Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2011 September 1

= September 1 =

alfred nobel
when did alfred nobel marry his wife, and how did he do it?(marrage celebration, discreet, etc)

did he even have a wife? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.29.134 (talk) 01:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Check out the Alfred Nobel article.  He never married. APL (talk) 02:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Traveling over water to different countries in a private yacht
I have this friend who is pretty much retired, and well off, and recently inherited a houseboat/yacht that is rated for long distance travel. He can't take it out on the high-seas, but he does plan to skirt the coast along the Gulf of Mexico and into Mexico and possibly Central America. He's had plenty of experience in boating that qualifies him to do this...technically speaking...but he has this pre-conception that he can just get in his big boat and go wherever he wants. I think that there is protocol involved in passing through the waters of different countries. So what's the scoop? When he passes into the water of a different country, does he have to pull in to port and have his papers checked and his boat registered...or does he only have to do this when, and if, he decides to come in to port? (the yacht is majority solar powered, so he can stay on the water indefinitely until he needs supplies or repairs) Quinn &#10048; BEAUTIFUL DAY 02:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * We don't give legal advice, but this site seems informative. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That is indeed an informative website but it refers to "islands that viciously defend a rabies-free status" as if such a policy was other than commendable. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Methinks a typo for vigorously. It's very typical these days to find typos on websites.  And everywhere else one cares to look.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  10:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "vigorously defend" is a very common verbal formula and "viciously defend" seems to be a not uncommon variation I don't think this is relevant to the original question, though. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The term "typo" is short for Typographical error which is an error due to mechanical failure or slip of the hand or finger, but not an error of ignorance. If the intended word was vigourously and the writer instead wrote viciously, that is an error of ignorance not a typo. If you question that, type gour and try to persuade yourself that you could instead have typed ci without noticing. I looked at Colapeninsula's Google search results and note that some of the hits are on unremarkable and appropriate uses of viciously as in When wounded or cornered, sable antelope viciously defend themselves with their saber-like horns. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there a word for an error that occurs when the spell checker/corrector changes one a typo into a different error? Which might have happened here? RJFJR (talk) 21:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * See Spell checker. There are scores of amusing examples, e.g. the doggerel beginning:
 * Eye have a spelling chequer,
 * It came with my Pea Sea.
 * It plane lee marks four my revue
 * Miss Steaks I can knot sea.
 * BrainyBabe (talk) 21:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The linguist multi-blog Language Log has promulgated the term that RJFJR seeks, namely Cupertino effect. {The poster formerly known as 87.91.230.195} 90.197.66.179 (talk) 10:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Our cruising (maritime) article discusses this to some degree, saying that a vessel is granted right of innocent passage through a foreign nation's waters, but that it needs to clear into a foreign country if it is doing anything other than transiting those waters. Depending on the country, a yacht may have to clear with customs, immigration, health and quarantine officials, and the harbour master. Just as the requirements for a visa vary nation by nation, with some granting visas on entry and others requiring advance applications, and with some free and other requiring large fees, so too do requirements and fees for cruising permits.  A cruising permit is essentially a waiver of import duty to be paid on the yacht (which you imported by sailing into that country's waters) in exchange for a promise to export it within a given time frame (by sailing out) and, in some countries, the posting of a bond.


 * I'm typing this from onboard a sailboat cruising the Andaman Sea, currently in Thai waters, and our experience demonstrates this variance. Entry into Malaysia and Thailand is easy and requires no advance paperwork and minimal fees.  We hope to sail to Sabang Indonesia in two weeks time, but officials are still processing our CAIT (Cruising Application for Indonesian Territory ) security document, and we will not be able to go until we receive it.  Each year a few yachts cruise Myanmar waters, but a great deal of paperwork is required and a Burmese guide (or minder) must be hired to accompany the boat at all times.  A few years back BIOT (the British Indian Ocean Territory) imposed a ₤500 fee (recently dropped to ₤100) on one month cruising permits for the Chagos Archipelago.


 * Exercising one's right of innocent passage may create large undocumented gaps that can raise suspicion in the next country you check into. Customs officials in Phuket, Thailand are used to clearing boats entering from Langkawi, Malaysia, 120 nm to the south, and expect a boat to check in no more than a week or so after checking out of Malaysia, fining those vessels which they deem not to have reported promptly enough for loitering illegally in Thai waters.  A friend of mine was fined several thousand Baht after checking out of Johor Baru (southern peninsular Malaysia, near Singapore) and leisurely sailing up to Phuket, instead of remaining cleared in Malaysia and not checking out of the country until Langkawi.  As far as the official was concerned, there was no excuse in taking a couple of weeks to sail from Malaysia to Thailand.


