Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2013 July 19

= July 19 =

What paths are carneys in Britain?
What paths are carneys in Britain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xietianxiedi (talk • contribs) 07:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but can you explain what you need to know a little more? Apart from the entries in our Carneys disambiguation page, the only use of the word I'm aware of is for Carnival employees in the U.S.A. (and that's usually carny).  Rojomoke (talk) 09:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

In his book "The Old Ways" published in 2012, British travel writer Robert Mcfarlane makes a list of ancient paths existing in Britain, including driftways, cartways, carneys,etc. The last term has puzzled me for a long time. I failed to get its explanation in any dictionary or encyclopedia I could find. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xietianxiedi (talk • contribs) 09:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The term is not in the OED and is not mentioned (looking inside this book on Amazon) in the author's own glossary, so I suspect it's a misprint. It would seem reasonable to write to the author c/o the publisher to point this out and ask for an explantion. Some publishers are quite appreciative of having mistakes pointed out. The only possibility that occurs to me is that it's a contraction of cairn-way, i.e. a way marked by cairns.--Shantavira|feed me 10:43, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Your explanation and suggestion are quite helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xietianxiedi (talk • contribs) 11:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It could also be a copyright trap - to ensure that no-one plagiarises that list. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I checked a couple of thesauruses to see whether there is some other term that might have been misspelled or just a typo to get this word - but I can't see any words with this kind of meaning that differ in spelling or are just a couple of letters off of "carney". The trouble is that it seems such a plausible word for a footpath of some kind!  Weird. SteveBaker (talk) 13:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The OED does have a noun "carney" but it's an obsolete word for a disease in horses. I wonder if it's a scanno for "camway".  I would separate this into two words, but there are many ancient routes called cam roads around the country (cam meaning a ridge, so the equivalent of ridgeway).  My guess might be completely wrong, of course.    D b f i r s   19:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * This call wouldn't be about Camway, would it? :)  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  11:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Quick Reference Guide
I am a supervisor in a call center located in Kentucky and we are looking to create a Wiki page that our employees can refer to as a quick reference guide. I need some help in simply getting it started to where I am able to input the information that we want available as reference. Is this possible? Secondly, can we create a page that nobody other than supervisors and managers can update? Meaning can it be password protected or something along these lines? Thank you greatly in advance for any help or information you have. I can also be contacted by phone if possible (would prefer) [removed]. Again, thanks. [removed] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard.smith05 (talk • contribs) 12:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not do that. You would be better off establishing a social media page, such as on Facebook. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Bugs could not be more incorrect. "Wikipedia" is not what's being discussed here - "MediaWiki" is what you use to set up your own "Wiki" - and it's very well suited to community-created, easily available content.  Social media sites (and especially those with a "Facebook" useage model) completely *SUCK* at making community content because each page is "owned" by someone.  Collaborative content creation on Facebook and sites like it is almost impossible. SteveBaker (talk) 13:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, come on. I could be a lot more incorrect than that. Use your imagination. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I imagine saying "sorry" is out. DreadRed (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is run on MediaWiki software which is free. You can set up your own wiki. Dismas |(talk) 13:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Very good. But when have you ever heard anyone pronounce it "witi"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:24, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, what? Dismas |(talk) 13:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I found the following statement in the article, and then just now some hidden comments after it (unhidden for this purpose):
 * "Ward Cunningham, the developer of the first wiki software, WikiWikiWeb, originally described it as "the simplest online database that could possibly work". "Wiki" (pronounced  or ) is a Hawaiian word meaning "fast" or "quick".
 * ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Setting up a new Wiki is fairly easy. You need "shell access" to the server you're going to run it on.  You have to install Apache, MySQL (or one of a couple of clones of that software) and Python (if your server doesn't already have those things...it probably does) - then download and install MediaWiki.
 * There are ways to set up privilages to keep your Wiki secure. If it's going to be accessible on a public server, you might want to prevent reading or editing by "unregistered" users - and limit the ability to create new accounts to administrators so that new employees would have to apply to get an account set up for them.  It's also easy to "protect" individual pages so that only admins can edit them.  has instructions for that.
 * I've done exactly what you're suggesting at three different companies I've worked for - and my g/f's home business. That business is run entirely off of two MediaWiki sites - one public one for our customers and one private one for our internal product development, etc.  I could probably merge the two and use the protection features to keep the confidential business information private - but it suits me not to do that.
 * I have two MediaWiki's set up on my personal website - one "read-only" for public access to information that only admins can edit - and one that's read/write private to my immediate family. I set up another one to allow extended family to post photos of kids and grandkids and show them off to their friends (read-public, write-restricted to logged in users).  I set up a MediaWiki for the car club that I used to run (also read-public, write-restricted - but any member can create new accounts - so it's "by invitation only").
 * MediaWiki is an incredible piece of software with much more flexibility than Wikipedia chooses to use. There are a wealth of cool plugins that extend the functionality beyond that.
 * SteveBaker (talk) 13:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

