Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010 October 7

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.

October 7

Vasthu/ Geomancy

I recently purchased an apartment which was previously owned by an Indian Catholic.

I noticed that at the top of every door frame, there is a nail, about 7cm-8cm in length embedded at the top right hand side of each doorframe.

I was wondering why the nail was there, and tried doing some research on Catholic beliefs/Vasthu (as the previous owner was an Indian), but to no avail.

Any explanation why there's a nail on each and every doorframe of the apartment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seitoob (talk • contribs) 08:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Do the doors have keys that might need to be hung out of reach? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Are we to assume that you have discounted previous owners before him putting up mezuzot?--Aspro (talk) 11:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

@Cuddlyable3: The locks are turned locks, so no key required to lock from the inside. the Nails are located way high up, at the top of the door frame about 2m to the top right corner.

@Mezuzah : there are no previous owners. i'm the 2nd owner, so there was only 1 previous owner.

I'm not sure about the Catholic faith, but i don't think they have any practices of nails at the top corner of a doorframe, so i suspect it could be Vastu Satha or basically Indian Geomancy.

Rivers

Hypothetically if a river were to flow from north to south, if the more extreme climate in the north caused the river to freeze over for winter, how would this effect the parts of the river in the south? Would this cause the river to stop flowing altogether and dry up for winter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.89.16.154 (talk) 09:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Depends which hemisphere you're in. HiLo48 (talk) 11:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Few rivers are sufficiently long that such a climate difference exists and that only the one source which freezes supplies the entire water flow. Even when a river "freezes over", it rarely freezes to the riverbed. The water flow in the Mississippi does not go to zero - but it definitely has greater flow when snow pack in the north melts, frequently causing flooding. An interesting sidelight is the Niagara Falls which has, rarely, frozen completely, leaving the base withut any water flow. As a curiousity, the St. Johns River in Florida is one of the few significant Northern Hemisphere rivers to flow north. Collect (talk) 11:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Major north flowing Northern Hemisphere rivers include Ob River, the Mackenzie River, the Rhine River, the Nile River. There might be more then you think. Googlemeister (talk) 13:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The Nile is a bi-hemispheric river. Collect (talk) 18:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Not if it is considered to start at Lake Victoria (0.5 deg N), which appears the most common assertion. In any case, The vast majority of its 4,100 mile length is in the northern hemisphere. Googlemeister (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if by freeze over you mean freeze solid, and there is no tributary supplying water to the river, it will run dry leaving something resembling a glacier in its northern reaches. There may be isolated pools of water that eventually evaporate. I don't see that the hemisphere makes a difference. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The hemisphere comment was with respect to the assumption that a river flowing from north to south would be flowing from a cold to a warmer climate. It's obviously a northern hemisphere centric view. The reverse would be the case in the southern hemisphere. Yes, maybe a petty comment, but this IS a global encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 11:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Religion

Recently in the news there was an article in which they discussed an area in India where a sacred Hindu site was also that of an Islamic holy site, the Hindu site had been there for a few thousand years while the Islamic site was built on top of it in the 1500’s. It occurred to me that this is not the only case where such a thing has happened; take the Dome of the Rock for example. This has been a holy site for the Jews for many years, yet now there is a Mosc on the site too, both of these sites have been there for a very long time but the Jewish site predates the Islamic one by many years. I have no problem with any ones religion but am curious if this is a purposely-implemented policy or just coincidence? I have named but two of a number of examples that I could quote where an Islamic holy site has been built on top of, not next to, or across the road, but right on top of a pre-existing holy site of a separate religion. Is this a common practice? If it is a purposely implemented procedure, why? If not, then why does it seem so prevalent, or is my view biased in some way? As an aside, who is the leader of Islam? Who is the leader of the Jewish faith? E.g., the Pope is the leader of the Catholics, the Anglicans have a leader too, whose name escapes me at the moment, Rowan some one or other. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.89.16.154 (talk) 09:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Literally thousands of Hindu temples were destroyed in India by invading Islamic forces.It was a common practice to bury the idol of desecrated Hindu god so that those who enter the mosque could walk over them.  Jon Ascton  (talk) 19:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The debate you are referring to is the Ayodhya debate. Other than that, some places are just naturally suitable for worship, and when one religion replaces another it would come naturally to also take such a intrinsically holy place over. Another reason may be to try and make the transition from one religion to another smoother (think Christmas and Easter being celebrated on the dates of major pagan festivities). Over here in my neck of the woods, there is a whole bunch of iconic little churches built on tops of hills, and one explanation I've heard for this is that they were placed there to replace temples to the god Svetovid, who would around here typically have a place of worship on top of a hill. TomorrowTime (talk) 11:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

In some parts of Mexico there are Catholic churches built on the sites of pre-Columbian temples, and sometimes even with the same stones. Vultur (talk) 13:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

