Miscellaneous desk
< May 7	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 9 >

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.

May 8[edit]

U. S. - Mexico past relations[edit]

Has the U. S. ever tried to buy or considered buying Cozumel, Mx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gooddoctordoc (talk • contribs) 05:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard that, but once in a while, when the peso is having one of its fits, there is an idea floated around about the US buying Baja California. The Mexicans would get a bit influx of cash, and the US would get lots of nice warm real estate. (But also Tijuana...). It would probably never happen, though. On a barely related note, I took some class in college and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was actually a lot better for Mexico in terms of territorial loss than it could have been. AlexiusHoratius 07:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia promotion[edit]

How far is it possible for a user in wikipedia to be promoted? there are admins and crats, and stewards? is there any post beyond stewards? what is the procedure to become a steward? --Asopirero (talk) 05:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first step down that road is described at Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship. Note that you need rather substantial experience; the average number of edits of a successful candidate is now just shy of 20,000. Once you're one of them, you can try for Bureaucrat and Steward status. Beyond that, I believe the only loftier position is currently occupied. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

20,000!?! Wow when I was editing under an account a few years ago the average was like 3,000.--92.251.239.173 (talk) 11:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See more at Wikipedia:User access levels and meta:Steward. Note that stewards are for all Wikimedia Foundation wikis and not specific to Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you should consider this as "promotion" - like it's some kind of status symbol or reaching some level of expertise like when you 'level up' in a video game. That's not a 'healthy' or 'recommended' way to consider adminship, etc. The idea is to give extra layers of account access to people who both need it and can be trusted with it. I'm up over 20k edits and have been nominated for adminship several times - but in the end, you have to ask yourself: Why do I actually need those capabilities? If you don't need them for whatever it is you do here at Wikipedia - then you're probably better off not having them. If you're looking for congratulatory 'status symbols' then check out Wikipedia:Service awards - which you become entitled to after a combination of a certain number of edits and a certain number of years in service to the project. ("This editor is a Grand and Glorious Tutnum and is entitled to display this Book of Knowledge with Coffee Cup Stain, Cigarette Burn, and Chewed Broken Pencil.") SteveBaker (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re edit levels for admins, that's an average and it's inflated by the number of semi-automated edits a lot of editors now accrue using tools like Huggle, that weren't a factor 5 years ago. A candidate with a few thousand good, solid edits in the right areas of project space and good article-building credentials, who can demonstrate cluefulness and understanding of policy should still be able to pass RfA even today, although they're likely to get some knee-jerk opposes from edit-counters. That last hasn't changed since I started editing, but the level at which it begins has. --Dweller (talk) 10:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax?[edit]

It this picture: http://www.calvintang.com/albums/other/uberjelly.jpg a hoax? Since the largest Lion's mane jelly only had a bell 7 and half feet wide my guess is it's fake. If it is a hoax, does anyone know who made it or where it originated?--ChromeWire (talk) 07:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check out jellyfish and it might say how large they can get. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notwithstanding the fact that this is probably a Science Desk question you might like to compare these two images and draw your own conclusions. I would draw your attention to the small white artefact on the left side. [1], [2] Richard Avery (talk) 07:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that those photos really clear it up. The one without the diver looks like it has been photoshopped to remove the diver. Which is odd. That doesn't mean that it wasn't originally without a diver before a diver was added before it was removed, of course. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This one is about as big as the Lion's mane, and it's about the biggest that they can get: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nomurajelly.svg Rimush (talk) 11:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the article at museumofhoaxes.com.--92.251.239.173 (talk) 12:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of photos found by googling ["giant jellyfish"], including the one in question here. One of the links led to this[3] which says explicitly, "The photo is a hoax." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The argument made in the snopes chat room[4] is that the diver is closer to the camera yet is much less detailed than the farther-away jellyfish. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that instead of "chat room" you mean "Internet forum". --Belchman (talk) 15:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. I just know they are hard to follow, as they keep repeating previous parts of a thread, unlike a wiki. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Error level analysis of the image suggests that someone monkeyed with the diver. --Sean 19:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Women's lower earnings a matter of different priorities?[edit]