WikiMarriage
Have ever in life 2 Wikipedians got married??  Miss Bono  [zootalk] ☆ 20:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * That's an interesting question. In the US -I think- one still needs a blood test before obtaining a marriage licence. But as far as I know, geeks can share the same source code and yet marry without their derived code(s) suffering any complications or bugs.--Aspro (talk) 21:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * There have been many married couples who came to Wikipedia together. The only married couple I can think of who met through Wikipedia are and . At least I think they met through Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, we met because of Wikimedia. There are a few others, including user:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * He's right. AFAIK, our children have adminship from birth - it's hereditary (what do you mean, "no it isnt"?) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 13:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I propose a new category, Category:Wikipedians who are married to other Wikipedians, as a subset of Category:Wikipedians.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 23:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Wao! That's interesting :O  Miss Bono  [zootalk]  12:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

"In the US - ...a blood test before obtaining a marriage licence"
The subject here is a quote from the thread immediately above. As a non-American, I've been puzzled from at least as far back as the 1960s by references in American films and TV shows about these mysterious (to me) blood tests before getting married. What's it all about? Who is testing whom for what? What are the possible consequences? Prohibiting marriage? We don't do it here. Should we? HiLo48 (talk) 23:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * See The Straight Dope's answer. Deor (talk) 23:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It depends on state law, it's to determine you do not have syphilis. μηδείς (talk) 00:26, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I can now understand why the purpose of the tests was never explained. Not a nice topic for nice TV shows to mentions. What happens/happened if one does/did have syphilis? HiLo48 (talk) 00:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If you were lucky the other party stayed around long enough for you to finish your course of antibiotics and take another test. See the rather horrific congenital syphilis. μηδείς (talk) 00:48, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * So those infected were somehow forced to undergo treatment? While it's obviously a very good idea, how was that achieved? Legally? And practically? Locked up in a government clinic until cured? HiLo48 (talk) 01:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, it's state law. But yes, they typically mandated treatment and provided it if you were indigent, as they did and still do with tuberculosis.  See Syphilis for how simple or complex the treatment.  But they also sent public health agents around to survey you about your prior sex partners and to contact and test them.  (They actually made a big deal of that in our high school sex-ed class.)  According to our articles, a lot of states still have these laws.  Many of them were challenged and overthrown by liberal courts or legislatures in the 80's once states started applying the same rules to the HIV positive.  (That is, in some states, if you tested HIV positive, public health agents would try to contact and test your prior partners.) It was seen as a violation of privacy and not effective enough to show a compelling state interest. μηδείς (talk) 01:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, under English law, a marriage is voidable if "at the time of the marriage the respondent was suffering from venereal disease in a communicable form." (Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 Section 12e). It's never been the practice to routinely test for this, though.  Tevildo (talk) 09:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As an aside, there's a long history of forcible quarantine / treatment of certain communicable diseases even in common law / civil-liberties-friendly countries. Quarantine was classically seen as one of the exceptions to a handful of otherwise narrow government powers in the U.S., and I think that tradition extends to most common law countries too. Shadowjams (talk) 04:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)