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.
I live in California and I've gotten many rashes that I believe are caused by Poison Sumac. Also, all the Sumac plants I've gotten rashes from live in dry areas. However, the Wikipedia article (and most other sources) state that Poison Sumac only lives on the East coast and prefers wet, marshy areas. Is it just the article that is incorrect or am I mistaking some other plant for Poison Sumac? Could somebody who also lives on the West coast confirm that Poison Sumac does actually grow here? If it helps, I'll see if I can get a picture of one of the plants I think is Poison Sumac.--ChromeWire (talk) 00:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I may have seen somewhere the claim that Toxicodendron species other than poison oak are occasionally found in California, but overwhelmingly the most important one is poison oak (which our article idiosyncratically names Western Poison-oak, a spelling you won't see many places other than here). Poison oak is a sumac; if it's a time of year (like now) that you can't usually see the "leaflets three", then I wouldn't be surprised if it looked a lot like poison sumac at the same time.
(ec) The chemical in poison sumac that causes a rash in most people is the same one found in poison ivy and poison oak. Apparently there is a variety of poison oak toward the west coast. I have no idea about poison sumac or poison ivy in that part of the country. And, as a standard Wikipedia disclaimer, we can't identify what's causing your rash. We can only confirm that certain plants that are known to cause rashes in some people are known to be present on the west coast. Falconusptc00:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure it's not poison oak. It looks pretty similar to the picture at the right but it's leaf is a little more taco shaped and has a more rounded tip. --ChromeWire (talk) 01:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am an avid hiker and used to live in California. I'm fairly sure there is no poison sumac there. But there is plenty of poison oak. Poison oak leaves come in all kinds of shapes. They generally have rounded edges, unlike poison sumac. In drier areas, the leaves do tend to curl into what you might call a taco shape. Though this is the rainy season in California, so I'd expect the leaves to be green and flatter at this time of year. If you are in an area that has not had much rain, though, the leaves could be a little curled up. This site has a couple of pictures of different types of poison oak. Marco polo (talk) 01:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I went hiking just the weekend before last — there weren't yet many leaves on the poison oak. However there were lots of little green buds, and it looked like it was getting ready to burst forth, so there might be by now. Here's a shot of it: . --Trovatore (talk) 03:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disclaimer: I take no responsibility if it turns out that this is not poison oak. Please do not rely on a plant not being poison oak, just because it doesn't look like this. --Trovatore (talk) 03:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to page 136 of the Jepson Manual of Higher Plants of California (1993), which is the major complete flora for California, there is only one species of Toxicodendron found in the state: T. diversilobum (Western Poison Oak). None of the other species of Toxicodendron (vemix, rydbergii, radicans, and pubescens) found in the United States are found in California. Therefore, the plant that is causing your rashes is either Western Poison Oak, OR (as pointed out above) some other plant that you are personally sensitive to. The photographs in our article Toxicodendron diversilobum give a you a good idea of what it looks like. Also, as Trovatore points out above, it is deciduous and without leaves at this time of year; it will still cause rashes even when it is leafless.--Eriastrum (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have been asked to identify myself, as in what my Ph.D. is in. It is in military/naval history from London University. I have published 8 books and variius peer-reviewed articles on the subject. You can also look me up on the net.
I was asked this quesiton at the head of an article, but the questioner did not identify him(her) self.
Might I suggest your self-identification would be most appropriate on the talk page of that article you referred to, not here. This is a Reference Desk, where we answer general questions, just like in a library. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 01:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is never any need to identify your self on Wikipedia, so don't do it unless you really want to for some reason. remember, as a wikipeida editor you are just presenting material available in sources; who you are as an individual is irrelevant. --Ludwigs201:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's one view. Personally I don't buy it. When I'm evaluating an editor's contributions, there are a couple of things I frequently want to know, to which his identity is not irrelevant. One is, is this person expert enough in the field to be able to deeply understand the source material, and therefore interpret it correctly in context? Another is, does this person have a strongly-held view on the merits of the question, that might color his interpretation and/or presentation? --Trovatore (talk) 02:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the problem is that identity is not in itself sufficient to trump reliable sourcing of articles. Being a PhD and well respected in a field is not enough to say "I don't have to provide sources for my writing because I am an expert". I am not saying that is what the OP is talking about, but having witnessed some conflicts at Wikipedia, that is most often the biggest problem. People believe that because they have personal knowledge about a subject, it absolves them from having to provide reliable sources to back up their writing. I agree that identity is not irrelevent, entirely, but we should also not place too much emphasis on identity. The primary concern is, and should always be, on faithfully representing the existing published knowledge which exists in reliable sources; and on avoiding original research or other unreferenced information in Wikipedia articles, even if the editor who writes that information is an expert or whatever. --Jayron3205:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I agree completely — I'm not suggesting that we let people add whatever they want to to articles based on credentials. That's not the point at all. My point is more that I don't completely trust editors who won't say anything about themselves. I don't know where they're coming from, what background (or agenda) they might have.