To the OP's latter points, there is no single "Anglican Church" but the symbolic leader of the Anglican Communion (see article) is the Archbishop of Canterbury, currently Dr. Rowan Williams. Wikipedia has an article about Islamic religious leaders. Authority in Judaism on theological and legal matters is not vested in any one person but in many rabbis and scholars. (updated) Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Reuse of religious sites goes back thousands of years - some Jewish sites may have been religious sites before Judaism, many European churches were built on pagan sites, Roman temples were found to have non-Roman temples beneath them, and so on. (WRT Judaism, it had "congregationalism" before the Protestant congregational movement existed.) Collect (talk) 11:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

A striking example is the Great Mosque of Córdoba, which began as a Christian church, was bought and turned into a large and important mosque when the region came under Islamic control, only to become a cathedral again after the reconquista, complete with an entire cathedral nave pretty much plonked down into the centre of the Moorish mosque architecture. Karenjc 16:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Another striking example is the Kaaba, which was already an important religious site before Mohammed destroyed the idols and rebuilt it. --ColinFine (talk) 17:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The leader of Islam is the Caliph, though there has not been one since 1924, it seems the kings of Saudi Arabia, who have the best opportunity to claim the title, dislike the idea of such a leader, even if it is themselves. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 15:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The Dome of the Rock is a different case from the Ayodhya site. Islam has a relation to Judaism similar to the relationship that Christianity has, and so sites that are holy to Judaism are also holy to Islam. There is no basic relationship of Islam with Hinduism, though. Looie496 (talk) 17:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The relationship of Islam to Judaism is hardly similar to that of Christianity to Judaism -- Islam split from Abrahamic times with a replacement theology concept. They assert that Ishmael was the chosen son of Abraham rather than Isaac. Christianity was spawned from Judaism when they accepted Jesus as the Messiah, a concept they plucked from Judaism, and they ran with it. Moreover, tenets of Islam dictate that they conquest and dominate over others, while Christianity demonstrates no such theological objection to Jewish self-rule. There are many instances of Jew-hatred that sprung up among Christianity -- such as that of Martin Luther -- but Prager and Telushkin's Why the Jews? explains this all very nicely. So while both religions might have promoted a sense of opposition to Judaism, Islam represents a more belligerent antipathy. Non-Muslims will never really know the details of the rationale of why Islam takes notable sites of worship and reverence from other religions and turns them into sites of Islam, but one can get a pretty good idea from the aforementioned text, and other sources. Or you might find some information at Dar al Harb. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The Ishmael legend is about the origin of Arab peoples, not on the origin of Islam. It predates Islam by a long time. While Islam started among Arabic peoples, there are many muslims who have no arabic background at all. Indeed, the largest muslim population in the world is in Indonesia, and I am pretty sure that the Indonesians don't have a foundation myth related to Ishmael. You are getting your wires crossed with regards to arab vs. muslim They are overlapping, but not identical concepts. --Jayron32 22:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

If you read the Ishmael article, you'll see that Ishmael holds a primary position for Muslims, while in Judaism, he is an ancillary character. Arab Muslims claim to be from Ishmael, and non-Arab Muslims are followers of the religion started by Ishmael, an Arab. The same way there can be a converted Asian Jew, there can be a converted Asian or Malaysian or Indonesian Muslim -- and they all follow the teachings of the Koran, which denigrates Jews. That's why Bosnian Muslims volunteered to become an SS unit to fight against the Jews -- not because they were Arabs, but because they were Muslims. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'll ignore the nonsequitur stuff which seems to confuse the issue under debate, but the fact is that Ishmael existed some 2000 years before there was an Islam. He didn't found Islam any more than Moses founded the Southern Baptists. There is no unbroken line from Ishmael to Muhammad. Abrahamic mythology had been part of the Semitic world from the Levant to Arabia, even among the pre-Islamic Arabs. And the fact that some people twist their religion to justify attrocities committed against people of other religions doesn't mean that all practitioners of that religion are to be painted with the same brush. Islam is a very diverse religion, and has been for a long time. Bosniak muslims were Europeans too, and so existed in the same cultural millieu as other Europeans. To tease out their anti-semitism as being somehow derived solely from their Muslim status (rather than being justified after the fact by themselves and others as such), and not from the same sorts of places that Germans, Polish, Russian, and other antisemitic Europeans got it from is just silly. I said I wasn't going to do that. Oh well. --Jayron32 02:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I do not really want to get into this, DR, and it is becoming rather outside the scope of the question anyway, but saying the Koran "denigrates Jews" is a bit strong. Paganism is the religion that really gets Allah going, actually, not Judaism or Christianity, both of which are spoken of with respect in the Koran and many other Islamic texts (and as I am sure you may know that is also something that the G-d of Israel seems to have a thing about...). There is nothing in Islam that is fundamentally "anti-Semitic", and much of the conflict between Jews and Muslims is of very recent origin. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 02:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, not all of it... Adam Bishop (talk) 15:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Recent, as in Mohammed? Since its inception, Islam has put down Jews and Judaism, from jizya to jihad -- and Jews were never the sole beneficiaries, but Mohammed tried to get the Jews to embrace Islam and when they rejected him, he couldn't have been too pleased. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Who is the leader of Islam?

