Miscellaneous desk
< February 20	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 22 >

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.

February 21[edit]

Pina Colada[edit]

My name is Norman Parkhurst, a resident of Puerto Rico. I was also Senior Vice President for Industrias La Famosa in this same Island and Dominican Republic. Taking a look at your information on Piña Colada, I noticed, that sadly, it is shock full of wrong information. I have tried to correct it myself and the real to no avail. (2/20/2011). I can include photos, of Ramon Lopez Irizarry, probably photos of the manufacturing process and more.

La Barrachina purchased Coco Lopez from Industria La Famosa, and, I feel I need to clarify, they are not the inventors of the piña colada.

Colada means drained in Spanish. The name "Pina Colada" is a combination of pineapple juice and Coco Lopez, which was at the time, our private and registered name. Moncho, as we used to call him, couldn't find a name he liked that would incorporate piña and Coco Lopez together, so he ended up with Colada, (a close enough name to Coco Lopez).

If you have any doubts about my expo, you can contact me at "(email removed)" Your story is wrong even to the detail of how the drink was served. pineapple, coconut and run concoction was always served with a fresh pineapple slice, a maraschino cherry and it would always be presented in a tall glass.

Industrias La Famosa, the company name, also worked with 'GOYA Industries' and 'Chevy Chase' to private label the coconut cream.

See the book: "The Mixologist"! They have the full and complete story. The author took the time to interview my dad, Norman Parkhurst II, and myself before its publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Normanprm (talk • contribs) 00:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Norman! Thank you for taking the time to point this out. The correct place to state this is Talk:Piña Colada. Sumsum2010·T·C·Review me! 02:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fondly remember taking two visits to this facility many years ago, wish I could go again!--85.211.161.177 (talk) 03:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Norman, all you need do to ensure that the article is corrected is to give us some references of publications or official websites where we can find the true story in print. Dbfirs 07:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A drink served in multiple countries may have variations in each and may even have unique histories in each, with most being fictional. StuRat (talk) 06:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Policy for citing WP[edit]

I have a user who keeps using WP articles as citations in other articles. I've tried looking around, but can't find the relevant policy right off hand to point them to to explain why they cant do that. Anyone know what it is? He iro 07:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably it. --Ouro (blah blah) 07:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

should i have enough stock to first sell the shares & then buy?[edit]

should i have enough stock to first sell the shares & then buy? Is it possible to sell the shares first & then Buy them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.9.107 (talk) 09:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Naked short selling is one way of selling shares first and then buying them. It's been illegal in the United States and some other jurisdictions since 2008, but there are accusations that it still goes on (see the article for more details). AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 10:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are ethical issues as well as legal ones about an individual risking, or even deliberately inviting, personal bankrupcy in this way. However a Limited Company is legitimately in the business of taking on risk with a limited liability, so.... Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC) Clarification: By "this way" I refer to Naked short selling, not short selling in general. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Short selling does not necessarily invite bankruptcy, especially if the OP can actually afford to lose however much they are investing. Short selling is still legal in many jurisdictions so you don't need to be "accused" of it. There are strong arguments that allowing short selling by informed investors improve the efficiency of the market, the tricky thing for regulators in practice is working out how to allow informed investors in and keeping others out. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we needed to immediately leap to naked short selling in answering the original poster. In normal short selling, you tell your stockbroker that you want to short 100 shares of XYZ stock; the broker actually borrows 100 shares of XYZ from someone who already owns XYZ stock; then the broker sells the 100 shares of XYZ on your behalf, and you get the cash in your account. You now start paying interest on the amount that you borrowed. When the stock has dropped in value (we hope!) and you want out, you tell your broker to "cover" 100 shares of XYZ; the broker uses the cash in your account to buy 100 shares, sends the 100 shares back to the party who they were borrowed from in the first place, and you stop paying interest. If the stock dropped in value, you will have made some money, minus the interest you paid. If the stock gained in value, though, you will have lost money. Cuddlyable3's alarm over bankruptcy is because, unlike when you purchase stock, your potential losses from shorting stock are unlimited — suppose you short $1,000 worth of stock whose shares are priced at US$5.00 and, overnight, the price rises to US$100; you now have to buy US$20,000 of this company's stock to repay the shares. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the question a little more directly, selling shares that you don't own is certainly possible: it is known as short selling. Comet Tuttle's answer above explains how it works. Looie496 (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I would add to Comet Tuttle's answer is that you will need to open a margin account with a broker if you are going to sell short. If you just have a cash account (the normal kind), you will have to buy stock before selling it. John M Baker (talk) 00:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Setting aside dividends for the moment, paying cash to purchase a share is making a bet that the value of the stock will rise. By the same token, selling stock is taking a bet that it will fall in value (assuming there is no other call on the cash). Adding financing, such as margin calls or shorting stock one doesn’t own does not change the basics: the buyer / seller is making a bet.