 * The paperwork can sometimes be amusing. The health forms I have filled in for entry into The Bahamas include space for details of deaths that have occurred since the last port of call and ask if there has been any recent increase in the mortality of onboard vermin, possibly indicative of the plague.  In most countries I have filled out the same paperwork as cargo and cruise ships, listing the number of decks and cabins, and documenting that I have not broken bulk during the passage.  I have filled out forms entirely in Thai, with no clear idea what they say, prompted field by field by an official. (A friend of mine always writes a note under his signature that he is unable to read the document and is not actually agreeing to anything.)


 * Some countries require you to check in and out with Harbour Masters and/or Police Officials as you move about within the country, while others need no additional notice until you check out, and still others don't even require you to check our (The Bahamas does request that you mail a form back from your next port of call). Check-out requirements can be problematic when a nation has a single Port of entry/exit in a several hundred mile long archipelago.


 * When clearing into some nations, the boat is thoroughly inspected, where in other nations all the paperwork is done in an office and the boat is never seen. In some ports each official may be located in a separate building, while in others they are co-located, and in some cases a single official may wear many hats, performing both customs and immigration duties.  The vessel may be allowed to remain at anchor or might be required to dock, in some cases being ordered to pull up to a rough concrete official pier which could be less than kind to a boat's brightwork.  In his "Ken's Comprehensive Cruising Guide for the Kingdom of Tonga", Ken Hellewell describes being required to transport half a dozen burly Tonga officials out to his boat at anchor using a tiny inflatable dinghy.  He describes the officials as being very friendly, but asking for cookies and staying until they were all eaten.


 * So, yes, your friend probably can up and go wherever he wants, but at the same time, yes, there is protocol involved. He needs to learn from speaking with other sailors or reading guides.  Cruising guides dedicated to individual countries or regions will explain required legal procedures.  Circumnavigators, who may not carry a guide book for every country they visit, more often than not carry World Cruising Club founder Jimmy Cornell's book "World Cruising Handbook".  There are numerous online cruising forums; Jimmy Cornell's noonsite.com is favored by circumnavigators.


 * Your friend should also determine if state registration of his boat is sufficient for the countries he might visit, or if US Coast Guard documentation (and the issuing of an "official number") is required. -- 110.49.242.117 (talk) 00:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Concussions (head injuries) in sports
What is up with the number of concussions (head injuries) being diagnosed more and more in sports? Is there anyway to make sports safer without taking too much away from sports because of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mybodymyself (talk • contribs) 04:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It is undoubtedly a function of increased awareness of a) what a concussion is and b) how serious they really are. Sports equipment (especially in sports where concussions are likely, like American football and hockey) has undoubtedly gotten better over time; but there are still more concussions reported today, not because there are more concussions (there are undoubtedly less today than ever before) but because we now know how bad they are, and are working harder to identify them to prevent concussed atheletes from further injuring themselves.  Even as recently as 10-20 years ago, they weren't thought to be as big of a deal; Troy Aikman repeatedly got his "bell rung" and today still has symptoms of Post-concussion syndrome, especially in regards to remembering his football career.  Mike Webster is one of the saddest stories regarding athletes suffering from concussion problems; as recently as today Marc Savard was forced out of hockey because of concussion problems.  These are not problems to be taken lightly, athletes do need more protection (not less) from these sorts of serious injuries, if sports need to change because of it, so be it.  And I say this as one of the biggest American football fans you will ever meet, but even I recognize that the sport needs to change to protect the athletes.  -- Jayron  32  04:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer to my question here and can't for more answers to my question here.--Jessica A Bruno 04:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mybodymyself (talk • contribs)


 * Concussions can lead to a degenerative brain disease called chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), which is linked to depression. That article lists a number of professional athletes diagnosed with CTE, some of whom have committed suicide. Ralph Nader and others are pushing for mandatory testing and reporting in youth sports.. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 12:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The notion that helmets and other safety equipment reduces head injury may not be true. Those freakonomics guys did a podcast show about it which has real references to the research. The conclusions: giving an NFL player a helmet makes him more reckless about what he hits his head on, and this effect may actually lead to more (not less) injuries and deaths. Staecker (talk) 13:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There hanve been issues where manufacturers have misrepresented their equipment, leading players to think they were protected when they weren't. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 13:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A concussion is where the brain hits the inside of the skull, so helmets can really only do so much unless you want them to be 6" foam padding. Googlemeister (talk) 13:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Even then, no helmet of any type can really protect against things like being slammed into the ground or into other players, no amount of padding can slow down the deceration of the brain to where it doesn't cause injurious force. And there are other issues, like accumulations of otherwise innocuous hits over time.  SI did an excellent issue about a year ago about sub-concussion trauma to student football players; players who had never experienced a hit with enough force to qualify as a concussion still displayed long-term mental symptoms akin to those of concussed people; basically the results of hundreds of small hits, which individually would not cause any problems, can accumulate over time and cause concussion-like symptoms.  Scarry stuff.  This issue has that article and several others on concussions.  -- Jayron  32  17:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

This helmet, I suppose, Was meant to ward off blows, It's very hot And weighs a lot, As many a guardsman knows.. Yes, yes, yes, So off that helmet goes! -- Princess Ida. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

If the US Department of Defense has an epic budget, why can't they spend more on personal hygiene?
It's one of the most basic needs, and they would rather prevent germ/biological warfare than have to deal with it.

Japan knows that no one should dry-wipe dishes after a meal, soap-and-water must take care of them before that. Therefore, our military needs these devices like in the link ahead: At least Japan knows how to care for their self-defense troops' hygiene, so why can't the US military follow suit? --70.179.163.168 (talk) 10:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * What does Japan's knowledge of American washing up practices have to do with anything? --Tango (talk) 11:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * When I said "we," I meant all of humankind. I made some edits. Dry-wiping is only good after we've cleaned with soap & water first, and Japan knew this early on, which is why they've invented the Toto Washlet. (Try to wipe mud off your car after going through a wet dirt road. See how well that compares to a good ol' car wash.)
 * And I thought that the US Military adapts to new technologies pretty fast. It hasn't seemed to adapt to a rather basic need like this one. --70.179.163.168 (talk) 12:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Because this user is obsessed with bidets and has posted lots of strange rants about it in the past, most likely... I don't think this is a real question. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * For whomever put the "fact" tag—, just to pick a few of the obvious recent ones. Search for "bidet" or "washlet" in the Ref Desk archives to find a fountain of such questions from a 70.179 IP address, who is apparently quite obsessed with the question of bidet adoption. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Has anybody surveyed US soldiers to see if they would like bidets? I suggest the original questioner conducts some face-to-face interviews before proceeding further with this campaign. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * An interesting note on Japanese hygiene practices. I was trying to find out how common the Japanese actually use soap with their washlets which the OP appears to imply. I didn't really find the answer but came across Toilets in Japan which says "The most advanced washlets can mix the water jet with soap for an improved cleaning process." More interesting is the unsourced claim "Many public toilets do not have soap for washing hands[citation needed], or towels for drying hands. Many people carry a handkerchief with them for such occasions,[2] and some even carry soap.".
 * By the by, I'm awaiting the sources the OP can provide as evidence for their claim that the Japan Self-Defense Forces bases primarily have washlet toilets with soap. Given their great interest, I'm sure they must have excellent sources. IIRC one of the previous times the OP raised the issue, someone who had lived in Japan said they found in cheap student areas, washlets (with or without soap) were fairly uncommon so I do think we need to see sources for this claim. I'm also awaiting the sources meeting WP:MEDRS for the OPs claim that washlets lead to a significant reduction in the spread of diseases.
 * I think we've put up with enough of the OPs posts on the wonders of washlets to demand such referencing and the failure to provide such referencing would suggest the OP doesn't understand this is a reference desk and repeated unsourced claims (and the people that post them) are unwelcome.
 * Nil Einne (talk) 15:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I lived in Khobar Towers for some time, and all the bathrooms had bidets. In short, American soldiers just aren't accustomed to bidets. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 18:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's likely that American soldiers would have no idea what a bidet was, and would probably think it was a urinal. Having never used one in their homes, they would hardly suddenly start finding them magically useful.  The Mark of the Beast (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I, for one, tend to agree, that much of the modern world (the U.S. most notably) is a bit behind the times when it comes to the best method to cleanse one's self; BUT I would point out also that multiple daily showers are much more prevalent these days, as well as that man-kind spent a few thousand years wiping themselves with leaves, or their hand, or rubbing their arse on the ground, or just not at all; and, aside from generally just being kind of gross, it does not seem to be detrimental to one's health to have a little "left overs" in that area, as long as you bathe regularly. Quinn &#10048; BEAUTIFUL DAY 02:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * See navy shower. ~ AH1 (discuss!) 01:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * British Army ration packs used to (and maybe still do) include only three sheets of toilet paper for each day. Recruits were told "one up, one down and one to put a shine on it". Alansplodge (talk) 00:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

amazon delivery
living in a block of flats, we have a system where all our post is delivered to numbered boxes by the main entrance, which works quite well, and where if a larger parcel is to be delivered, a note is left informing us that it is waiting at the post office building, luckily just a short walk around the corner. However, preparing for my first online order, I am wondering, will deliveries from amazon be treated the same way, left for me to pick up later? And, were I to find the same thing cheaper on another site and order it there, for example one that says they use a courier service for their deliveries, would that also be left at the post office, or would they expect to be able to come up the stairs and deliver it right to my door? Which would mean I would have to be there when they delivered it, I suppose. And, thinking of it, which would be awkward, since they would need the key to get that deep into the building.

79.66.109.36 (talk) 14:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * For reference, the original poster's IP address is associated with an internet service provider based in the UK. I suspect that responses relating to UK postal and courier services are likely to be most useful here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * A private courier service (like UPS, FedEx) won't let your package at the post office. 88.9.108.128 (talk) 20:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You might be better delivering to your work, if that is possible. Otherwise, you'll get a postcard asking you to go to the DHL/UPS etc depot for collection/arrange a re-delivery. However, some of the Amazon market-place companies use the Royal Mail, as does Amazon for small items. CS Miller (talk) 21:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Amazon UK use Royal Mail delivery for stuff ordered directly from themselves (books, DVDs etc), and anything that can't be left in your box will be taken to the delivery office and a card left in your box. Unfortunately, if you're ordering from a business via Amazon, then they might be using DPD, DHL, UPS, etc, and if they can't deliver or get a signature then they normally leave a card and take it back to their own depot (in my case this is often 10-20 miles away) and you either have to schedule another delivery (usually Monday - Friday only) or go to the depot and collect it yourself. They certainly will not leave it at the Royal Mail office. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 23:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are fortunate being so close to the depot. I'm nearly 40 miles away, and the DHL driver used the excuse that it was raining so he couldn't find the house name.  I eventually agreed to meet him six miles away.  They are not what I call a delivery service.    D b f i r s   06:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * There is usually a bit on the form near where you put the delivery address for any special delivery instructions. You could ask there for the delivery driver to phone you when he's outside and you could then go down to the main entrance to let him in. --Tango (talk) 00:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

1977 chevrolet chevelle malibu classic sedan
we own the above vehicle. someone told us it was built as a ghost patrol car. it has turbo-hydromatic transmission. we would like to find out how many of this particular vehicle were built and how many are left. VIN is 1D29U72444596```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.33.54.133 (talk) 17:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I dunno about your question, but I'm not 100% sure you want to give out your vehicle's VIN # on a public website. Maybe it's not a big deal, but still... Quinn &#10048; BEAUTIFUL DAY  02:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Our article on the Chevrolet Chevelle has some information you might be interested in. It doesn't give production numbers for the sedan, but it says (without citation) that the Malibu Classic Coupe sold around 70,000 units.  The sedan's numbers are likely to be in that area, although possibly more or less.  As for how many survive today, it is certainly a tiny fraction. Probably in the thousands.  The "ghost patrol" part of your question leaves me scratching my head, Chevy certainly didn't build Chevelles with some kind of "ghost patrol" package.  Someone might have privately used it for ghost hunting, but there is no way for us to know. -- Daniel  15:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think "Ghost Patrol Car" is another way of calling it an unmarked police car. Googlemeister (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, I've never heard that term used. Maybe it is an East Coast US thing, my search only turned up eastern locations using the term.  As for how that effects the OPs question, I think it is very possible that that type of vehicle would be used as an unmarked car, but I wouldn't know how to check for sure. -- Daniel  17:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * After Googling a bit, I believe that "ghost patrol" is a direct translation of Patrulla Fantasma, which is a term for an unmarked police car used commonly in Latin America. Looie496 (talk) 00:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Mychal Judge
Mychal F. Judge was born as "Robert Emmet Judge". According to he took the religious name "Fallon Michael" and later changed "Michael" to "Mychal". At this point I'm confused. Why is his name now "Mychal F. Judge" instead of "Fallon Mychal Judge"? My second question is: Are there any other sources about his name? --Dandelo (talk) 20:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Love letters to lifers and death row prisoners
Do they really get love letters from woman they didn't know before? Even Anders Behring Breivik is said to receive them. Quest09 (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes. Here's an article about it and related practices from a few years ago. There's something odd socially/psychologically probably going on there. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hybristophilia. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)