Miscellaneous desk
< May 16	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 18 >

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 17[edit]

Did Wikipedia decrease its font size?[edit]

All of a sudden Wikipedia's font size seems much smaller, and it can't be because I'm using a different computer -- because I'm using the same one I've used for months now. It's very difficult to read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.74.5.201 (talk) 05:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you accidentally reduced the font size? Try holding down the Ctrl key and turning the click wheel. --Viennese Waltz 05:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or just "Ctrl +" to increase or Ctrl -" to decrease. 196.214.78.114 (talk) 07:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or Ctrl 0 to bring it back to standard. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If those don't work tell us what browser you are using.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 20:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moroccan powdered coffee[edit]

A friend brought me back some loose coffee from Morocco. It's ground to a fine powder, almost like talcum. You add it to (just enough) cold water, in a saucepan, and boil it. It's delicious, Does this type/ method of making coffee have a name? Is it sold in the UK? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That method is most commonly known as Turkish coffee, or sometimes as Arabic coffee, I believe. It is ubiquitous in the Middle East, with minor variations. Looie496 (talk) 14:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's the stuff; thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have found it on sale in at least one UK delicatessen, and amazon.co.uk sells it at a fiver a tin (other suppliers are available). - Ka renjc 16:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tax protesters and dumb legal claims (in various countries)[edit]

We have a nice article about US tax protesters and it has a link to a very nice case book of stupid arguments. I read it for the entertainment value, it's pretty insane what people claim - I highly recommend it. I was wondering, however, if there are equivalent sort of things for other English-speaking (and Common Law) countries. Specifically, I am not so much looking for individual cases where e.g. people claimed they aren't the same person if their name is spelled in all caps or are ambassadors or whatever, but for a long list of the things people claim, with examples of what they claimed and maybe judges' responses, like in the external link I gave above. Since a large proportion of nonsense derives from specifically American things (like various constitutional amendments, whether IRS exists and what it is, whether the states are actually parts of the US, etc.), I am curious as to what replaces this for other countries. I am not specifically interested in tax-related things, it's just that those cases tend to be ones where the crazies come out in force, but really any sorts of claims where people make delusional claims about the legal systems and look for insane loopholes would be good. --216.239.45.78 (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming to be a different entity with all caps than with mixed case is sometimes called the "Unix defense". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Freemen on the land and sovereign citizen movement look like good starting points. --Carnildo (talk) 23:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are, but they only give a small selection. I am looking for a comprehensive list. Plus this only includes one kind of legal reasoning and not stories like this one from the US:

Plaintiff brought a nearly incoherent lawsuit, alleging that he was immune to federal laws - presumably including the tax laws - against one person who was clearly his buddy and 100 unidentified "John and Jane Does" who were apparently govt employees, with the one buddy immediately confessing judgment on behalf of all his co-defendants)

Perhaps there's simply not that level of creative legal sophistication outside of the US:) 216.239.45.78 (talk) 23:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There certainly is on the part of the lawmakers. The following is part of Australian tax law, specifically s.165-55 of the A New Tax System (Goods and Services) Act 1999 [1]:

For the purpose of making a declaration under this Subdivision, the Commissioner may:

a) treat a particular event that actually happened as not having happened; and

b) treat a particular event that did not actually happen as having happened and, if appropriate, treat the event as:

i) having happened at a particular time; and

ii) having involved particular action by a particular entity; and

c) treat a particular event that actually happened as:

i) having happened at a time different from the time it actually happened; or

ii) having involved particular action by a particular entity (whether or not the event actually involved any action by that entity).

How's that! -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Any idea what could be the purpose of that language (which happens at least twice in Australian tax law)? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 06:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably, since they can say that something that happened, didn't, and that something that didn't happen, did, they are making sure that whatever did or did not happen you still have to pay taxes! -- Arwel Parry (talk) 15:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the Act that Jack was kind enough to link, it's part of the anti-avoidance section (section 165, the purpose of which is explained in s165.1). It essentially means that if someone is playing silly buggers with loopholes to avoid paying taxes, the government can declare that, "no, you didn't just do that, and you do still have to pay taxes on that transaction as if you had carried it out normally". Taking the one clause out of context looks really weird, but it makes a lot more sense as part of the entire piece of legislation.

A number of countries' tax codes now include GAARs – General Anti-Avoidance Rules – to broadly bar similar schemes, or they incorporate such anti-avoidance provisions into specific tax laws. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]