Your next point is going to be that I don't know that even if they do say who they are, and of course that's true. But I at least have a starting point. --Trovatore (talk) 07:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, of course, what else could it be? I am making an assertion about my own attitude, my own approach to evaluating the contributions of others. I am not making an assertion about the others per se.
However, first, it is an attitude I consider justified and encourage others to adopt. And second, I encourage those who have been reticent to let others know some basic facts about themselves, to be aware that this may come with a cost. --Trovatore (talk) 10:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's just that sometimes people say "I don't trust X", but mean "X is untrustworthy". It's meant to be some sort of criticism of X. I'm not saying that was your meaning, though. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 02:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, you can say you have a PhD. That doesn't prove anything. I can say I'm a man (I am), but let's see you prove it. This isn't to say that our OP isn't a PhD, it just means that people can say lots of things. It doesn't just doesn't advance their credibility. Aaronite (talk) 05:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're all missing the point. People without PhD's can understand and fruitfully contribute to any topic on wikipedia. any editor who doesn't understand a topic will rapidly expose the fact that s/he doesn't understand in discussion, through the misuse of concepts and the misapplication of sources. The only assessment you ned to make about any editor is that they are using sources appropriately, without misinformation or misrepresentation. Wikipedia is a tertiary source: we don't do peer review here, we don't engage in research, and we don't make novel conclusions about topics, so there is never any reason to be concerned about whether a given editor is qualified to do those things (which are the primary functions of a PhD). --Ludwigs216:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not missing the point. I don't entirely agree with your point. Oh, I certainly agree that you don't need a PhD to contribute to Wikipedia. One of the most brilliant mathematicians I know never got his PhD.
But it's too simple to say "well, we're just repeating what the sources say". Without expertise in the field, you can't accurately evaluate what the sources mean, and you can't reliably discern which ones are presenting well-accepted ideas, which ones are idiosyncratic, which ones are fringe or past the fringe. (Digression: unfortunately fringe has become pejorative, which it really shouldn't be — the high-risk-high-reward area of any discipline is always on the fringe. But sadly the word become a euphemism for crackpot, which makes it difficult to use in its proper sense.) --Trovatore (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not entirely true, either, though. Librarians often have no specific expertise, but are expected to find and evaluate material for users. Aaronite (talk) 03:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that an editor may misuse a source out of ignorance. For that matter, they could do it because of bias, possibly unconscious bias, even if they are sufficiently knowledgeable to understand it correctly. If you suspect that this is the case - as I often do, and it often turns out that I'm right - a [need quotation to verify] tag is in order. But you don't have the right to remove an editor's contributions just b/c you don't know who he is; you have to recognize a sourced statement as a sourced statement. It is pretty absurd to say that you simply don't trust the knowledge of anyone anonymous on principle - especially when Wikipedia is 90% anonymous and it is part of the nature of the project. Such an attitude is more suitable for Citizendium. Judgements on the credibility of an editor are normally made based on their behaviour on Wikipedia, not based on their real-world identity. And 90% of the time in my experience, the problem is not ignorance but plain bias, which anyone can be guilty of.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm? Where did removing editors' contributions come in? I never said anything about that. Just the same, I think people should say who they are and where they're coming from. I'm not in favor of requiring it, but I do think they should do it, and I don't think they should expect to be taken quite as seriously if they don't. --Trovatore (talk) 04:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have heard that one of the sources of energy is solar energy. You can use solar energy for generating electricity, heating water, and cooking. But what about when it's at night or raining? What do you do about solar energy then?
Solar energy is best used in conjunction with means of storing excess energy during sunny times for use at times when it is not. If you generate electricty via solar power, you often generate lots of excess energy which can be simply wasted by letting it drift off as heat energy. However, lots of solutions to this have been proposed, and implemented to various degrees:
You can use solar power to generate hydrogen gas for use in fuel cells, see this device from Honda, that does exactly that.