In a sense, Islam is run today a bit like Wikipedia is! We have "Administrators" much like they have "Ulama" in Islam. Our article on Ulama explains:

The ulama in most nations consider themselves to represent the ijma "consensus" of the Ummah "community of Muslims" (or to represent at least the scholarly or learned consensus). Many efforts to modernise Islam focus on the reintroduction of ijtihad and empowerment of the ummah to form their own ijma.

Islam has no single worldly "authority" in the way Catholics have a Pope, etc., but some Ulama clerics (both living and dead) are more respected or influential than others. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Islam is run today...like Wikipedia -- Damn, that explains a lot. Signed, a former ayatollah. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Lots of religious sites are re-used, either sacred places where people gather being adapted to a new religion (e.g. St Pancras Old Church, second oldest site of Christianity in England) or buildings, abandoned by a shrinking congregation, passing into new hands (e.g. Brick Lane Mosque, built as a French Huguenot church, then a Wesleyan and Methodist chapel, then a Jewish synagogue, now a Bangladeshi mosque). You may also be interested in Category:Conversion of non-Muslim places of worship into mosques. BrainyBabe (talk) 22:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

And, for sake of comparison, Category:Conversion of non-Christian places of worship into Churches. BrainyBabe (talk) 22:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thomas England House

Does anyone have any ideas where I could find the history of the Thomas England House located in Smyrna Delaware? I'm told it has an extensive history and was built 300 years ago. ThanksTig3138 (talk) 10:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Moved from the request board. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Does this help? - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 17:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything older than this postcard of the house. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Moving to the UK from US

A two part question. Am looking in other avenues but it never hurts to plumb the minds of the reference desk.

1. What is a good method for shipping personal property from the USA to the UK when a US citizen with a visa moves over? Is there a good shipping or haulage company?
2. What is a good method for paying off bills in the USA for a US citizen now living in the UK? The company states they only accept US currency and there would have to be some sort of conversion fee or something to do with some sort of Swift account?

Thanks! 95.148.246.128 (talk) 12:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

For the latter, try to keep a checking account (US term) (current account is the UK term) open in the US. You can then use web-banking to pay your bills from it. Transferring a few large payments from the UK to the US will probably be cheaper than lots of small ones. This assumes that your US bank account doesn't have large monthly charges. In the UK most current accounts don't have monthly charges; those that do give you things like free mobile phone insurance, car breakdown assistance, etc.

You may wish to ask your US bank for a letter-of-introduction; this basically is a sworn letter from them that you are who you say you are. Without it you need to go through rigorous identity checks under the UK's anti-money laundering laws. Unless you have 3 (or 6) months of electricity/phone/gas statements you may find it hard. I removed the blank line between your two questions, as it was stopping the autoline numbering working correctly. CS Miller (talk) 13:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

If this proves to be a problem, I'd recommend the original poster try to open an account at a bank branch that serves a university. Staff at such branches will be more used to the standards of proof of, and their own bank's systems for handling, the identity of non-UK, and particularly non-EU, customers. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 19:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

As the OP appears to already be in the UK s/he may have already closed their US accounts. If this is so and if it is only one or two payments, then the easiest option may be to use the UK online banking service of his bank, to request that a Foreign Draft be sent to him. It is about half the normal fee if done online. As the normal fee is about £18 to £20 it still ain't cheap. This is the cheapest fee, that a quick Google of UK banks gave me if he hasn't already got one.International-payments. SWIFT is all capital letters and stands for Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication The post above gives the better way to do it.--Aspro (talk) 16:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Amazon/Ebay

What happens on Ebay or Amazon if a person who has paid for something if the seller does not send that item to that person? Besides getting kicked off as a seller? Does Ebay or Amazon cover the cost? How does that work, what insurance do they have that will ensure people get their stuff and don"t get ripped off? Also, does peoples credit card information is it processed through Amazon or Ebay and not given out to every seller, how does that work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.137.246.230 (talk) 13:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

If you purchase from Amazon, I don't think they bill you until their affiliate retailer ships the item.

On eBay, you're dealing with individuals, not stores. If you pay through PayPal, you may be able to cancel your payment. Additionally eBay has recently instituted something called eBay Buyer Protection which gives you further protection on most items, if you've payed through PayPal.