Has it been studied whether the lower earnings of women might be partly due to women placing a lower priority on money than men when making career decisions? Neon Merlin 11:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Women may well place a lower priority on money when compared to things like the flexibility of work hours to fit in with school times or the amount of vacation time, and such things do affect career choices. However, the equal pay for women article you linked to, and most equal pay legislation, is mainly concerned with the sexism in many societies which undervalue the contribution of women doing exactly the same work as their male colleagues. Astronaut (talk) 12:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One factor that doesn't seem to be mentioned in that article, but which I've heard referenced and strikes me as very plausible, is that women simply don't ask for the money. It's a commonplace among men that you should always negotiate salary, especially when changing jobs, but women may be less comfortable with that in general. Of course it's possible that being seen as a hard negotiator would carry costs for women that it doesn't for men. --Trovatore (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that some women taking years off work to raise kids would cause them to be paid less, and would skew the numbers downward for women overall. StuRat (talk) 13:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the article you link to is a discussion of this question pretty directly: [5]. I personally find it still a bit too accepting of the status quo and goofy in its logic (e.g. "men are discriminated against too, because they can't be cocktail waitresses"). But anyway, the answer seems to be: yes, people have looked it through this lens. I'm not sure it is an entirely satisfying form of analysis (it doesn't discuss where these "priorities" come from in the first place—if they are caused by cultural expectations, then that is just sexism in a more insidious form). --Mr.98 (talk) 20:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That article points out that women do get paid more in some jobs such as for example financial analysis - which makes me fear the rise of a stereotype that men are just unintelligent muscle, and that women are the brainy gender. 78.146.175.181 (talk) 11:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an incredibly political issue, so let's try to keep it as apolitical as possible. This issue's been researched extensively. A Google scholar search for "wage gap sex" is a very good place to start. Shadowjams (talk) 07:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Particular angles that have been explored, and which may help you narrow your search, are:

Women tend not to negotiate their salaries or promotions in the same way that men tend to, because they are socialised not to rock the boat or push themselves forwards. They tend to expect their contributions to be recognised and rewarded fairly, without having to point their contributions out. This is related to the labelling of certain behaviours in women as "bitchy", when in men the same behaviours are often considered desirable (in a business setting).

Mentoring. Mentoring by a person already established in the same line of work is invaluable. For various reasons, very few of which are explicitly sexist, older men are less likely to mentor a young woman co-worker and talk about their career over drinks or a meal. This means that, in a profession or business where most of the established, high-up workers are men, women are less likely to get good mentoring than men, leading to a vicious circle.

Chatting about work over drinks: a lot of team-building and broader discussion of work goes on over drinks after work. In a business where the men go out for drinks without inviting the women, or where the women are not available for drinks (see below), this gives the men an edge.

Even though as many men as women have children, women are still expected to provide the majority of the childcare, even when they are working. Even when they are working at a high-paid job than the father of the children. This greater demand on their time and energy means they are more likely to need flexible working hours, more likely to be unavailable for drinks after work, less able to increase their hours, to be able to work late. And likely to need more, longer breaks in their career as they have children. All of these contribute enormously to the pay gap.

I know for a fact that each of these angles has been studied properly, and wish you good luck in your exploration. You will notice that this last point is not so much women having different priorities, as women with the same priorities as men having to shoulder different responsibilities. 86.180.48.37 (talk) 19:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Women still tend to go into different careers from men. They are less likely to study for qualifications in computer science, for example. Even though they get better grades than men, the earnings gap begins soon after entry to the labour market. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smelly sponges[edit]

