Miscellaneous desk
< November 8	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 10 >

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.

November 9[edit]

Willy on wheels[edit]

What did he do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.177.44.196 (talk) 01:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See User:Dcoetzee/Willy on Wheels:A Case Study, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Willy on Wheels and Wiki wars. Nanonic (talk) 02:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drying a down jacket[edit]

I have a down jacket which ended up getting very wet yesterday in the rain. I hung it over the back of a chair last night, and it's now dry, but parts of it no longer feel like they have much down in - they're less "puffy" - presumably due to the feathers packing together.

1. Should I have dried it in some other way than just hanging it over a chair? 2. Any suggestions for puffing it back out again?

Note that I'm not looking for instructions on *washing* the jacket, just drying it out after rain.

I guess a further question might be whether down jackets are generally considered OK in the rain, or if one should avoid it where possible.

Thanks. 81.187.153.189 (talk) 11:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting a down jacket wet will not hurt it as long as you dry it ASAP. The down has now matted together, and may not be really dry. Simply put it in the dryer for a bit— it will ensure it is dry and the tumbling will free the matted area. I have down jackets and sleeping bags that I machine wash and dry with no ill effects. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 12:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An old trick is to tumble dry (at a low temp) with a pair of clean tennies to help break up the clumps. Saintrain (talk) 15:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The OP's ISP shows him/her to be in the UK, so perhaps it should be said that "tennies" = "trainers." Deor (talk) 17:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried the tennis shoe trick; tennis balls are also recommended. It is supposed to keep the down from matting and help to restore the loft. I have tried it both ways with the same results. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 17:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why use tennies? Because elevenies are too big and ninies are too small. --Trovatore (talk) 08:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where did the tradition of 3 cheers come from[edit]

Three cheers for this - three cheers for that. You see it at sporting games, political rallies, movie reviews, etc.

Where did the tradition of three cheers originate from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob schellenberg (talk • contribs) 14:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article, cheering, that discusses origins on cheering in general, although it doesn't seem to mention the tradition of 3 cheers specifically. --Tango (talk) 16:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is some info in our article on Hip Hip Hooray but not much. Nanonic (talk) 16:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sell home[edit]

Which saint is buried in the yard of the home to be sold to help sell the home?68.105.134.134 (talk) 15:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mary's husband, Saint Joseph. See Burying Saint Joseph to Sell Your Home. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 15:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He is supposed to be buried upside down, but facing the house or facing away from it? Edison (talk) 22:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the missing m from the above link. This site which also sells home burying kits, sorry that's home sellers kit, says he should face the house, though the Straight Dope says either way is fine. Anyway there is plenty of information available and it turns out you don't even need a statue, check out the bald stuff. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 01:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why hasn't Missouri declared yet?[edit]

After all, it is now 3 days since the presidential election? 92.20.38.93 (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are still looking at provisional ballots. It is close enough that they could matter even though it is unlikely they will tip things (Obama would have to win over 80% of them to pull ahead). Provisional ballots are those that are cast by people whose voting status wasn't clear on election day. It takes some time. Normally it isn't close enough to worry about them. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine that their enthusiasm for going hell-for-leather in counting/verifying these other votes is greatly reduced by the knowledge that it doesn't matter a damn what the result actually is. SteveBaker (talk) 21:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary - our status as the Missouri bellwether is of great pride to Missourians, we'd hate to lose it! -Elmer Clark (talk) 02:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um..."A bellwether is any entity in a given arena that serves to...presage future happenings." - you can't presage future happenings a week after they've happened! (Also - a 'bellwether' was originally a castrated goat...no, really!) SteveBaker (talk) 05:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crime in New York City[edit]

Hi, I'm moving temporarily to New York City and am searching for an apartment. Do anyone know of a site that shows registered crime levels in different parts of the city? I've heard that problems can be quite localized to specific streets etc, but anything that show (violent?) crimes by district/area/etc (perhaps linked with an online map solution) would be great. Thanks! Another European (talk) 18:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This (a google-maps map of murders) is a couple of years old, but seems to fit the bill. Fribbler (talk) 18:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! (any other hints appreciated as well...) Another European (talk) 20:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this is true for NY, but in some jurisdictions there is a lot of crime recorded as geographically happening in police stations - e.g. bringing a suspect in for something, emptying his pockets and finding drugs, so charging him with possession. So perversely and counter-intuitively, the areas around police stations look unsafe -- a statistical anomaly. BrainyBabe (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pancreas[edit]

I'm researching the pancreas but cannot find any interesting facts. Could anyone with any facts of info please help me, Jenny —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.105.177.45 (talk) 19:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll suggest that many people, even college-educated baby boomers like myself, are only vaguely aware of this organ's function ("produces insulin") till their family physician informs them they've got high blood sugar and are at risk for adult-onset Type 2 diabetes and its complications. Perhaps this isn't "interesting" per se, but I assure you it's quite relevant and may help people become aware and even spare them suffering in the long run. -- Deborahjay (talk) 19:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does our article on the pancreas help? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link to the pancreas in Gray's Anatomy if that helps. [1]. Richard Avery (talk) 07:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

pancreatic cancer has a bad prognosis, look it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.53.59 (talk) 11:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, I did this in biology! The pancreas also produces digestive enzymes. Doesn't sound interesting but you'd be up shit creek without the pancreas. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^Talk _{Contributions} 17:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vampires[edit]

Is there a list of real-life vampires? --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 22:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a factual one. Edison (talk) 22:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are vampire bats, of course, and mosquitoes of various kinds. There's even a moth species that drinks blood, but I don't recall which one. You may be interested in our articles on clinical vampirism and the even sadder vampire lifestyle. Matt Deres (talk) 22:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 22:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Category:Vampirism_(crime), which lists people like Vlad the Impaler and Elizabeth de Bathory. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 10:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is List of vampires in folklore and mythology - some of those may have been based on real people. SN0WKITT3N 11:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It all depends on what you specify as the defining qualities of a vampire. I was thinking of the Bram Stoker/Bela Lugosi canon. People who think they are vampires are not vampires in that sense, nor are mosquitos or bats. Edison (talk) 20:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a TV program last night about a real life case in Wales where a young man killed an elderly widow, removed her heart, squeezed all its blood out into a saucepan, and drank the blood. He was obsessed with vampirism etc. Whether this grotesque behaviour makes him a vampire or simply a loony is a moot point. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Golf[edit]

What is better in golf, an albatross or a hole in one? An albatrosss is less strokes under par, but a hole in one is less strokes overall. So which is better? JCI (talk) 22:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For those pars for which it is meaningful to talk about scoring an albatross (i.e. with a par of 4 or more), an albatross is either equal to a hole in one, or more strokes overall (and so fewer strokes under par). Consequently, a hole in one is never inferior to an albatross, and typically superior. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 23:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further, if I understand our article correctly, it's only an albatross if it's on a par 5 or higher, so as to avoid the possibility of scoring both a hole in one and an albatross, meaning that an albatross is always inferior to a hole in one. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 23:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the question is how does a hole in one on a par 4, say, compare with an albatross on a par 5, say? I think the only way to answer it is statistically - does anyone have any statistics on how often these things are achieved? --Tango (talk) 23:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One way might be to compare is how often someone gets an eagle on a par four (a two) versus on a par five (a three). In other words, is it easier to get the distance to a par 4 in one shot or to a par 5 in two shots (and then, following it up by holing the next shot)? I would guess that the latter is easier for good players; then, the business of making an albatross is simply the luck of holing that second shot (or, first shot for the par 4) compared to merely getting the distance. But a quick search online doesn't turn up any statistics about this. zafiroblue05 | Talk 00:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what "An albatrosss is less strokes under par" is meant to mean. An albatross is 3-under-par; a hole-in-one is 2, 3, or 4 under par depending on the par of the hole.

The best proxy for "better" would be rarity, since both are on the "good" side of "average". On this measure, an albatross is better. I don't have figures, but relative frequencies are as follows (here [x,y] means "par x, covered in y shots"):

[3,1] > [5,2] > [4,1] > [5,1]

On major golf tours, there is a hole-in-one in a good percentage of tournaments, but maybe one albatross per season. Below pro level, few players have the ability to reach a par-5 gren in 2 shots, so the figures are even more skewed. There have been very few par-4 holes-in-one at any level of golf, and none on par fives. jnestorius^(talk) 23:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]