Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2013 January 15

= January 15 =

Pental correction fluid
You have put many warnings about the about the above liquid. My question is if you get it on your skin, hope do you remove it? Regards Brian Galyer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.96.157 (talk) 01:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Where has wikipedia posted a warning about correction fluid? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Not exactly a warning, but see correction fluid. The correct spelling is Pentel, by the way. Looie496 (talk) 02:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * (un-indent) If the fluid hasn't dried, soap and water will work just fine. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 06:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * And, if it has, I'd expect you could peel it off in chunks. After all, it's designed to adhere to paper, not skin. StuRat (talk) 07:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The only "warning" I'm seeing in the correction fluid article is that some nuts apparently try to get high from inhaling it. Like an office supply store answer to airplane glue. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This is unfortunately quite true. Some years ago a dead body was found in the Local Government Office my mother then worked in. It turned out to be a teenaged cleaner who'd opened a stationery cupboard and inhaled either the fluid itself or the fluid's solvent (which used to be sold in separate but similar bottles for revivifying the fluid when it gets too gummy). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 84.21.143.150 (talk) 14:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * That said I would definitely recommend not using correction fluid when editing Wikipedia -- Q Chris (talk) 13:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Am I the only person here who has frequently had correction fluid on their fingers? Soap, water and a nail brush are the right kit. Makes a white nail polish but will be flaking off before home time. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * These days, I'd expect use of correction fluid to be rare, as it's primary use was for typewritten material, and we rarely use typewriters anymore. StuRat (talk) 16:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Staples, the stationery and office supplier, sells about 15 different presentations of correction fluid and tape. If you Google shop "correction fluid" there are more hits than you want to bother with. They wouldn't be selling it if nobody was buying it. I have a bottle and I use it if I make an error on paper forms. Richard Avery (talk) 16:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Anecdote time: My sister started her working life working for a firm of solicitors. This was in the late 1960s, long before most offices were computerised, so typewriters were state of the art. She spent her days typing legal documents, many of which were quite long, and all of which used legal language she was not particularly familiar with (at least when she started). All the documents she typed had to be error-free - but correction fluid was completely banned. If she made a mistake, even a misplaced comma on the last line of a 50-line page, she had to type the whole thing again and risk making mistakes she didn't make the first time through. Tough call, but it was a great discipline. -  Jack of Oz   [Talk]  23:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * When I started work in the 1970s, the method of entering data onto a computer was that it was written with a ball-point pen onto a carbonless-copy form, one copy of which went on a Friday by van and train to our computer in Leeds 150 miles away, where an office full of badly-paid women would type it. If any mistakes in the data had been made, they came back on the following Thursday. We were allowed to correct the forms with correction fluid - one called "Snowpake" smelled strongly of petrol, and was withdrawn after people started abusing solvents. Alansplodge (talk) 14:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Quite the exercise in inefficiency. Did that company go bankrupt ? StuRat (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No, they invented smaller computers and easier ways to interface with them Alansplodge (talk) 13:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * But the technology wasn't the worst of their problems. Putting their typists 150 miles away from the people who need things typed seems downright idiotic.  Did they then put the word processing computers 150 miles away, too ? StuRat (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That was purely statistical data, we didn't have word processing until the 1980s (I'm sure it existed, just we didn't have it). I suspect the reason for having the computer so far away was that floor space and wages were a whole lot cheaper "up north". As to efficiency, it was a whole lot better than trying to determine statistical trends by wading through piles of hand written paper ledgers, the system that had existed a few months before I started. Alansplodge (talk) 23:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Snopake was the spelling, and I see that I really am the most accomplished inaccurate typist on the thread. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I stand corrected - my only excuse was that it was nearly 40 tears ago. Alansplodge (talk) 13:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * LOL. I had a lot more tears than that. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * When was Snopake withdrawn? I seem to remember it from the late-eighties early-nineties, but it may have been a generic name we knew the stuff by despite that brand having vanished. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * They seem to be still in business - perhaps it was withdrawn to be replaced by something less noxious. It was a long time ago. Alansplodge (talk) 23:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think back to a time before we all had PCs on our desks. We had to write our letters etc in long hand and send them down to the typing pool.  If there were any mistakes in the typed version, we'd send it back and they had to retype it.  That was acceptable if it was the typist's mistake they hadn't noticed when proof reading (who remembers that?).  But if it was just the author having a rethink about what he/she wanted to say, that was viewed most dimly.  The idea was that you got that sorted before it ever went to the typists.  And that was a good discipline, one that we're able to get away without these days, because it's so easy to just change your mind after writing something now.


