Miscellaneous desk
< March 22	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 24 >

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.

March 23[edit]

What is the point of this blog?[edit]

//wyldeplayground.net/cannot-see-the-computers-hard-drive-through-disk-utility-or-gparted/

Am I correct that it's just copying original posts from an Ubuntu help forum? Why would anyone set something up like that? 50.43.148.35 (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least 5 advertisements on that page; that's why. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 21:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I removed the http so people don't click through; I don't want to help the guy. Does this really get much traffic at all? I find it hard to believe this even covers the hosting fees of the blog. 50.43.148.35 (talk) 22:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you found it, presumably from a search engine lookup about gparted or something. I'll bet the query you submitted wasn't particularly obscure, so others will likely do the same as you. Hosting is cheap, particularly for text - automate mirroring a bunch of resources like that and someone can produce lots of content for next to nothing, so even a marginal clickthrough is likely to generate income. People used to mirror Wikipedia content for the same reason, and it took Google several years to add in special code to lower those folks' rankings. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 23:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given we don't have a reference that will tell us the point of this spam, we can safely ignore it. μηδείς (talk) 10:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
μηδείς (talk) 23:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[e/c]

So ignore it already! —71.20.250.51 (talk) 07:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Me too. —71.20.250.51 (talk) 07:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have again removed the hat. Absolutely no reasoning was offered on the talk page despite claims to the contrary for the hatting. Nil Einne (talk) 07:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You removed the hat for the reason it was "unsigend." I signed it a second a third time for good measure per the complaint at talk. μηδείς (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No I provied a detailed rationale for why I removed the hat which was may more than it being unsigned. Nil Einne (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is spam that we don't need to address. That has been mentioned in the signed hat, mentioned in the text, and mentioned here. μηδείς (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(This refers to hatted info, which is not to be altered/added to.) So please, Medeis, give us a definition of "unsigend." - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 06:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No one here is trying to drive hits. Someone just asked a question about site intended to get mass hits which they didn't understand (and from what I can tell about your behaviour here, nor do you). And you behaved stupidly as you often do and then made multiple misleading claims about the removal (which was never primarily because the hat wasn't signed). Nil Einne (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Building material.[edit]

What building material is the most durable and requires the least maintenance? I'm just curious. Thanks in advance. 190.19.107.202 (talk) 08:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Granite and slate should be strong contenders in most environments. Dbfirs 09:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marble is good, too, but it all depends on the environment and application. Acid rain, for example, can damage certain types of stone, such as marble. StuRat (talk) 05:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really just the material. Brick buildings that are over 1000 years old are far from uncommon - and there really isn't an maintenance needed on the brick itself. Most kinds of natural stones can be out there in the natural world for tens of thousands of years without changing much. The problem is with the material you use to bond them together - and keeping rain and frost out of them. With brick construction, the mortar between the bricks will need "repointing". Depending on the type of mortar, this may be necessary after as little as 50 years - but in good conditions, it'll last for a couple of centuries. Stone walls have much the same issues - the stone will last for a very long time - but what holds them together may not. If brick or stone gets soaking wet and goes through repeated freeze/thaw cycles, it can start to deteriorate. But a decently roofed building shouldn't suffer too badly from normal weather conditions. SteveBaker (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One solution to the problem of mortar is to not use any, and just fit the stones precisely together. This takes more work up front, to carve them precisely to fit, but less maintenance is required later. StuRat (talk) 22:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coming from an area where dry stone walls are common, and require frequent maintainance, I question how much of a difference that makes. 86.157.148.65 (talk) 06:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you have skilled wallers in Northamptonshire, or are your sheep very adventurous where you live? A well-built dry stone wall should last 100 years where I live (and sometimes much longer) provided that the ground underneath it doesn't shift and nothing knocks it down. Perhaps it's just that your local stone deteriorates over time or doesn't come in the correct shape for walling. Dbfirs 18:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have to carve them properly to fit together, not just pile them on top of each other. The top picture in that article looks like they don't fit together properly, as plants are growing between them, etc. That type of wall won't last and I suspect that's the type you are familiar with. The Inca wall shown below it, though, is properly fit together, so has lasted for centuries without maintenance. At the time, carving the stones so precisely was very labor intensive, but now that we have machines that can do the job, it ought to be much quicker, so we might currently be able to make this type of wall in a cost-effective manner.StuRat (talk) 17:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Legal action against books or publications containing misinformation[edit]

Hi, Anybody know any instance where a book or publication has been on trial for publishing errors, serious mistakes, blunders etc? For example, a school text book with erroneous information or a guide for a competitive examination dishing out utterly wrong information? Anybody can help? Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.253.198.198 (talk) 10:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Legal action is taken against persons, not objects. Perhaps in regards to objects. Books don't do anything, or write themselves. There are such things as fraud and defamation. In the US, prior restraint is usually not an acceptable legal remedy for such things. But publishers do withdraw books from publication, and have them destroyed. These are usually "biographies". See our own policy on WP:BLP. At least in common law, books that make factual claims are treated entirely different from religious texts. That's basically a convenient fiction of a distinction that allows Cromwellians and Catholics not to sue each other in court. If you have a specific example you'll get an actual answer. μηδείς (talk) 11:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

However, see Lady Chatterly's Lover and Oz (magazine) for examples where the content of a publication has been the cause of legal action. Rojomoke (talk) 11:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the "publishing errors" front, there was notoriously the case of the Wicked Bible. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 5.66.222.221 (talk) 12:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't happen in England nowadays. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Legal action is taken against persons, not objects. I like, for example, United States v. Ninety-Five Barrels Alleged Apple Cider Vinegar. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In that case the bottler was held to have mislabelled the cider. In rem jurisdiction cases apply against abandonned property. Otherwise, "This last style is awkward because in law, only a person may be a party to a judicial proceeding – hence the more common in personam style – and a non-person would at least have to have a guardian appointed to represent its interests, or the interests of the unknown owner.[citation needed] The use of this kind of jurisdiction in asset forfeiture cases is troublesome because it has been increasingly used in situations where the party in possession is known, which by historical common law standards would make him the presumptive owner, and yet the prosecution and court presumes he is not the owner and proceeds accordingly. This kind of process has been used to seize large sums of cash from persons who are presumed to have obtained the money unlawfully because of the large amount, often in situations where the person could prove he was in lawful possession of it, but was forced to spend more on legal fees to do so than the amount of money forfeited.[2]"

Hustler Magazine v. Falwell taught us that lying about famous people is alright, so long as you lie so hard no reasonable person should believe it. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. What the U.S. Supreme Court said in that case is that public individuals cannot sue a publication because a parody of them is unflattering to them. --Jayron32 01:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aye. That's what they said. What I said is what they taught us by saying that. Of course, maybe I'm wrong. Have there been cases since where this hasn't been alright, legally? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My Google search for "defendant is a book" found this article about the Warren Report.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC) and 02:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Tysen? (in File:Relatives Chart.svg)[edit]

Hello. On top of [1] says "Relatives Explained by Tysen". Who is Tysen, please? Regards, --Edupedro (talk) 13:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The chart was uploaded in 2006 and if no one recognizes "Tysen" as a reliable source, it should be replaced with another such as [2]. The phrases "The Land of (In-laws/Cousins/Children)" are strange because this is a chart, not a geographical map. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After a lot of Googling I tracked him down to www.hotcactuspepper.com; apparently Tysen Perszyk is one and the same as User:Hotcactuspepper mentioned in the "Permission" section of the image file. The table is listed in the "Pictures" section of the linked page and seems to have been created for one of his family blogs, although I couldn't see it - you have to create an account to view all the content. To quote Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, "...self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable". Alansplodge (talk) 17:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It might be churlish to add (but I'm going to anyway) that Tysen's self portrait on his Flickr account bears a striking resemblance to Shaggy Rogers from Scooby-Doo ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick question. Is there reason to believe this freely licensed image on Commons is incorrect? From my reading, the names of the relations matches that of the reliable source noted above. If the source confirms that our graphic is correct, why must it be removed? --Jayron32 01:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly agree with a Jayron32 here. For starters both versions are on commons so there's no question of them being deleted from OR reasons Commons:Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view (although I acknowledge no one mentioned deletion). In terms of their usage on wikipedia which is a seperate issue from their existance on commons, well as our policy makes clear, images aren't OR unless they "illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments". So if do want to contest the usage of these images in any wikipedia article in an appropriate place like the article talk page, you'd need to explain why this is so. I do think producing a version without the 'by Tysen' and probably the 'land of' (although I don't think the 'land of' is that confusing just a bit too colloqual and not suited to an encyclopaedia article) and using that would be less confusing. Nominally you could just replace the current images and leave the older ones in the history only but IMO it would be better to make a new image out of respect to the original contributors. Nil Einne (talk) 04:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, --Edupedro (talk) 20:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We need a few more urbane churls around here. Carry on, Alan. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"A gentleman is someone who never insults anyone unintentionally." Oscar Wilde? —Tamfang (talk) 00:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Yes, Oscar Wilde. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC) [reply]

"When in doubt, just quote me; nobody will know the difference."
— Oscar Wilde