In the stock market, up is not good and down is not bad, provided you’re on the optimal side of the trade. Sadly, many governments and regulatory authorities forget this simple truth. DOR (HK) (talk) 10:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between free delivery and standard delivery[edit]

Hi, I wonder if someone could help. I'm thinking of purchasing a washing machine online from Comet (as my current machine is on its last legs) and notice there seem to be two sorts of delivery, Free Delivery and Standard Delivery (which seems to cost £20.50). [1] What is Standard Delivery? Does it mean they'll install it for me? Sorry, I sound really dumb asking this, but I haven't purchased electrical goods online before and can't seem to find anything on the site, so was hoping someone else with experience of this might see my question and know what it means. Thanks in advance. 86.164.130.159 (talk) 12:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All the info is in this section together with a section lower down, containing information about installation. Or as it's your first time and you are still stuck, you can phone them and ask them:0844 800 95 95 and select option 1.--Aspro (talk) 12:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Timmersax" in English?[edit]

What are these tools called in English? /90.229.129.137 (talk) 17:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Skidding tongs for skidding logs alone on the ground. Sometimes called lifting tongs but you should not lift with them -in case log fall on foot. Those images with the long handles are the lifting tongs. --Aspro (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another English name for them seems to be "log grabs". Here's a supplier's site, as an example. Ka renjc 17:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here too are some cant hooks and other related timber handling tools that appear in some of those images. [2]--Aspro (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mozilla[edit]

Why do almost all user agents have "Mozilla" in them? Even Internet Explorer — Preceding unsigned comment added by K4t84g (talk • contribs) 21:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain in what sense "even Internet Explorer" has "Mozilla" in it. --ColinFine (talk) 23:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Old habits die hard =) This article does a decent job of explaining it. Katherine (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

vitamins[edit]

Are vitamin pills as good as fruit? K4t84g (talk) 21:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...well fruit did come first, so perhaps no would be the answer--85.211.161.177 (talk) 21:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

As good for what purpose? They're not generally as pleasant to eat, and they don't make juice. --ColinFine (talk) 23:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They also lack roughage. --87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. Some reasons are summarized here. Besides taste, lack of fibre and other nutrients, pills can also have solubility issues. For example, getting a large dose of a vitamin at once may not have much effect if most of the vitamin ends up getting thrown out with the wash. By consuming fruit throughout the day, your body has a chance to extract and use a greater percentage of the goodness. Matt Deres (talk) 00:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although fruit, depending on how it is picked and how long it has been stored, can be very deficient in vitamins. Fruit is often picked before it is ripe and ripened artificially, and vitamin content often drops when fruit and veg is stored [3], [4], [5]. meltBanana 03:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even fruit as you describe is still good for you and still much better than vitmain pills. 92.15.2.21 (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not. Eating fruit and veg is much more beneficial. Pills only have a few nutrients in them, while f&v have a great many including those as yet undiscovered. The bulk of f&v also means you are less likely to fill up with junk food. There is a similar question on the science desk - see that for more details. 92.15.8.100 (talk) 13:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

