The Rambling Man (talk | contribs) |
92.19.172.111 (talk) |
||
Line 122: | Line 122: | ||
::Funnily enough, you were one of the first people that came to mind as I started trying to look into this myself. All I have to say about last year's election is... wow. And I thought RfA was a crucible in itself... Thanks for at least trying to fix a very broken system, at any rate. [[User:OhKayeSierra|OhKayeSierra]] ([[User talk:OhKayeSierra|talk]]) 03:59, 21 April 2018 (UTC) |
::Funnily enough, you were one of the first people that came to mind as I started trying to look into this myself. All I have to say about last year's election is... wow. And I thought RfA was a crucible in itself... Thanks for at least trying to fix a very broken system, at any rate. [[User:OhKayeSierra|OhKayeSierra]] ([[User talk:OhKayeSierra|talk]]) 03:59, 21 April 2018 (UTC) |
||
:::Thank you for your kind words. I think now until we have some kind of revolution, Wikipedia governance is a like a snake eating its tail. We can all predict every outcome from every Arb, and almost every outcome from every case, it's really unhelpful and does sound the death knell of Wikipedia. Unless, of course, we strike back and elect new thinkers, people who actually contribute to the encyclopedia, people who have edited more than a handful of times in the past few years. There's a chance, albeit a slim one, that we could fix the junkyard we've made. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 04:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC) |
:::Thank you for your kind words. I think now until we have some kind of revolution, Wikipedia governance is a like a snake eating its tail. We can all predict every outcome from every Arb, and almost every outcome from every case, it's really unhelpful and does sound the death knell of Wikipedia. Unless, of course, we strike back and elect new thinkers, people who actually contribute to the encyclopedia, people who have edited more than a handful of times in the past few years. There's a chance, albeit a slim one, that we could fix the junkyard we've made. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 04:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC) |
||
::::I think the answer is for good administrators to simply block bad administrators when they violate policy. That would weed out the bad administrators, and they should also (theoretically) get weeded out when they block good administrators in violation of policy. According to policy, nobody can restore deleted content if it violates [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:V]]. On Wednesday a falsehood was weeded out from [[Adoption of the Gregorian calendar]] (that the Finnish Orthodox Church never adopted the Gregorian calendar). The source provided noted "Only in two parts of the Russian Church was the new calendar successfully introduced - in Poland, and in Finland." Jc3s5h removed both source and correction. Next day a stronger source was provided which stated: |
|||
<blockquote>... the Finnish Church urged towards reforms allowed previously by Patriarch Tikhon, and in October of 1921 it adopted the Gregorian Calendar and began to celebrate Western Easter.</blockquote> |
|||
Favonian restored the falsehood and removed the reference. Like other administrators who do this, he has a track record, when corrected, of protecting the page to win the edit war. [[Special:Contributions/92.19.172.111|92.19.172.111]] ([[User talk:92.19.172.111|talk]]) 13:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:36, 21 April 2018
of the Wikipedia reference desk.
Main page: Help searching Wikipedia
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: Wikipedia: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.
April 15
United States Flag Code
Why is the United States Flag considered a living thing in the United States Flag Code, when it is not biologically a living thing? 32ieww (talk) 23:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- 4 U.S. Code § 8 (j) states that "
No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform. However, a flag patch may be affixed to the uniform of military personnel, firemen, policemen, and members of patriotic organizations. The flag represents a living country and is itself considered a living thing. Therefore, the lapel flag pin being a replica, should be worn on the left lapel near the heart.]
" (emphasis added) It's a symbolic representation of the country. IMO, it's part of a civic religion tenet similar to transubstantiation. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- Also see metaphor, symbolism, hyperbole, etc. --Jayron32 00:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
- ... metonymy ... —Tamfang (talk) 08:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
- Besides which, those aren't flags. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:50, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- However, at first glance they appear to be contravening
"No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform"
[my italics]. While the flag in its entirity is not depicted in those bikinis, they are clearly intending to evoke it. Perhaps there are insufficient resources or motivation to pursue all but the most egregious of such exploitations. - (In my own country, use of our Union Flag in this and many other commercial applications is both allowed and encouraged, and nobody turns a hair at, for example, someone wearing 'union jack underpants' or any other clothing incorporatinig or depicting the flag.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.218.14.51 (talk) 12:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- However, at first glance they appear to be contravening
- Besides which, those aren't flags. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:50, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- There is no "pursuit" at all, however egregious. See, for example, Flag Desecration Amendment and linked articles, for the current legal aspect. Matt Deres (talk) 14:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)The thing to remember about the Flag code in the U.S. is that it is not enforcable; it is guidance for proper respectful use of the flag, but no person can be forced to follow it, and no person can be punished for violating it, per the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (which is older than the flag code, it should be noted), the Government cannot punish a person for speech acts, and displays of the flag, for whatever purpose, are considered speech acts. ApLundell notes this above; it's written into the U.S. code, and as such, its status as binding law is only applicable to U.S. government agencies and the like. Private individuals, and private businesses, cannot be coerced into following it. Many will, if only because they wish to comply with the code, but there can be no punishment for not doing so. --Jayron32 14:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- While there's no legal punishment, improper display of the flag (especially if purposeful) is subject to public scorn and ridicule. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- That's really what I had in mind: cultural disapprobation can be more powerful than mere laws (especially if not in practice enforced). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.218.14.51 (talk) 22:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- However (similarly to the situation in Britain), wearing clothes which feature an American flag (such as the bikinis mentioned above) is in fact considered socially acceptable here in the USA and in fact is considered patriotic in many circles (only in formal situations is it ever frowned upon). 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:792F:2CDD:A29B:FC67 (talk) 03:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yes. It's respectful, in a funny sort of way. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:03, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- The flag is a powerful image. It is used in paintings by for instance Jasper Johns. See also Flag (painting). Whether in clothing or art it tends to convey "messages", so to speak. Bus stop (talk) 06:25, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yes. It's respectful, in a funny sort of way. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:03, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- While there's no legal punishment, improper display of the flag (especially if purposeful) is subject to public scorn and ridicule. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)The thing to remember about the Flag code in the U.S. is that it is not enforcable; it is guidance for proper respectful use of the flag, but no person can be forced to follow it, and no person can be punished for violating it, per the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (which is older than the flag code, it should be noted), the Government cannot punish a person for speech acts, and displays of the flag, for whatever purpose, are considered speech acts. ApLundell notes this above; it's written into the U.S. code, and as such, its status as binding law is only applicable to U.S. government agencies and the like. Private individuals, and private businesses, cannot be coerced into following it. Many will, if only because they wish to comply with the code, but there can be no punishment for not doing so. --Jayron32 14:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
April 16
Who was the founder of Brahmo Samaj?
Who is the founder of Brahmo Samaj? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palashbiswasp7 (talk • contribs) 10:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
- It says so in the last sentance of the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article titled Brahmo Samaj. --Jayron32 10:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
April 17
What movie appears in Reamonn's video for the song Supergirl?
The song is: Supergirl_(Reamonn_song). I suppose is some German movie, since the band is from there. But maybe they did the video to look like as if it were from a movie. The Youtube video is Reamonn - Supergirl (Official Video HQ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doroletho (talk • contribs) 01:34, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Caravan
If, say, Duke Ellington wanted to go from Tangier to Tunis with a camel caravan, about how many days would his journey time be? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:792F:2CDD:A29B:FC67 (talk) 05:55, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- According to Google, if the caravan took a plane it would take about 4 1/2 hours. If you mean walking, check out Camel train for a range estimate. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- The lyrics to the song don't illuminate the answer. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
P Clips to Attach Pannier Racks to Carbon Fibre Frame
Is it possible to use p-clips to attach pannier racks to a carbon fibre bike? I've heard mixed things adn don't want to risk destroying my bike. Thanks. 80.0.251.1 (talk) 19:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- I found Pannier. What's a P Clip? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- A specialized bike forum might give you better results. A Google search for "bike p-clamps" would be a good starting point. Bus stop (talk) 22:10, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- Its a clip that looks like a letter 'P'. 213.205.242.246 (talk) 00:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- I see there are plenty of images on Google. No article about it here, though. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:43, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- Here is a forum for "attaching panniers to Carbon frame". The impression I get in glancing over responses is that people take a negative view of the idea of "attaching panniers to Carbon frame". But further research would be called for. Bus stop (talk) 00:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- I see there are plenty of images on Google. No article about it here, though. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:43, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
April 18
May I rewrite an article?
I found an article that is in deplorable state and I believe it needs to be entirely rewritten and addition of references, but I'm not sure if I can do that... Gidev the Dood(Talk) 15:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- PLEASE DO! Wikipedia encourages good faith improvements to articles. If someone has questions, or raises objections, always be ready to discuss it with them, and don't fight about it. But yes, PLEASE improve Wikipedia articles. Not only does Wikipedia encourage it, we expect it. You're no different from anyone else, and your help is as appreciated as anyones! --Jayron32 16:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks! Gidev the Dood(Talk) 17:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- If it's a largish article, may I suggest that you rewrite the article as a draft and then ask the folks at the relevant WikiProject to have a look at it before you actually replace the old article in the mainspace. I think it always helps to get a consensus first. However, if it's a smallish article that hasn't been edited much recently, you will be fairly safe to be bold and just go ahead, as suggested above. Alansplodge (talk) 17:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- There has been a lot of discussion of this: see for example WP:JUNK and WP:TNT. There is also a template you may place at the head of the article: {{rewrite}}. I think you should just do it. I recommend a note on the talk page, and if nobody responds, a note on any applicable project pages. -Arch dude (talk) 00:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
April 19
UK law on old motorcycle helmets
I'm having a discussion with a friend about old motorcycle helmets, specifically the old leather type helmets that were in use in the 1970s / early 80s, and whether under UK law they are still legal to use.