You can use excess electrical power to pump water into a large resevoir; you can then release the water at night to run a hydroelectric plant.
Wind power can be used in conjunction with solar power to fill in some of the gaps, for example it is often windier when it is cloudy and raining.
No single energy resource is really a great idea in isolation, the idea is to develop a system using multiple systems which can introduce enough redundancy to smooth out the problems with each other. A hypothetical fully "green" energy system that was devoid of fossil fuels would require contributions from hydroelectric and solar power and wind power and fuel cells and nuclear power and biomass power to be successful. Solar is a necessary part of this equation, but it is not the ONLY part.--Jayron3205:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You missed one important method of storing energy from solar cells: batteries. Solar power is often used in places where other ways of getting electricity are not feasible (on satellites, sailboats, or remote weather stations, for example). In many cases, the small amount of electricity generated is easily stored in a chemical cell.
To minimize the problems from clouds, many commercial solar arrays are built in areas that are very sunny. For example, the Nellis Solar Power Plant is in the desert in Nevada. This still leaves the obvious downtime during the night, however. We recently had a post about a proposed system to put solar cells in space (where there are no clouds, and it's nearly always day), and beam the energy down to Earth. This obviously incurs other costs though. Buddy431 (talk) 06:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have a solar water heater on my roof. I have hot water 2-3 hours after sunrise. Unless I plan on showering during the middle of the night, I generally have hot water. On cloudly days it can take 4-5 hours (after sunrise) to get hot water, and I can also heat it electrically. Save monkey love 4 me (talk) 10:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've kind of hit on what's really going on, which is convenience. People have gotten used to being able to do what they want, e.g. showering anytime of the day or night as needed. Having to plan things around restrictions like that is something a lot of folks just plain don't want to do. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 10:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Solar panels do generate electricity when it's raining - after all, you can still see, so there must still be light. They generate less, of course. --Tango (talk) 13:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This question has been removed. Per the reference desk guidelines, the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment recommendations. For such advice, please see a qualified professional. If you don't believe this is such a request, please explain what you meant to ask, either here or on the Reference Desk's talk page. —Akrabbimtalk06:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This question has been removed. Per the reference desk guidelines, the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis or prognosis, or treatment recommendations. For such advice, please see a qualified professional. If you don't believe this is such a request, please explain what you meant to ask, either here or on the Reference Desk's talk page. —Akrabbimtalk06:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)--~~~~[reply]
Does any one know what year Fr.Chris Riley became a priest? Also I read somewhere what kind of priest he became but I forgot so could you answer that too. Thanks 220.233.83.26 (talk) 07:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am investigating whether desalination application in the developing world would be profitable if the water produced was used to make crops that produced biofuels. So I am looking to know how many cubic metres of water would be required to produce a hectare of rapeseed crop grown annually in the developing world to add to my calculations to see if this option was economically viable. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.113.181 (talk) 13:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found a review for a book that says that rapeseed needs about 80-240 mm of water in a growing season. Over a hectare (10,000 sq. m), that's 800-2400 cubic meters of water. Of course, if you're really planning on growing this in the desert (where there's truly no rain), you're going to have other problems in addition to water. But it appears that some people anyway do believe that it's viable to make bio-fuels with rapeseed in developing areas. The book in question looks like it might be right up your alley ("Sustainable Production of Seed Oils: Rapeseed-Mustard Technology" ISBN81-8321-118-6), so if you're really interested in learning about growing rapeseed in developing countries, it might be worth the $85 to buy it. The key search term for google when looking for this type of thing seems to be "oil seeds" or "oilseeds" along with a term like "biofuel". Buddy431 (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) It takes 14 kilowatt-hours of energy to produce 1,000 gallons of desalinated seawater. You can make 100 gallons of biodiesel from an acre of Rapeseed - which would produce about 3800 kilowatt-hours of energy. However, the biofuel conversion plant will consume about 33% of the power it produces - so we're down to maybe 2800 kw-hr per acre. So - the question is: How many gallons of water does it take to grow an acre of rapeseed? 200,000 gallons would be the break-even point. I've been unable to find how much irrigation water rapeseed needs - and it's going to depend on the weather and a bunch of other factors. I did find that grass requires 1" of water per week in an average climate (whatever that means). That's 32,000 gallons per week per acre. So if you have to irrigate for more than 6 weeks - you'll need more energy to desalinate the water than you'll get from the biodiesel.