However, there are strict time-limits on both of these methods of getting your money back. A clever con artist will try to string you along with lies and promises until you've gone past the 30 days for a paypal refund and the 45 days for the buyer protection.

If you've used some other form of payment, more than likely you're simply screwed. APL (talk) 15:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

eBay and Amazon definitely do not cover the cost. My understanding is that in some cases eBay will forward on information to local law enforcement if need be, but that's about the maximum amount of action on their part, other than banning sellers. As for the credit card information, generally it goes through a service like PayPal. You give your credit card info to PayPal and say, "send $10 to account XYZ." The seller, at account XYZ, gets a message saying, "$10 has been credited to your account." The seller never sees the credit info. Now there are some situations, if I recall, that PayPayl itself can be used to reverse transfers regarding credit cards. So you could buy something with a credit card, and if you don't get it, tell the credit card company to reverse the charge to PayPal, or something along those lines. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Mr.98, do you have a citation that eBay definitely does not cover the cost? APL linked to the "eBay Buyer Protection" description, which seems to state that if you paid with PayPal or a few other methods of payment, and if you comply with a lot of rules, then eBay may refund your money and bill the seller. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, well, they may have changed it since I last looked. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of confusing info here. eBay/PayPal has had buyer protection eBayers using PayPal for I understand a fair while. (I can find discussion of the buyer protection since at least 2008.) I think SteveBaker mentioned it a year or two ago. It depends precisely which eBay site you use to buy the item and also I think where your PayPal account is registered as but as I understand it most of the main ones do include decent buyer protection. (Certain items are ineligible for protection and there is a maximum amount.) I believe the change APL mentioned above is that for various reasons probably including fear of anti-competition action in some countries, eBay has recently changed policy to remove PayPal as a compulsory payment method and added buyer protection for some other payment methods.

For PayPal, the way it works if you don't receive an item is usually relatively simple. You file a dispute within 45 days. At this stage, PayPal automatically puts a hold on the total sum if there's still that much in the sellers account. You then have up to 21 days to resolve the dispute with the seller. Failing that, during these 21 days either party can choose to escalate the dispute where PayPal will mediate. If you claim the item is not received, the seller has to show evidence it was delivered. It doesn't matter if they can show evidence it was sent. If the item is over a certain value, they need to show a signature recorded delivery. If they fail to show evidence it was delivered, they're basically SOL, no matter what they or you may have said before buying. (PayPal has seller protection as well.) I'm not of course what will happen if anyone takes the issue to court.

In the past, many of the cheap HK/Chinese sellers used to offer insurance or tracking for extra saying it was the sellers responsibility if the item was lost, this isn't true in general and I've noticed few do that any more, in fact quite often for cheap items and popular destinations they will mention they will refund you if it doesn't arrive in X number of days. As may be obvious here, although it's PayPal's protection most of the time it's the seller. (I think a lot of small time sellers don't realise their requirements under the protection policy.) Of course if the seller has taken the money out of their account and disappeared then it is PayPal covering it.

I myself won a dispute a few months back against a German seller, the item arrived the day after I won the dispute so I repaid the seller. I presume it got lost for about 2 months because of the volcano disruptions in Europe. I actually waited the full 45 days, was planning to wait the 21 days but the seller quickly escalated it. This meant I lost more money because of being hit by currency exchange fees both ways (refund and payment or repayment) and annoyingly most of the cost of the item was in the shipping (shipping from Germany is rather expensive for small items, silly Deutsche Post/DHL).

Note that PayPals protections if you buy something outside eBay are different (for starters they usually don't cover you at all and do indeed only offer to try and recover the money fromn the seller).

BTW things get complicated if you have other problems, like the item isn't what was described (this includes I think extreme cases like you bought a computer and received a shoe) or was damaged or whatever. Generally for item not as described, as I understand it (this isn't one aspect I've looked in to that well), if you can't come to an agreement then you have to send the item back to the seller, at your cost. And as with the seller, you need to make sure you have evidence of delivery since if the seller claims they didn't receive the item you sent back, your SOL. Also in a case like this, you may only receive the cost of the item back less shipping even if the shipping was outrageous and not at all proportional to the actual cost.

Nil Einne (talk) 03:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

[1] (safe search off although I don't see anything that is likely to be affected) suggests protection has existed in some form since 2003. By the by, there may be some differences in whether you pay by credit card or whether you put money in to your account. As credit card is the only option in NZ, it's not something I've paid much attention to. Nil Einne (talk) 04:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I said "recently" because I thought that the buyer protection had only existed (in a useful form) for under a year. I couldn't find a cite for that, so I freely admit that it might not be as "Recent" as I believed it was. APL (talk) 04:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I understand the details have varied over time. I admit I never paid much attention in the past, I didn't really buy that many items anyway (no on uses eBay for inter-NZ auctions). I've been looking in to the history to try and see how it's varied. Archive.org seems fairly useless in this case because it doesn't cover the relevant pages.