My friend thinks that it is still legal to wear one so long as it was manufactured before the law (BS 6658:1985) changed in 1985. I would assume that the law would apply retroactively to all helmets, even those manufactured before the law changed.
Can anyone find some references to support either viewpoint? This is just a curiosity question as neither of us actually have any old motorcycle helmets, or indeed ride motorcycles. Thanks for your time.
16:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeefAnime (talk • contribs)
- (edit conflict) I can point you to Motorcycle helmets: the law and The Highway Code - Rules for motorcyclists (83 to 88) but we are not allowed to give legal advice. Alansplodge (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- (EC) See [3] and [4]. (Look at the later source carefully, in particular look out for 'either'.) Without commenting on the specifics here, note that grandfathering in older devices manufactured before new standards is fairly common practice. This may eventually be ended or it may not, and it may or may not have limits on the sale or transfer of grandfathered device. (I'm using 'devices' very widely here. It can include vehicles for example, and buildings.) Nil Einne (talk) 17:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- That last link is out of date. The law has been amended by the Motor Cycles (Protective Helmets) (Amendment) Regulations 2000 (no. 1488). Section 5(1) now reads:
Prescribed types of recommended helmet
5.—(1) The types of helmet hereby prescribed as types of helmet recommended as affording protection to persons on or in motor cycles from injury in the event of an accident are helmets which as regards their shape, construction and other qualities conform—
(a)with British Standard 6658:1985 as amended by Amendment Slip number 1 published on 28th February 1986 and are marked with the number of that standard, or
(b)with any other standard accepted by an EEA State which offers in use equivalent levels of safety, suitability and fitness for purpose and are marked with a mark to indicate that standard,
and in either each case are marked with an approved certification mark of an approved body (whether or not they are required to be so marked by the standard in point), or
(c) with ECE Regulation 22.05 including the approval, marking and conformity of production requirements of that Regulation.
This is for the benefit of anyone who may be wondering why the guidance appears to conflict with the law based on the link provided. 92.19.169.232 (talk) 17:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks! Does anyone know if section 4 been amended or schedule 2 modified? That seems like it could be important to the original question. Nil Einne (talk) 21:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
April 21
Have there ever been any non-Admin Arbitrators in Wikipedia history?
I know it's a bit of a bizarre question, but I was thinking about it earlier, and I wasn't immediately able to look into it. At any rate, I can't imagine there have been many non-sysop arbitrators, if any, given the amount of trust from the community that's required for sensitive information, like CheckUser and Oversight. OhKayeSierra (talk) 03:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- I was going to say nearly, but not quite. I did receive nearly 600 supports, but then I received around 8.4 billion opposes... The Rambling Man (talk) 03:37, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- Funnily enough, you were one of the first people that came to mind as I started trying to look into this myself. All I have to say about last year's election is... wow. And I thought RfA was a crucible in itself... Thanks for at least trying to fix a very broken system, at any rate. OhKayeSierra (talk) 03:59, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for your kind words. I think now until we have some kind of revolution, Wikipedia governance is a like a snake eating its tail. We can all predict every outcome from every Arb, and almost every outcome from every case, it's really unhelpful and does sound the death knell of Wikipedia. Unless, of course, we strike back and elect new thinkers, people who actually contribute to the encyclopedia, people who have edited more than a handful of times in the past few years. There's a chance, albeit a slim one, that we could fix the junkyard we've made. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- I think the answer is for good administrators to simply block bad administrators when they violate policy. That would weed out the bad administrators, and they should also (theoretically) get weeded out when they block good administrators in violation of policy. According to policy, nobody can restore deleted content if it violates WP:RS and WP:V. On Wednesday a falsehood was weeded out from Adoption of the Gregorian calendar (that the Finnish Orthodox Church never adopted the Gregorian calendar). The source provided noted "Only in two parts of the Russian Church was the new calendar successfully introduced - in Poland, and in Finland." Jc3s5h removed both source and correction. Next day a stronger source was provided which stated:
- Thank you for your kind words. I think now until we have some kind of revolution, Wikipedia governance is a like a snake eating its tail. We can all predict every outcome from every Arb, and almost every outcome from every case, it's really unhelpful and does sound the death knell of Wikipedia. Unless, of course, we strike back and elect new thinkers, people who actually contribute to the encyclopedia, people who have edited more than a handful of times in the past few years. There's a chance, albeit a slim one, that we could fix the junkyard we've made. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- Funnily enough, you were one of the first people that came to mind as I started trying to look into this myself. All I have to say about last year's election is... wow. And I thought RfA was a crucible in itself... Thanks for at least trying to fix a very broken system, at any rate. OhKayeSierra (talk) 03:59, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
... the Finnish Church urged towards reforms allowed previously by Patriarch Tikhon, and in October of 1921 it adopted the Gregorian Calendar and began to celebrate Western Easter.
Favonian restored the falsehood and removed the reference. Like other administrators who do this, he has a track record, when corrected, of protecting the page to win the edit war. 92.19.172.111 (talk) 13:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)