 * I also remember when word processors were first introduced to my work place. There were only 2 for the entire organisation, and they were located in  the typing pool.  We still had to write our drafts in longhand, they'd type them and print them out, and send the printout back to us for checking.  We were now allowed one (1) chance to change our minds about the text.  The typists would make the changes, send the printout back for final checking, then do a final print.  But woe betide us if we wanted to change anything else at this stage.  Even though the technology was now available to make multiple sets of changes, we were still required to exercise some of that old discipline stuff, and get the draft substantially right first go, and not burden the poor typists with multiple rounds of changes.  Plus, there was the paper, which was admittedly a real concern.  I wonder if Sophia Tolstaya is looking down now, and remembering having to write out her husband's War and Peace longhand, not just once but seven times!  How things might have been different if he or Dickens or Balzac or "Shakespeare" had a word processor.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  21:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I wonder if that was the reason for many of the plot inconsistencies in Jules Verne's novels? In some of them, there are obvious inconsistencies between earlier and later events, or crude attempts at retcon -- does anyone else agree with me that this was probably because he would often think up the plot events "on the fly", and then wouldn't bother to rewrite the earlier part of the book to fit with the later parts? 24.23.196.85 (talk) 01:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * On Verne's plot inconsistencies, our article notes that "[a]fter his first novel, most of his stories were first serialised in the Magazine d'Éducation et de Récréation...before being published in book form". Verne was also cranking out at least a couple of volumes each year.  Put those two factors together, and it strikes me as likely that the first chapters of many of his works may well have been in print before the last chapters were finalized.  In other words, it's possible that he didn't rewrite because in some cases he couldn't.  (The again, he might also have just been too busy, or too lazy, or spending too much time on his boat.)  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Or maybe Hetzel, his publisher, demanded some last-minute changes and he couldn't rewrite the earlier chapters in time to meet the deadline (as happened at least once during the publication of The Mysterious Island, fortunately without introducing any real inconsistencies or inaccuracies). 24.23.196.85 (talk) 01:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Barber's vibrators
Some barbers used to use vibrators that strapped to the back of their hand. They would vibrate customers neck and shoulders after cutting their hair. I would like to buy one of these vibrators but cannot find them listed on the internet. Anybody know where I can find? Thank you  WSC  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.14.40 (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am familiar with what you mean, a rubber-cup head that straps around the palm. But I am not getting any good search results.  The good news is, that if you are happy with a new one, most drug store chains will carry state of the art electric massagers for about $20.  I have two by Homedics I use regularly that I bought when I was hospitalized from major surgery over a decade ago, and they are as good as new today. μηδείς (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I would suggest changing your search term to massage, though. Look here. Mingmingla (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Do barbers give happy endings now? I need a new barber.  -- Jayron  32  16:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The trouble is that every time I scroll past this section, my eyes say "Barbie's vibrators" for a fraction of a second before my fore-brain can filter and correct them - which produces a fleeting (and entirely politically-incorrect) mental image of an 11" fashion doll... SteveBaker (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

European Athletics Championships 1962
It appears that Poland won 3 gold medals and should be at least tied with West Germany for 3rd place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.228.164 (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you requesting a change to one of our articles ? If so, that article's talk page is the place to do so. StuRat (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no activity on that talk page. I boldly fixed it. SteveBaker (talk) 14:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Poland had 5 and not 6 bronze so they are still behind West Germany. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)