Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2014 January 24

= January 24 =

Is the info below really from Walmart??
Walmart Save money. Live better. Sir/Madam,

Your order WM-0092767487 delivery has failed. Reason: Failed delivery attempts

To fix this issue you must fill this form and send it back to us.

If your reply is not received within one week, you will be paid your money back but 19% will be deducted.

Walmart Manager Armaan Cherry 2013 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.22.83.37 (talk) 05:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Did you receive this as an email? Do you have an order with Walmart and, if so, is that your order number? At any rate, it is very easy to make such mail and send it out, thus, without more information, I'd caution trusting it (it doesn't read right, for several reasons, either). Personally, if you have an order with Walmart, I would contact them directly, perhaps by phone or in person, and see what they say; you can even ask them about this, they'd be able to give you a direct answer.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 06:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * No - it's a scam - just delete it. I've seen the exact same message - despite never having ordered anything from WalMart.  The form will probably provide the sender with the information necessary to steal your identity - or something equally obnoxious. SteveBaker (talk) 06:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, sir/madam. There just was no room in your driveway for the bridge you ordered. Our Nigerian prince of a deliveryman just couldn't fit it in. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The relevant article is phishing. 50.0.121.102 (talk) 08:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * If you Google "To fix this issue you must fill this form and send it back to us", you'll see that your fake refund deduction was also quite steep. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Watermelon cups
Ok, drinking from watermelon cups, what it have to do with racism? 50.100.190.61 (talk) 07:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The party was clearly intended have a racist theme, see: . For the specifics of watermelon, see: Watermelon stereotype. If it was just people drinking out of watermelon cups, and nothing else, I doubt this would have been an issue.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 08:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for providing a link to explain what OP was on about, User:Phoenixia1177. I doubt I was the only confused one.  Dismas |(talk) 14:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I've heard a different version of the Watermelon stereotype, which stated that black farmhands were given the cheapest food available, just like some of the animals, often watermelon. Hence, why it is considered offensive. I have no idea if it's missing from the article or just untrue according to our article. Thanks ツ Jenova   20  (email) 09:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Watermelon had two things going for it -- it was cheap and available. The poor in every society end up eating what is cheap and available - in many cases that food is better than the "fancy stuff" - rice and beans ends up being pretty good as a diet, while the royal Elizabethans who dined on swan were getting pretty foul food (it tastes pretty bad).   Collect (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, and I understand that lobster was once in the category of "low class foods". Amazing how things change.  As for watermelon, it's OK, but berries are a much healthier fruit.  And the other black stereotype food, fried chicken, is about the most unhealthy food possible (although removing the skin and tossing it out helps a lot). StuRat (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Cross-dressing question
where online can i see pics of lads wearing there sister's school uniforms or things like their sister's netball kit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.213.216 (talk) 12:40, 24 January 2014‎


 * I assume you mean Cross-dressing porn? I also assume you meant "adults" in place of "lads". Google it. The internet is made of porn and i doubt anyone here would suggest a specific site. Thanks ツ Jenova   20  (email) 12:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

no...i mean like lads in girls'school uniform,skirts and blouses and tights -like still at school. not porn stuff,just wearing girly things — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.213.216 (talk) 12:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't know, and, even if I did, I wouldn't provide links, because, the internet being as it is, "innocent" pictures of this type are likely to lead to illegal content of a less innocent nature.   D b f i r s   13:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Header changed to a post to avoid me looking like the OP. No actual message content in question changed. Thanks ツ Jenova   20  (email) 13:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Type whatever things you want to see into a Google search, but add the word "tumblr". --Navstar (talk) 02:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

← Look if you want. I am not saying anything about it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Entering Guinness World Records with the largest userboxes
Since Guinness World Records accepts anything, is it possible for a wikipedia to enter GWR as the member with the most userboxes?--Kuwaity26 (talk) 15:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, they don't accept anything. So you'd have to back up to there.  And ask them.  Dismas |(talk) 15:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Was there any request they didn't accept? --Kuwaity26 (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * They no longer accept "consumption" records, IIRC. Collect (talk) 16:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank for your answers, I don't really know what does "consumption records" mean, but i'll search for it because it may help finding an answer to my question, thanks again --Kuwaity26 (talk) 16:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Consumption" as in eating lots of something. I can see why they no longer want to encourage idiots like "Donald Gorske of Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, USA consumed his 23,000th McDonald's Big Mac on 17 August 2008. He is now in his 37th consecutive year of eating Big Macs on a daily basis.". Alansplodge (talk) 01:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Take a look at Guinness World Records, an answer at least using Wikipedia to assist you, I hope. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * They also don't accept anything sexual, if I remember correctly. And they tread lightly around anything that would be life threatening.  Even a Guinness official has said that they "don't just accept any old thing".   I've found a few mentions of them not accepting things that are subjective like beauty or nice handwriting.  And their own FAQ mentions a few things they won't accept.  I would suspect that they wouldn't accept "most user boxes" since it's not especially hard to do.  Dismas |(talk) 17:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the links, I asked this question because I saw a lot of silly things in the 2009 GWR book and I thought everything could be accepted, but as the FAQ says actions that are not challenging enough won't be recognised as records.  Thanks for your time and answers --Kuwaity26 (talk) 06:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You want challenging? Try these! (In case you later decide to sue me, I only mean try reading about them.) InedibleHulk (talk) 07:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * (The guy balancing the car on his head is a fake...that's a classic Mini - which should weigh at least 1300lbs. The record says that he's balancing 352lbs - the engine alone weighs more than that - so this is an incredibly stripped-down car!  Probably just the body shell and wheels.  Another clue is that the Mini has a 70/30 weight distribution - so the balance point should be somewhere right under the windshield - and he's balancing it roughly mid-way between the wheels.)  That said, balancing 352lbs on your head is fairly impressive...just not *THAT* impressive. SteveBaker (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's stripped down in a big way. But until someone does it with a full Mini, I'm pretty impressed. If someone did, I'd probably be too skeptical to be impressed, anyway. Or maybe terrified. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The reason this is a record that they're not going to accept is that it's utterly trivial to beat it. Just go to the record-holder's page - copy/paste it all into your own page - then add one more userbox!   If they really did publish it as a record, then the first reaction would be for someone to write a very simple search tool to find every single user-box and automatically generate a list of them into your user-page.  Even that wouldn't result in a long-lasting record because it's easy to create new user-boxes yourself.  Basically, if our OP is here to complain about people with "too many" user boxes - then please take it elsewhere.  Otherwise, no, of course Guinness aren't going to accept it. SteveBaker (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There are good reasons Guinness shouldn't touch this but "trivial to beat" isn't necessarily one of them. If they were dumb enough to allow it, the opposite in their FAQ conditions could soon become relevant: "Breakable (all our records must be open to being challenged)". Assuming the userboxes must be displayed on the same page and don't have to make much sense, there are size limits which means it could quickly become a question of how little code is considered valid for a user box. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia records might be of interest.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 17:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Electricity unit costs in 1939. Watford  England.
I would like to know the cost per Kw Hr of domestic electricity in 1939. The specific query is for Watford Hertfordshire England, where The Borough of Watford generated their own power at Cardiff Road and were not connected to the grid. Watford Urban District Council Act 1909 is relevant. I would also like to know the price of Town Gas in the same year. I believe the authority was the Watford & St Albans Gas Light and Coke Company. A gas works and gas holder were situated in the Lower High Street Watford England. The two costs for other distributors would help if the more specific request is not re-searchable. Alan Orchard86.130.161.39 (talk) 16:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * If this were me. I would start off by inquiring at the Watford Central Library. They have indexes to historical archives . Be persistent, as these days of staffing cuts they are often very busy and might fob you off with a no, you have come to the wrong place. If so, speak to the Chief Librarian. Go in a a quiet day -not a Saturday. The price of such utilities as gas and electricity was as import  then, as it is now, so some record must exist somewhere in the dark recesses of their dusty shelves. P.S. They should also have the Minutes of the Watford Urban District Council meetings, were the prices etc. would have been discussed.--Aspro (talk) 17:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If you don't get any joy there, try the Hertfordshire Archives and Local Studies at County Hall in Hertford. The staff there are REALLY helpful. Alansplodge (talk) 01:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * (EC)*A search for online information was not successful. I found US electric rates for the early 20th century, but the books which might furnish price data for England are only viewable in unhelpful snippets from government reports such as, ,  and . A college library in the UK would probably have old electric industry journals  describing the high price in the immediate post WW1 period and decreasing prices in the 1930's as demand sagged during the Depression and as efficiency of generation increased (more kwh produced per unit of fuel burned). For my town, the local library and local historical society would include historic reports from the authority which operated the gas plant and generating plant, so local paper records might be a good resource. Rural towns with isolated generating plants likely charged more than when the high voltage national grid was connected later and larger and more efficient base-load generating could supply the demand. Edison (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * And there is also the National Grid Archive--Aspro (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * When were coin-operated gas meters introduced to England? Sleigh (talk) 19:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure whether this should be under a separate heading. Anyway, the first patent appears to be 1887. -  Ka renjc (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you all for your interest and comments. I will investigate them when I return from a holiday in the sunshine where heating bills are relatively unimportant. On the other hand A/C units are even more expensive.86.148.181.86 (talk) 12:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Where is this church?
I have a little time today and thought I'd take some photos for Wikipedia while running my errands. One place I came up with is Monkton Borough Baptist Church. Clicking the coordinates in the article and then following the link to Google Maps gives me a pin on a road called Boro Hill Rd. I know the area fairly well and there is no church there. It's just woods and houses. If I go to the National Register of Historic Places web site, I'm unable to find an entry for this building. I've been through Monkton a few times and only remember a Methodist church there. So, could someone help me find this place? Thanks, Dismas |(talk) 18:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * There's an entry for the place at the NRHP, but the pdf file is empty, and I get a message that the information hasn't been digitized yet. Plus it gets a chapter in this book. Clarityfiend (talk)