92, please cite sources here on the Reference Desk when you make claims about undetected, unspecified benefits of eating anything. Original poster: Our Multivitamin article has sections with arguments for and against them. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You sound like someone with an irrational hatred of fruit. See fruit as a source if you insist, lol. I can't think of anything more healthy to eat than fresh fruit & veg. Way better than eating Hamburger#Health-related_controversies. 92.28.246.36 (talk) 00:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't even nearly reference your claims of mysterious undiscovered nutrients. But hey, surely food splits into 'healthy' and 'unhealthy', right, and you can eat as much as you like of the 'healthy' foods while never ever ever eating 'unhealthy' foods and nothing bad will happen. But seriously, turning orange is the least of your worries if you try for an all fruit and vegetable diet. 86.166.42.200 (talk) 11:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I never realised that some people had so much of a grudge against healthy food. You need to have a healthy balanced diet. "Surely food splits into 'healthy' and 'unhealthy', right, and you can eat as much as you like of the 'healthy' foods while never ever ever eating 'unhealthy' foods and nothing bad will happen." - I didn't suggest that, you did. I think you're being disengenuous. Sorry, its not my fault that junk foods are unhealthy and make you fat. I await with interest your trying to prove that junk foods are in fact perfectly wholesome and good for you, lol.

The currently identified vitamins are only the tip of the iceberg of the nutrients in fruit. It would be crazy to claim that fruit only consists of known vitmains and little else, otherwise cell physiology would have been all mapped out decades ago. Humans mammals and vertebrates evolved eating proper food, not just a few vitamins in pills. 92.29.115.47 (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

92, this is a Reference Desk. As it says at the top of this page, "Provide links when available, such as wikilinks to related articles, or links to the information that you used to find your answer." We are very pedantic here on the Reference Desk, and when you say something that sounds doubtful or unlikely to anyone, you have to back it up with a reference. I do not disagree that "you need to have a healthy balanced diet"; I think that statement is so noncontroversial that nobody would demand a reference for it; but your statements "The currently identified viatmins are only the tip of the iceberg of the nutrients in fruit" and your statement about mysterious "as yet undiscovered" nutrients needs references, especially because it sounds like New Agey BS that you made up. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No disrespect, but you must be dreadfully ignorant of biology not to be aware that cells are very complex things which scientists have only got a partial idea of how they work; and the same can be said for human nutrition and digestion. 92.28.245.149 (talk) 14:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments like "I can't think of anything more healthy to eat than fresh fruit & veg. Way better than eating Hamburger#Health-related_controversies." reflect a belief in foods that are individually more healthy than others, rather than a belief that a balanced diet made up of many different types of food is healthy. Of course a hamburger can be wholesome and good for you: I had one this week that I made with mince, a bun, lettuce, tomato, cucumber and pickle. This didn't prevent me from eating fruit and veg, because the two are not mutually exclusive. If I had only eaten fruit and veg, without the burger, I would have had very little protein and fat, and too high a percentage of simple carbohydrates. I added salt to the burger, because my salt intake is generally too low and it plays havok if I don't. This is my healthy balanced diet: I have had various health checks over the last few weeks, for much the same reason I am aware of what I need to eat, and my heart is super healthy. I am fit, as long as I watch my blood pressure doesn't fall too low, now that I've dealt with a problem I had. I know my diet is balanced and healthy, and it includes burgers as well as fruit and veg. You still need a reference for your claims of magical secret nutrients. 86.166.42.200 (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you learn more about the details of healthy nutrition if it matters to you; otherwise its your funeral. So these fruit-haters are really covert junk-food-lovers, who resent being told that junk food is bad for you; and who seem to think that if they can force enough people say otherwise, then junk-food will magically become healthy? 92.28.245.149 (talk) 14:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I generally assume you're trolling, 92, but this warped and exaggerated version of the misreported nutritional advice that appears in the Daily Mail is actually harmful, so I didn't feel able to leave it standing. A healthy diet about balancing all your needs over the course of days and weeks, through a variety o foods. It is not about "this is the healthiest food, so I must eat lots of it instead of eating other things". Real damn nutritionists have told me that my vegetable intake was too high, causing my diet to be too high in simple carbohydrates: it is possible. And that my salt intake was too low: again, it is possible. And surely everyone knows that too much fruit in your diet gives too much sugar? But you will continue, as always: this is only here for impressionable readers. Balance. 86.166.42.200 (talk) 14:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You keep asserting that I'm saying you should do extreme mono-food diets. You keep asserting that, not me. You are definately trolling, not me. By the way heres a link: http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2005/document/html/chapter5.htm 92.24.186.89 (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]