[2] mentions the changes in Australia in 2007, an increase in value covered if the seller has 50 total feedback and greater then 98% positive. And perhaps more important an expansion of the scheme to a lesser value but for most transactions, in particular the removal of a $25 administration fee which used to apply for those not covered by the older eBay scheme. ([3] from 2007 and the US mentions something similar.) This from 2006 and the US mentions the high feedback requirement as well [4]. Neither of these mention that you'll get the money back if it can't be recovered but this from 2005 and the UK [5] mentions they do (as I somewhat expected). Also [6] from 2006 mentions the requirement for proof of delivery.

From these results I think when you had coverage the scheme it self has been useful (meaning the seller can't just disappear with your money without sending the item) since 2005, possibly since it existed. But coverage in the past has only been with those where you probably don't need it i.e. with high positive feedback sellers. However since 2007 it appears coverage was expanded to probably most transactions.

I should also mention that not sending the item is probably only a minority of problems buyers have. I've already hinted at the issues you may face when the item isn't as described and I think these sort of problems are much more common. While searching I found plenty of complaints from buyers (and also some from sellers) about the protection scheme, these were all (in the case of buyers) of the item not as described variety. These were also the issues I recall reading about when researching in the past. Given the way the scheme works, it isn't surprising. (Another common complain is the fairly scripted manner of responses, from my history with eBay I'm not surprised of these complaints.)

BTW I forgot to clarify earlier I'm only referring to PayPal or eBay protections. You may have additional protections, e.g. from your credit card depending on the laws and policies where you live.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Professionalism

does it mean to be a professional you have to control ur emotions and not let human feelings overcome you even when it is an emotional situation. are'nt these diplomacy/professionalism have a stromg foundation of human respect and dignity or it means to be sly and get he job done to our advantage ??

please advise as i am in a dilemma witj my boss —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.36.6 (talk) 14:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The first option is more correct. 92.29.116.249 (talk) 09:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Have you read our article professional? That covers some of the many definitions of the term. Warofdreams talk 16:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The Professional article is poor. Its better to read Profession#Characteristics_of_a_profession and Talk:Profession#A_skeleton_article_on_Professionalism. 92.29.116.249 (talk) 09:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Defining "professional" is unlikely to make much difference in a dispute with your employer, and quoting dictionary definitions at him/her may make matters worse. People put their own interpretations on words, although I think most would agree with you that professionalism implies a degree of self-control. If your employer's policy is to do business in a way you believe to be unethical, or if you feel under pressure to behave unethically in order to be seen as "professional" by your employer, are you in the right job? Karenjc 16:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Our article "professional" isn't going to help the original poster, and nor, surprisingly, is the Wiktionary entry. The definition over at m-w.com is better: "exhibiting a courteous, conscientious, and generally businesslike manner in the workplace", and the example sentence is, "I was impressed by the calm and professional way she handled the crisis." That said, I agree with Karenjc that quibbling over word definitions — although it is a STAPLE of what we do here at the Reference Desk — is often a pretty bad idea when interacting with your boss. Unless your boss also likes to edit the Reference Desk, I guess. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The OP is asking about the usage of "professional" to characterize a person's work ethic rather than its other meaning of having a formal qualification. The problem is that speakers tend to attach their own job interest to the word. For example, for a triage medic it means making calm objective decisions in a medical emergency. For a soldier it means unhesitating willingness to kill designated enemies. For a lawyer it means presenting only the aspects of a case that are to a client's advantage. For a plumber it means doing medium-quality work for a very good payment. For an advertising copywriter it means writing whatever will sell the product. The only factor in common is that all these people claim to be professionals with a foundation of human respect, whether that is credible or not. Wikipedia has a link for the so-called Professional criminal. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not very professional to assume that all plumbers are satisfied with medium-quality work. There must be some exceptions, surely. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Nor is it to direct the visitor to our article on Habitual offender in response to this question! If I were the visitor, I would come away quite confused by your answer, Cuddly. :|

I suppose I agree with CT's comment most. Yes: it is important to conduct oneself with "professionalism" in a dispute with one's employer. That may well include being respectful of their position (relative to yours), which may mean moderating those of one's emotions which in another context one might feel freer about expressing. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 23:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The OP is understandably as confused as I am sceptical when the term professional is invoked but its intended meaning is obscure. It may mean as little as touting basic competence to satisfy a client, or as much as membership of a Guild that demands high standards for membership. Thus context is everything as my examples try to show. Jack is right that the single plumber I mentioned does not represent all professional plumbers nor the depths to which some plumbers plumb. Such as the exceptional one who routed sewage flow to his client's jacuzzi. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• Q. "does it mean to be a professional you have to control ur emotions and not let human feelings overcome you even when it is an emotional situation"
• A. "yes"

WikiDao ☯ (talk) 12:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Look, when a boss starts talking about 'professionalism' there's really only two things you can be sure of: (1) the boss is annoyed with some general aspect of your behavior, and (2) the boss thinks you're a good employee (otherwise you wouldn't get the 'professionalism' talk, you'd get a lot of free time to look for a new job). The boss probably doesn't have an exact idea of what he means by 'professionalism' any more than you do, but it usually boils down to one or more of the following things:

• Attitude: 'professional' people treat their job as though they they are in it for the long haul. they arrive on time to meetings, they arrive prepared, they think ahead and anticipate future needs, they spend the time and effort to do things right. A boss will see you as professional (for an instance) when he says "We need a solution to X" and you say "Yes, I started working on that last week."
• Demeanor: 'professional' people inspire trust and confidence in both fellow employees and clients. part of that is sheer appearance - you'd be surprised how much a little thing like a stain on your tie can give people bad impressions (of the 'is he going to manage my account as badly as he manages his tie?' variety). Part of it a willingness to 'do for' without becoming servile; people don't have confidence in servile people and don't have confidence in people who they see as snooty, but a businessman who takes time out of his busy schedule to do something that needs doing is usually viewed as a consummate professional.
• Skillset: People expect professionals to have ready answer to difficult problems, so you have to be ahead of the game on the skills, information, and tools you need. again, that's part of the proactive attitude, but applied to yourself rather than the company - you need to ask yourself what you need to make yourself better at your job and seek it out.

just my 2¢. --Ludwigs2 07:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The OP asks about behaving diplomatically and professionally in an emotionally-charged dispute with his or her employer in New Delhi. The answer is that yes of course it is important to moderate one's emotions in such a situation. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 08:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that if the OP is unclear what their boss means by professional in this context then it is fair enough to ask. I am not quite sure whether the OP is saying that the boss said that they were unprofessional or whether the boss is asking the OP to act in a sly and underhand manner, which they consider unprofessional. Perhaps some more information could help us answer. -- Q Chris (talk) 09:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec) The question also implies that controlling your emotions is sly. To quote more definitions, "sly" means 1. wise in practical affairs, 2. clever in concealing one's aims or ends, and 3. lightly mischievous. I'm guessing #2 is the intended meaning here. The question's wording does seem to suggest a moral or ethical problem resulting in strong emotions being expressed. If this is the case, I would say the real question is how much you need the job. If your job requires you to do something you are morally or ethically opposed to you should consider quitting and finding work better suited to your standards. If it is very important to keep the job then you have a personal dilemma to work out--and no one can tell you what the right choice is. I suspect most people struggle over questions about whether one's job is moral or ethical, or of value in general. Finding employment that is truly good and virtuous is extremely difficult--or at least tends to pay very poorly! However, if the issue here is not about ethics but more a matter of having lost control of your emotions, then something as simple as a sincere apology might be appropriate. It is okay to "let human feelings overcome you even when it is an emotional situation", but you are responsible for whatever happened as a result of being overcome by emotion. Apologizing for having lost control does not necessary mean you agree or are being "sly". I sometimes lose my temper, for example, and say hurtful things. It happens. The important thing is what to do about it afterward. If it is important enough to you, apologize for having lost control and then explain--calmly--why you do not agree. If it is not important enough, just apologize. Losing control of your emotions isn't a matter or being professional or not. Everyone loses control now and then, on or off the job. The question is what to do after the emotions subside. If you said something hurtful, apologize. If someone is asking you to act in a way you find unacceptable, explain why you cannot. Pfly (talk) 10:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The question does not imply that controlling your emotions is behaving in a sly manner. Professionals stay cool in difficult situations. They are ruled by reason, not emotion. They never let their emotions get the upper hand. Even if the client was being rude to the professional, or even if the client privately despised the client, the client would still recieve the same high standard of service that any other client would get. 92.29.116.249 (talk) 09:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

There are some situations where you might be asked to do something unethical because people have not understood or even looked at the situation. Even if you strongly disagree with what you are asked to do it is worth discussing the situation before leaving. An example I know of was a young woman who worked some evenings in a call centre to help finance a degree. She worked in collections and one of the jobs she had was to warn an 80-year old widow about an impending repossession of a house. The debt was about £5,000 on a £200,000 house! She told her colleagues that this was wrong and they all said "you have to do it". When she called her supervisor he talked to the collections manager and told her that this case should never have been sent for repossession, they had a lien on the home and could easily afford to wait until either the home was sold or the widow died, then collect the debt plus interest. -- Q Chris (talk) 12:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, always striving to do what's "right", even if that is not always entirely clear, in a calm and responsible manner, according to common-sense and established procedure, even in the face of difficulty and resistance, is also an important aspect of "professionalism." WikiDao ☯ (talk) 12:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Altruism is an important aspect of professionalism. 92.29.116.249 (talk) 10:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Worth remembering of course while the people involved in the above case may have been primarily motivated by what seem ethical and right or fair to the old lady involved, even from a purely selfish business POV it's unlikely repossessing the £200,000 house of an 80 year old lady because of a £5,000 debt is a smart idea. While a collection agency is probably always going to be somewhat controversial, that's easily the sort of thing which could become a very major PR disaster if the media picks up on it. Even worse of course, there would very likely be a blow back on to whoever was original owed the debt. Nil Einne (talk) 09:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The man who crash-landed the aircraft in the Hudson behaved in a professional manner. But the most important aspect of professionalism is being impartial and selfless. For example a judge making a decision without letting their own personal likes and dislikes for the individuals concerned influence their the decision, and disregarding any personal interests. The opposite of professionalism would be this person: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11500370 .

See the relevant parts of Profession#Characteristics_of_a_profession and Talk:Profession#A_skeleton_article_on_Professionalism for information on professionalism. Anyone can and should behave with professionalism, you do not have to belong to a professional body: if everyone did that, the world would be paradise.

A lot of confusion, which has resulted in poor quality articles, is due to confusing the vernacular use of profession, particularly in American-english, with non-vernacular useage. 92.28.254.120 (talk) 13:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Cillit Bang ads

Was the fictional character of Barry Scott in the Cillit Bang adverts based on Billy Mays, do you know? Thanks. --95.148.106.22 (talk) 16:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't know, but curious readers may be interested in the history of the Cillit Bang advertising campaign - here and here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Broken glass in my rug

A glass shattered all over my area rug. I picked up the big pieces and vacuumed several times, but I am worried about slivers that are embedded deep within the rug. Upon checking the internet for advice on getting the shards out I ran across an unusual one: a piece of bread can do the trick. How can bread pick up tiny pieces of broken glass effectively? Hemoroid Agastordoff (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It can't but spreading out breadcrumbs will mark where you have and have not vacuumed. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

roll it up, take it outside and beat it (unroll before beating!). Sweep up the outside afterwards, return the rug to your room - that ought to get rid of a good amount of the tiny shards too. Also use the 'hand' ny156uk (talk) 20:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

My hypothesis behind the bread idea (if it does work) is that it would mimic someone's foot and that, under pressure, glass slivers would be forced into it. Upon lifting the bread (similar to raising one's foot while walking) the glass would remain embedded in the bread. If it doesn't get stuck in the bread, it wouldn't get stuck in someone's foot, I suppose the idea is. I can't actually comment on the efficacy of such a treatment though. Brammers (talk/c) 22:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

You could have my wife walk over your rug. Her feet can find glass like you wouldn't believe! Dismas|^(talk) 23:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

minor but obvious point: if you use the bread technique, it would be best not to eat it afterwards. Peanut butter, jelly and glass shard sandwiches are not quite as satisfying as one might expect. --Ludwigs2 07:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

That already sounds exquisitely unappetising even without the glass shards. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

...unless one is very very hungry. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

even then ... ---Sluzzelin talk 10:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I was talking about peanut butter and jelly in any circumstances. What sick mind ever dreamt of putting those foodstuffs together? (Almost as bad as the Oysters in Licorice Sauce I wish I had the balls to make and serve to some unsuspecting "friend").  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of jelly (it strikes me as jam for people who don't really like jam), but I don't know why you'd object to the combo with peanut butter. I love peanut-butter-and-jam sandwiches, as long as it's good jam. Plum, or orange marmalade, say. --Trovatore (talk) 09:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Therefore everyone has to like it? Just because you have a weird streak does not deprive me of the right to be repugnified by the very idea of peanut butter and jam/jelly together. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

PB&J is a very common concoction in America, though I've never liked it. On the other hand, I like any kind of mollusk, and no small number of folks are repelled by them, or by some of them. And not everyone likes lutefisk either, but some of us do. On the other hand, oysters with licorice? Blecch! And I'm not saying Blecch to the oyster half of that. :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

When I've had the problem the OP describes, a thorough and repeated vacuuming seems to fix it. One thing to consider (though I've not tried this), would be to spread some duct tape over the area, press it down, and then pull it up (assuming it doesn't also pull up the carpet) and that should pick up all sorts of small debris. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Travel to Spain from England in the early 20th century

If you were travelling to Spain from England in the early 20th century, what port would you have left from and what kind of ship would it have been? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.61.207 (talk) 22:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Cadiz has always been a major Spanish port. I think it is still fairly important. --Jayron32 00:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The OP is asking for an English port. I think Dover, and on to Spain by rail, would be one route. AFAIK, this was Laurie Lee's route. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Then why not Southampton. The article mentions a ferry service ran out of Southampton to, among other places, San Sebastián. It does not mention when it started, but says that it ran until 1996. John Lennon stood at the Docks of Southampton, trying to get to Holland or France. There's also nearby Portsmouth, which according to its article has a service to several cities in Spain, including Bilbao and Santander. Historically, one of England's most important ports was Plymouth, so that may be your best bet. As far as the kind of boat, it would undoubtedly be some sort of steamship, see Steamboat#Ocean-going_steamships. Picture boats like the RMS Titanic or the RMS Lusitania, though probably smaller, as Intraeurope ships would likely be smaller than these larger transatlantic vessels. --Jayron32 01:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Liverpool vied with Southampton as the major passenger port in the country in the period, and certainly ran passenger ships to Spain as well as elsewhere in the world. The route is mentioned in this article, together with a list of the passenger lines that operated, some of which would have gone to Spain, but I can't be specific as to which lines ran that route. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

To summarise the above posts I think it comes to a choice between taking a short sea trip across the channel then taking the train or a long sea trip to a Spanish port -- Q Chris (talk) 09:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Was John Lennon around during the early 20th century - and was he trying to get to Spain? No! Caesar's Daddy (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, he was "Peter Brown called to say/You can make it OK/You can get married in Gibraltar, near Spain". Christ, you know it ain't easy (being right)... --Jayron32 03:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, later known as P&O, got its start operating steamships between London and the Iberian Peninsula, including Spain. This is where the "P" in its name comes from. Steamships were certainly the main form of passenger vessel used for sea voyages in the early 20th century. It makes sense that a traveler would depart from London, where all major rail lines in England terminate. If one were going to go to the trouble to transfer in London to a boat train to one of the Channel ports, such as Southampton, Dover, or Portsmouth, then why not buy a through ticket and board a train in France for the remainder of the journey to Spain. If, instead, one wanted to avoid the hassle of multiple transfers in London, Channel ports, and probably Paris, the most sensible thing would be to travel by train to London, and instead of going to Victoria or Waterloo Station for a boat train, just go to the docks and board a steamship directly to Spain. No doubt steamships left from other English Atlantic ports, such as Liverpool and perhaps Southampton or Plymouth, for Spain, but I would think London would be the most convenient for anyone south of about Derby and not on a direct rail line to a Channel port. Marco polo (talk) 16:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Reminder service

I'm looking for an online service/e-mail client that will send me reminder (in the form of an e-mail preferably) after a specified amount of time. The more difficult part is that I want it so that no one can access this reminder during the specified time. Thanks --The Dark Side (talk) 23:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Would Future Me do what you need it to do? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

They don't allow any time spans of less than a month.

You must send your email at least 30 days into the future...0 won't cut it. We're not a reminder service. This is your chance to say something profound.

Other than that, it seems to be exactly what I'm looking for. Do you happen to know any reminder services similar to this site? --The Dark Side (talk) 00:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Why not one of the on-line calendar services like Google Calendar? You can set up reminders to events at any time in the future, and if the calendar status is set to private, no one else can see them. Rojomoke (talk) 02:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

To be more specific, I don't want someone (even using my account) to be able to see them. --The Dark Side (talk) 03:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

iCal by Apple Mac serves me very well, and will give notifications of events years ahead, though the OP's last request might be difficult to fulfil.--Artjo (talk) 07:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I would go further and say it was impossible to fulfil. If you're the user of the service you're going to want to access/edit/delete reminders. Such functionality will always be provided. --Viennese Waltz 08:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You don't need an e-mail connection to do this. Just make a program that displays the reminder and save the executable. The task scheduler in Windows can run the program at any future time you choose. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Ask a friend to call you and remind you. --Ouro (blah blah) 12:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

May we know why the reminder has to be kept secret or inaccessible, or is that a secret? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to lock certain functionalities of my computer during the work week to prevent easily distracted people (read: myself and colleagues) from time wasting. --The Dark Side (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if there might not be a tool to do that directly. I don't know of one, but I'll bet a lot of people would use it. APL (talk) 15:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

If the "certain time wasting computer functionality" that you wish to have prevented is editing Wikipedia, then I know an easy way to get that done for free.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

There are services such as StayFocusd and Boomerang that may help with productivity. BrainyBabe (talk) 10:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Boomerang is a blatant E-mail address harvesting operation and I don't see anything on their site claiming otherwise. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear! I've been using Boomerang with no ill effects so far. It does what it says, to delay sending emails till a time of my choosing. What makes you think it has nefarious purposes? BrainyBabe (talk) 09:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Four reasons 1) That's how it's done, 2) the e-mail addresses that they get are sure to be fresh and active, 3) greed, and 4) did I mention greed? Where do you think the money comes from to run the service? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)