. Those are generally very well done, although this being science, something can always go wrong. And Shadowjam, why would we need an FDA specific trial article when we have the perfectly fine ] article? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 09:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ::Because the largest pharmaceutical producing nation in the world has a very specific procedure for drug approval that involves literally billions of dollars on important drugs, let alone in aggregate, and yet we have articles for every single version of handball... people call me a deletionist but damn... ] (]) 09:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 00:05, 24 January 2025
Wikimedia Project Page
of the Misplaced Pages reference desk. skip to bottom Select a section: Shortcut Want a faster answer?
Main page: Help searching Misplaced Pages
How can I get my question answered?
- Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
- Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
- Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
- Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
- Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
- Note:
- We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
- We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
- We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
- We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.
How do I answer a question?
Main page: Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Guidelines
- The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.
January 11
Young adult novel series called Blitzkrieg
Does anybody remember who was the author of a novel series, aimed at middle and high school students called Blitzkrieg? It was about a high school football team and I think it was or were published in the 1970s or 1980s. --Donmust90-- Donmust90 (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- The series was actually called Blitz and was written by Paul Nichols (about whom we don't seem to have an article). There are some examples here. --Viennese Waltz 07:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- "Paul Nichols" is the pen name of Robert Hawks (b. 1961). More about him here. He has also published under his own name, as well as young-adult horror under the pen name "M. T. Coffin" :). In any case, neither the author nor the books appear to meet Misplaced Pages's notability criteria. --Lambiam 09:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
January 20
Yokohama Chinatown
Detective Conan Episode 418 (14:31-14:56). Please, can you help me to find the name of the dress and the sword of that Chinese antique shop's owner, and that of the statue's face? You can see also these three files: 1, 2, 3. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.17.55.190 (talk) 10:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Don't post your question on more than one desk. Entertainment was the right place for it. --Viennese Waltz 09:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Trump presidencies
Hello. Trump's current term is as the 47th president. The previous term, (45th), should be put together with the old respective dates in the template (2017-2021). Better not to merge the two terms together, it makes no sense, they are two different things: terms, dates and presidencies. Don't you agree? 93.150.82.178 (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- The reference desk is not the place to discuss this. Better venues may be Talk:Donald Trump or (since the issue transcends the specific person who now happens to be in office) Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Presidents of the United States. The problem may be due to a limitation of {{Infobox officeholder}}, the design of which does not accommodate the possibility that the incumbent is a repeat offender. For the only other repeat offender thus far, Grover Cleveland, the issue could not arise since his repeated incumbency did not overlap with the lifetime of {{Infobox officeholder}}. --Lambiam 21:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- If I'm reading the documentation right, you should be able to do it with that template. Use the
officefield for the first term and theoffice2field for the second term, withterm_startandterm_endbeing the dates for the first term, andterm_start2andterm_end2being the dates for the second term. Or maybe vice versa? --Trovatore (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)- These infoboxes list offices (being) held in reverse chronological order, each with a heading identifying the office in a light bluish grey banner, like 13th Head honcho of Team America , below which there is an unbannered heading Assuming office, Assumed office or In office.
- The convention for nonconsecutive terms of an office held is that they are combined under one light bluish grey banner, as seen e.g. for Jerry Brown, 34th & 39th Governor of California .
- The convention for current office holders is the appearance of a second banner Incumbent , immediately below the office banner but in the same style; see e.g. Gavin Newsom.
- These two conventions don't combine well. --Lambiam 08:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- If I'm reading the documentation right, you should be able to do it with that template. Use the
January 21
Peugeot models only available Europe or North America
Which models of Peugeot, made from 1970 to 2010, could be available only in North America if Peugeot was participating in the North American market?--Donmust90-- Donmust90 (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think they made any model specifically for the North American market. They modified some existing models to make them conform to North American rules. The range of available models was always much smaller than in Europe. Xuxl (talk) 11:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- You may be interested in Here’s how Peugeot tried and failed to remain relevant in America (YouTube clip). Alansplodge (talk) 11:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
January 23
Year in review
I just received the WP year in review summary. 100 million edits world wide seemed low to me, until I saw 4+ billion bytes figure. Still trying to wrap my mind around these statistics. Did WP publish any kind of "deep dive" into this statistical analysis: minor vs major edits, bots, logged in vs logged off, etc.? Thanks. Ditch ∝ 15:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)