This is an exceedingly rough calculation with many assumptions - but it definitely indicates that you can't win this way. I'd also be concerned that the desalination plant produces water that's actually still fairly salty - good enough for human consumption - but if you irrigated with it year after year, the salt content in the soil would build up over the years to the point where your crop can't grow in it anyway. SteveBaker (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rapeseed requires a relatively little amount of water; that's one of the reasons that it is touted as a possible source of biofuel in developing areas. With my numbers (800-2400 cubic meters per hectare, with 2.471 acres per hectare, 227 gallons per cubic meter, gives I think 75,000-220,000 gallons per acre per season), and assuming Steve's math is basically right, it's at least conceivable that it's viable to water the crop with water obtained solely from desalinization. You're going to need fertilizer, though, if you're growing it in marginal land, which adds more costs, and I agree that soil depletion and salt buildup need to be considered. Buddy431 (talk) 22:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mouthwashes without alcohol or chlorhexidine, available in UK
According to the article here, http://www.australianprescriber.com/magazine/32/6/162/4/ using an alcohol-based mouthwash increases your chance of oral etc cancer by five to nine times. Regularly using mouthwashes with chlorhexidine may also be harmful according to both the linked article and the Wikipedia article.
I was using the alcohol-free variant of the brand "Dentalux" sold at Lidl UK, but I see it includes chlorhexidine digluconate. Does anyone know the brand name and/or UK retailer of a mouthwash that contains neither alcohol nor chlorhexidine please? Thanks 89.243.72.5 (talk) 15:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not an answer, but a suggestion. Mouthwashes marketed for children are less likely to contain alcohol, so it may be worth reading the labels of some of those next time you are out shopping. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to ask at your local chemist's. DuncanHill (talk) 15:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is our recession over yet? The list say the economial black this time last from December 2007 to December 2009 it seem it just end. Until how long will the economy grow again and everyone to have a good amount of jobs again? Is unemployment still rising or is it dropping? how much is US deficit right now, still rising or it is starting to fall now--209.129.85.4 (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything in particular that the link article and references doesn't answer? "By July 2009, a growing number of economists believed that the recession may have ended. This view was bolstered with the initial estimate of a 3.5% rise in the GDP (Q3 09). As is often the case at the end of a recession, unemployment is still rising.[51] The National Bureau of Economic Research will not make this official determination for some time." We obviously can't offer personal predicitions on the RD Nil Einne (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Offtopic argument collapsed about whether the original poster thought we were all Americans, and how offended non-Americans should be by such statements.
Uhhhh... no, the context made "our" entirely relevant to the U.S. recession, further supplemented by the fact that a major plurality of those who use the English Wikipedia are from the U.S.--WaltCip (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd look for context clues and ask for clarification, as any rational person would... perhaps working with the initial assumption that the writer of the question is talking about the Queen of England, In this case, context was provided in the section's blue-link.--WaltCip (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This also could mean that OP only wanted feedback from fellow Americans in the same boat - assumably because they would be the most informed. I am sure the OP did not mean to offend by assuming the citizenship of all his readers. --69.241.97.178 (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down, folks! Remember that English does not use distinguish between inclusive and exclusive uses of words like "our" and "ours": they mean "mine and someone else's -- maybe that's you, maybe someone else, maybe both, whatever makes sense". From the context, what makes sense is "our" = "US". Now maybe someone would like to provide a source that addresses the question? --Anonymous, 23:44 UTC, February 16, 2010, in our calender.
We can all deduce that the OP was referring to the US, but to spell it out, the problem was that the OP was being rather rude to non-Americans, presumably unwittingly. 89.242.101.230 (talk) 00:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He wasn't being rude. I think you should calm down a bit here. He's also asked questions before indicating he was from the US, if you must know. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would be surprised if there was any public information about that, since freight elevators are not normally offered for public use. However, if anyone is willing to tell you why, it would likely be the station management. --Anonymous, 23:46 UTC, February 16, 2010.