I use a foam sponge in my kitchen for various cleaning tasks, largely involving washing-up liquid and hot water. After some weeks of regular use, and despite my efforts to rinse out the sponge and squeeze out the water, it starts to collect a smell that I associate with the growth of bacteria trapped in the sponge. I then wash the sponge by soaking it in a bleach solution. The smell disappears for a while, but it starts to return after just a few days. If I believe what the bleach bottle tells me, the bleach should kill the vast majority of the bacteria. So why does the smell return so quickly if it was slow to develop from when the sponge was new? Astronaut (talk) 14:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can I take it that this is a synthetic sponge. The pores are likely to be smaller than a natural one. It may be that it takes time for microbe supporting dirt to migrate to depths where even a good wash and rinse wont dislodge it completely. Once its in there, in any quantity, bacteria and yeast can then perhaps quickly re-establish vigorously growing colonies, (bacteria send out chemical messages that other bacteria use, to judge when conditions are suitably to start multiplying with a vengeance). Or it might be that the bleach is deodorising the chemicals released by the bugs. After all it those which warn us that food is off. Bacterial spores can be quite resistant to many chemicals and might re-activate themselves as soon as conditions return to normal. Or it could be a combination of the two. Having perhaps two sponges, so that one can be always dried out completely might be an option, but what kills the bacteria is rapid dehydration and with a sponge this is not easy to do. In the old days, surgeons used real sponges in surgery and just popped them in the autoclave afterwards (or so I'm told – in there too long and I would have thought they would break down and dissolve). I will have to put one of my bath sponges in the pressure cooker and see what transpires. Try a natural sponge ( they dry quicker too) , (I tend to use cheap cellulose sponge cloths mostly, then throw them away when they start looking gross). --Aspro (talk) 15:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if microwaving a sponge would help? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Microwaving is the recommended way to disinfect kitchen sponges. The caveat is that you need to microwave them damp. Microwaving them dry is a fire hazard. Google "microwave sponges" (or some of the suggested searched) for more info. -- 174.21.225.115 (talk) 18:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's also simply the fact that household microwaves are most effective at heating up water molecules - microwaving dry objects tends to result in an awful lot less heating even if it isn't a fire hazard. ~ mazca ^talk 18:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so it sounds like you want to wash the sponge as best you can, squeeze excess moisture out, and then nuke it for... about how long? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boil it in soapy water! Add a small amount of bleach solution, if you want. Oda Mari (talk) 18:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"how long to microwave sponges" is one of Google's auto-suggests for "microwave sponges". Consensus is 2 minutes on full power. -- 174.21.225.115 (talk) 17:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can buy a cellophane bag with about 20 synthetic sponges for about $2.00. At ten cents each, I just throw them out when they become smelly. Same with dishrags. They're a bit more expensive (4 for 2 bucks) so at 50 cents each, I will launder them, but only until the smell doesn't come out in the laundry; then I ditch em. I probably get about a week out of a sponge, and a month out of a rag. That's a total of a dollar per month in cleaning implements. The effort getting them clean probably isn't worth the dollar. --Jayron32 01:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's kind of what I do anyway. If I don't think I can get it clean enough, I have no problems throwing out a 15p synthetic sponge. Though I was curious why my sponge cleaning efforts didn't last. I might experiment with zapping them in the microwave. Thanks all. Astronaut (talk) 03:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Buy a new sponge, it must be cheaper and more convenient than all the faffing about that is being suggested here. Do as we do and buy two good quality dishcloths. You throw one in the wash once or twice a week and always have a spare to use. They never have a chance to become smelly. We have the same two for about three years. I think it was an initial £7.50 outlay from Waitrose (other clothes are available from other stores). OK, quite a lot for two clothes but here we are three years later with near perfect cloths and no problem. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 07:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Faffing redirects to Differences between American and British English (vocabulary), CD. What did you mean by that interesting-sounding word? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Faff in British slang is hassle, usually unnecessary or annoying. Typical usage would be "I'm not doing that - it's just too much faffing about" or "Those forms were a real faff, but I managed to get them sent off yesterday" 131.111.185.69 (talk) 21:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly right, Caesar's Daddy (talk) 05:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know of 4.5 star hotel that primarily uses bleach for almost all hygienic needs (really, its ridiculous, they clean everything with it), and they pass rigorous health checks to maintain 4.5 rating so I'd say that bleach is pretty good choice. In the other hand, I never knew about microwaving wet sponges, in fact I was gonna suggest boiling it before I red all the answers, but this seems like even better idea. I bet if you combine the 2 techniques NOTHING will survive.--Melmann^(talk) 15:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can put the sponges in the washing machine along with dishcloths and microfibre cloths. Stops them becoming smelly and extends their life. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finding a London advert against using unregistered taxi cabs[edit]

There is an advert on London tubes (and maybe elsewhere) saying smething like "no. stop. no. please. stop..." with a woman in the picture. It's about taxis and is suggesting she will be raped. It's asying 'think before get into an unregistered taxi cab'. I can't find the advert online though. I'm sure it had a number on that you could text to help ensure that the cab was registered. If you could find this it would be great - i've spent a long time searching but have come up with nothing. Thanks 86.179.214.235 (talk) 20:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like it could be Cabwise also look at Transport for London:Transport for London:Booking taxis and minicabs for more general info on cabs and transport.--Aspro (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was Cabwise. Thanks. 86.179.214.235 (talk) 22:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prices - Harrods[edit]

Am I misreading, or are the prices at this "American Diner" at Harrods in London really exorbitant? If the online menu is to be believed, a "Chicago Dog" costs £14.50, or about $21.47 US, according to Google's currency converter. A plain hamburger costs £15 ($22.21 US) and a slice of cheese for your burger costs £1.75 ($2.59 US). A milkshake costs £8 ($11.85 US). Is it just so expensive because it's Harrods, or is there something else that explains the high prices? Thanks, The Hero of This Nation (talk) 21:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it's Harrods. ╟─Treasury Tag►Counsellor of State─╢ 21:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who would ever choose to pay such ridiculous prices? Surely convenience (if that's the reason) isn't worth that much. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely there are places in New York, say, which are similarly ludicrous? People do it so they can say, "I did x at Harrods," though I don't know how many actually eat such absurdly expensive food! ╟─Treasury Tag►cabinet─╢ 22:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's even more absurd: to pay through the a**e for some food, just to say you've been there, and then not even eat it? For those prices, it had better be Quintiple Crown 20-star Cordon Bleu, so why waste it if you've gone to the expense of buying it anyway. I suppose they could try to frame it, but there would be some health issues there. :) Better to take a photo, eat the meal, and frame the photo. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have heard that London is one of the most expensive cities in which to live, but $21.47 for a Chicago dog is ridiculous. My local establishment charges $2.50 (£1.69). The Hero of This Nation (talk) 22:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm sure they would pay a lot less for a hamburger and shake if they went to McDonald's, but no one's going to brag that they went to McDonald's in London. Another example is the price of food at a major league ballpark vs. a minor league ballpark. It's not the food that's of so much value, it's where you're having it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to be copying some of the American eateries where the rich and famous hang out in order to be be seen but the food turns out to be a big disappointment. These are some of gastronomic ideas I would prefer the Americans keep to themselves. There was a 'Planet' something or other I went to once and I didn't even bother to finish the meal. Weather it was the prices that kept the trailer-trash out, I have no idea, but I don't think they would have eaten there if had been free. At least the beef at Harrods will not have been pumped full of hormones. --Aspro (talk) 22:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like Planet Hollywood. I have eaten there before; mediocre food, terribly loud atmosphere, and very expensive. If I remember correctly, it was 15-20 dollars a plate. The Reader who Writes (talk) 02:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I doubt people choose to eat at Harrods for the convenience, but instead do it for the experience of eating somewhere notable (and perhaps to "marvel" at the high price they paid). And I bet Harrods burgers don't come in a styrofoam box, probably to prevent you from wandering round the store dropping onions, ketchup and that very expensive cheese everywhere :-)

As for expensive eating, I have eaten in some extraordinarily expensive places, for the supposedly good food and for the experience of having eaten there. A few have failed to live up to their reputation, but I have generally been satisfied. Yes, London is expensive, but it is possible to find good cheap food, but equally it is possible to be ripped off with decidedly average food at high prices. Astronaut (talk) 22:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me tell you as a frequent visitor to London and an occasional visitor to Harrods that you will NEVER see a celebrity there. It is SOOOOOO busy with people from around Britain and the World that NO celebrity would wish to be seen there unless it was a closed and invited-only event. And yes, the prices are ridiculous. Oh, it is a wonderful corner shop, and it is fascinating to see such a VAST array of EVERYTHING one could ever wish to buy - but always be prepared to take out a mortgage for a prawn sandwich in one of their many eateries. And if you like Sushi - think instead about flying first-class to Japan, it will be much cheaper, believe me. Me? I can actually afford to shop there thanks to hard work and a frugal lifestyle, but NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, would I pay £3.25 for a single chocolate, even though the assistant spoke with a crystal English Rose accent and wore fine lace gloves whilst serving me. If you want quality, choice, variety and price competition that guarantees a refund if you find the same article cheaper elsewhere, go to Asda, Tesco or John Lewis. But if you MUST prove to your friends that you actually went to HARRODS, then buy a half-pound of freshly ground Blue Mountain Coffee and ask them to provide a Harrods Bag to carry it in. And on the way home, EVERYONE will know you are a show-off cheapskate - LIKE ME. 92.30.6.196 (talk) 00:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hubert Keller's hamburger at Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas runs $5000: [6]. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 05:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How much do you think a burger by Heston Blumenthal would cost? (See [7]) --Phil Holmes (talk) 10:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I was a child in the early 1960's I once had a meal in Harrods, and it was just like any cafe in those days, although posher restuarants were also available. The service was good and the food generous. 78.146.175.181 (talk) 11:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But on the last response : in the 1960's, Harrods wasn't owned by Fayed - it was owned by the Fraser family, latterly Sir Hugh Fraser, who also owned other large department stores around the UK. But sadly, Sir Hugh had a serious character defect that always seemed to steer him in the opposite direction from that needed for running a successful business with a Global reputation to uphold. And yes, I too remember Harrods THEN being a nice upmarket - though not unaffordable venue for specialist shopping and high tea and a good haircut. But nowadays? 92.30.101.19 (talk) 17:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I presume these prices are how Fayed has just managed to sell the store to the Qatari royal family for £1.5 billion! -- Arwel Parry (talk) 17:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But nowadays, 101.19, Harrods is a sideshow for people with more money than sense or taste, where you can spend far too much money on everything from a hot dog to the store itself. :) FiggyBee (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well said Figgy Bee - there will always be those who know the price of everything ----- and the value of nothing. 92.30.101.19 (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the price of the store seemed fairly reasonable to me. I have bought a couple of things there but have tended to avoid it because of getting a headache from the perfume. Dmcq (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]