 * It definitely exists. This 2013-2018 Monkton town plan (on p. 34) gives a few details about it, but alas, not the specific location. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This HISTORIC RESOURCES REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED VERMONT GAS ADDISON NATURAL GAS PROJECT (December 2012) has a map called "Figure 23" on page 29 (actually page 33 of the pdf file). Monkton Borough Baptist Church is marked #14 on the map. According to the text above, the church "sits back from the west side of the road" which is shown on the map as Vergennes Road which runs north from the junction with Boro Hill Road. On both Google Maps and OpenStreetMap, "Vergennes Road" seems to be marked "Monkton Road". Alansplodge (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I know where that is now. I talked about it with my wife today and she reminded me of that location.  It's set back from the road and I hadn't thought of it.  Possibly due to the cold that I've come down with today.  (I'm covered in blankets right now trying to stay warm even though it's probably over 70 in the house.)  Thanks for the reminders and confirmation.  Maybe I'll have a chance to swing by there next week.  Dismas |(talk) 02:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You may be encountering a datum issue: according to NRHPMOS, many NRHP coordinates use the NAD27 datum, while Google Maps and GPSs use the WGS84 datum, which can differ by several hundred yards. --Carnildo (talk) 02:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've emended the coordinates in the article. Deor (talk) 14:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Mystery satellite image
Any idea what this weird looking thing in google satellite view is? Looks a bit like athletes stretching, but probably too regular and oddly positioned. Is this a common image artifact that occurs elsewhere? Staecker (talk) 20:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * They look like athletes to me. I don't see why they couldn't be spaced like that. However, they should be careful going from first base to second. Looks like the Hellmouth is opening up on the basepath. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Could we get a better description of what you're referring to? The Google Earth marker is out in the woods.  What Clarityfiend seems to be referring to is a rough circle of athletes on the baseball diamond to the left.  But then refers to the artifact in the image of the diamond on the right.  Dismas |(talk) 21:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The main topic is the 17 white objects in 3 rows, north of the large diamond on the right. Some are sort of Y-shaped, and appear to be athletes exercising.  As for the "hellmouth" on the diamond, there's another smaller one to the left near the clubhouse.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The resolution isn't sharp enough to be sure but the image certainly looks like a baseball team stretching/warming up before a practice or game. D Monack (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * These guys are lined up in rows and have their hands up. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah! Jack, thanks. Yes, they are baseball players stretching.  Players will often lay on the ground with their legs in a Y and then stretch their torso by turning it back and forth.  You can see someone assisting another person do this here.  Dismas |(talk) 00:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Ballplayers doing stretching exercises; and the two black gashes look like imperfect "stitching" between images or maybe just "pixelation". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)