Freight elevators, being intended for freight, are not necessarily rated for (public) passenger use. As most customers of the train station aren't hauling freight, I would guess they are locked to prevent the general public from using them, as a safety consideration. Anyone who *is* hauling freight would likely be a train station employee, and thus have access to a key. -- 174.21.247.23 (talk) 04:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PERTH WA. Can a contractor get a letter from an employee stating they have a job to go back to if they are taking time off for health reasons. My Team manager at my place of employment, i am a Teledealer, said i could take a minimum of two months then contact the recruitment manager when i was ready to go back to work and i would have to sit a test on what i recalled and train up on areas i needed retraining in. I'm required to give the letter to Centrelink to help with my claim for sickness benefit. After contacting the recruitment manager early to request they supply me with what i required, i was informed that they didn't think they could give me a letter confirming i had employment to go back to, as i was a contractor not an employee. Emjeejt (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your contract would be your only promise of a job to return to. If your contract doesn't guaratee you will have a job when you return, you have no guarantee. Of course you can ask for such a letter promising a job for you when you return, but make sure you ask for the letter from someone who has the authority to honour the agreement. And there's no good reason that an employer would give you such a letter. I think there's a legal aid organisation in your state, they may be able to give you more advice. But in short - I'm pretty sure you can't demand a letter stating you have a guaranteed job to return to. --203.202.43.54 (talk) 01:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a valid question, given that the OP's question is rather vague. One could argue that the best age is fairly young, like early 20s, so the mother has enough energy to keep up with the kids. I've also known women that were 40ish, and that energy level just compounds the fact that bearing children at that age is a lot tougher on the body than it is at 20. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs and Tagishsimon are right: you are being too vague; do you mean the point of maximum fertility, or at the point of being able to provide best for the child's upbringing, or what? (And our answer will probably be wrong for any individual person, by the way; there is not going to be a single right answer that applies to everyone.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have searched the internet to no avail. I found a 1938 Daisy Mfg. Co. Red Ryder coin or medalion. I was wondering if this was an emblem on a Red Ryder BB gun or was there a "coin" included when a purchase of the BB gun was made? Is there any value in this coin? Is it a collector's item? Thanks for your help.98.117.126.247 (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is one for sale on eBay - the claim there is that this was mounted on the stock of the gun. It has a "Buy It Now" price of $45 - and two people made offers at less than that - so that's probably the upper limit on what it's likely to be worth. One thing I noticed in surfing around was that there are reproductions of the 1938 gun on sale even today - so it might be very tough to know whether you have an actual 1938 medallion or one that was made last week. On the other hand, adverts for the modern reproductions don't show a medallion like that. SteveBaker (talk) 03:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have picture of pages of book. I want to convert this picture into ms word format .when I do it with use of converter it sipmly added as picture in ms word page , I also want to change the word -
I want fully convert jpeg or pdf or tif file into ms word fomat.
there is any converter which do this tusk together or indivisually?Supriyochowdhury (talk) 22:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all. I've been going through my old photos and uploading to Panoramio. The latest batch I'm going through is from my February 2005 trip to New York City. There's one photo I can't figure out where it was taken: [3]. I do know, however, it was taken en route from the United Nations to either the Museum of Modern Art or the Whitney Museum. I don't know what camera I used (it wasn't mine), but it's helpfully focused on the car door and not the outside. Would be grateful if any NYC people could help. Cheers. matt (talk) 23:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like you know a couple of possible routes. Have you tried Google maps "satellite" view to see if any green canopies show up on what would be the left side of the route? I wouldn't be surprised if there's even a street view that could enable you to isolate this exact spot. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 23:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I'm doing that at the moment. As I was travelling in a limousine, it also wouldn't surprise me if the driver took an unusual route or extended it somewhat, so I figured I was best off asking as well as checking myself! :) matt (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's really fuzzy, but the street sign on the light pole looks to me like one for a numbered east-west street, which would mean that you were on a one-way avenue heading north—almost certainly First, Third, or Madison—somewhere between 42nd and 74th streets if you were going to the Whitney, or between 42nd and 53rd if you were going to MOMA. I could be wrong, though. Deor (talk) 00:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but FDR Drive is on the east edge of Manhattan. If you're driving north, why would a sign direct you west if you're trying to get to FDR Drive? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did everyone miss the inscription on the building? I Googled on "Love they neighbor" and "inscription" and this page was the first hit. It shows what is clearly the same building and says (in a slightly muddled way) that it is on Fifth Avenue. Now add "fifth" as a third search term and the first hit, this page, says it's 838 Fifth Avenue, on the southeast corner with 65th Street. So the photo is looking south and FDR Drive would indeed be reached by turning left. --Anonymous, 10:32 UTC, February 17, 2010.
Wow. You win the prize on this one. Google Street View verifies – 838 Fifth Avenue, photo was taken at the junction with E65th. I'm seriously impressed. And I imagine I was travelling from the Whitney to the MOMA (having already gone from the UN to the Whitney) – can't for the life of me find my itinerary... matt (talk) 11:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved