Miscellaneous desk
< February 20	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 22 >

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.

February 21[edit]

famous painters[edit]

who is Connie weiss? I got a painting of hers and I can't find any info about her. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.102.194.136 (talk) 01:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the Connie Weiss you mean? Bielle (talk) 02:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal Money Laundering.[edit]

Why don´t governments refresh their currencies more frequently to frustrate money launderers. I recall when the Euro was being introduced that the amount of Mafioso Lira that were exchanged in advance in return for foreign hotels and other property at knock-down prices was simply amazing, some stories I heard were hotels in Spain were changing hands at a Lira exchange rate of 40% or less? 83.49.81.35 (talk) 01:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calling in a currency is a tremendous bother and decreases confidence in it. Keep in mind what you are saying is the money not turned in becomes valueless. It is not worth doing for the sake of annoying a few Mafiosos. By the way, all legacy currency banknotes valid on 1 January 2002 remained valid for at least ten years. I turned in around 20,000 lire in Milan a few years ago.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not least because lots of money laundering isn't done with cash at all. It's often not guys with briefcases full of money, but offshore bank accounts, cash businesses with difficult-to-verify cashflows (which turn illegitimate cash into untraceable legal turnover), wire transfers through holding companies in uncooperative jurisdictions, and dodgy business deals and property purchases. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 01:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, withdrawal of currency takes place when there is a change of currency, i.e., when France went from the old franc to the new franc and subsequently to the euro. US currency is valid back into the 19th century and all Bank of England notes from whenever are redeemable (I've redeemed ten shilling notes there, in poor enough condition that there is no premium); though the ones that were counterfeited may need to be authenticated. Historically, they withdrew Military Payment Certificates on short notice to prevent them from being used as currency offbase, there's an episode of MASH on the subject.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the questioner is asking more about replacing series of banknotes rather than the wholesale withdrawal of a currency, to which I would say that the answer is that it's simply too much trouble to replace a series of notes more frequently than every 10-20 years on average. For example, the Bank of England has just started replacing the £50 notes which were introduced in 1994 (which replaced the previous notes which were current between 1981 and 1996); there's usually a period of a few years when both the old and new notes circulate - though the Bank of England is fairly unusual in that it will redeem all notes ever issued, back to 1695, at face value. Even as respected a currency as the Swiss franc regularly makes its banknotes valueless, though after a long gap; I first visited the country in 1984, and the sixth series notes from 1975 which I used then were replaced between 1995-1998 and lose all their value in 2020 - though our article says there are still around 130 million francs worth of 500-franc notes of this series which haven't been turned in yet. When the fifth-series notes (from 1956) were demonetised in 2000, there were still over 244 million francs of notes out in the wild. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most money is not on paper, just electronic. And there was no need to hurry for exchanging old European currencies for the Euro, since the old currencies can, even today, be exchanged for Euros. XPPaul (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is NOT the case - some pre-Euro currencies' notes will remain exchangeable for Euros forever (e.g. Irish pound, Deutschemark, Austrian Schilling); Dutch guilder notes will be exchangeable until 2032; Portuguese escudo notes will be exchangeable until February 2022; Italian lire notes ceased to have any value in December 2011; French franc banknotes ceased to have value last week - 17 February 2012. Most countries' coins are already non-exchangeable. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 18:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I ask myself what would happen with the exchange of those still valid currencies if the euro falls apart. Would you be able to exchange your old currency into euro or only into the new currency of a expelled state? 88.14.192.178 (talk) 01:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

kitchen[edit]

(google.com.au link)

hi that world be classed as a open kitchen right thanks for the help if someone replys — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.233.148 (talk) 05:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that kitchen looks open to me. In my book any kitchen that is open to view by the customers is an open kitchen. Richard Avery (talk) 08:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Commons 3.0 vs 2.0[edit]

Flickr does not have an option to license a photo under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. The License section at the right-hand side of a photo only allows a photo to be licensed under Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.0). But in some examples, such as in this photo, the photographer has licensed their photo under both versions of CC license. I want to know how is it possible to copyright a single photo under both CC 2.0 and CC 3.0 licenses? --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 05:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you own the copyright, you can licence the work however you want, including licencing it under multiple licences (not legal advice, of course). RudolfRed (talk) 06:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Christ life[edit]

DID JESUS CHRIST HAD A WIFE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.134.102.105 (talk) 09:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Magdalene? --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 13:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General consensus (leaving aside the Christ-as-a-Myth component) is "no". Among dissenters, Mary Magdalene is probably the most common proposed wife. — Lomn 14:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you consider nuns to be brides of Christ. -- Q Chris (talk) 14:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we're well into the metaphorical at that point (and it would probably be more direct to note that the church collectively is referenced as the Bride of Christ). — Lomn 15:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in the Bible stating that He had a wife. The dangerous nature of His mission might have precluded getting married. Just like with Pony Express riders. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still grappling with the conflict between the header and the question. Is it about his life or his wife? He had a life but is said to have given it up for the salvation of mankind, so that they might all have eternal life. So, it's not "get a life" so much as "get an eternal life". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 07:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Just like with Pony Express riders" that is so funny, I think one of your best Bugs. Richard Avery (talk) 08:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... the conflict between the header and the question ... You're not married are you. :-) Mitch Ames (talk) 13:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Heh. Not anymore, fortunately. I got me a life instead. No offence, sweetheart. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Poem makes no sense to me[edit]

Is this poem supposed to make any sense? It sure doesn't to me. =_=" Can anyone explain why it sounds to queer and is written with such queer punctuation and arrangment? http://www.poetry-archive.com/c/in_just.html 117.227.35.93 (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our article, E._E._Cummings has some information in various places about his odd style of writing. You may wish to expand your range of adjectives, if you're studying poetry. You've used "queer" twice, and we can't tell if you mean "homosexual" or "odd". If the latter, it's a queer choice of words. If the former, the section on Cummings' marriages will tell you that you're incorrect. --Dweller (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Queer" is in the poem. I think older people always seem queer to younger people. Bus stop (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) See E.e._cummings#Poetry. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Metre (poetry) may help: In poetry, metre (meter in American English) is the basic rhythmic structure of a verse or lines in verse. Though I can't discern any pattern of rhyme in the linked poem "in Just- by: e.e. cummings (1894-1962)". See also Jabberwocky. - 220 of ^Borg 18:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am really out of my depth here, as I have no expertise in poetry, but poetry does not always operate on a logical, rational plane. Modern poetry in particular does not always "make sense" in a strictly logical way. It is often meant to evoke a feeling or a state of mind. I think that is the case here. I think Cummings is trying to evoke children's experience of springtime. Marco polo (talk) 19:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for his use of punctuation, spacing, etc., I think it's mostly just "weird for weirdness sake". Perhaps running together the names of "Eddie and Bill" is to show they are close friends who like to play marbles and pirates together, and "Betty and Isabel" are close friends who like to play hop-scotch and jump-rope. The description of the "baloonman" is a bit trickier. The way they change the description each time makes me think that different kids perceive him differently. I assume he sells balloons to children, as ice cream men do these days. StuRat (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For an example of highly-intelligent sounding but nonsense poetry, you might find A Classic Ode intriguing. See WP:BOLLOCKS. 58.111.178.170 (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This reminds me of the Beatles song I am the Walrus, when John Lennon, having heard how much effort people put into analysing Beatles lyrics and finding hidden messages in them, decided to purposefully write as weird and nonsensical lyrics as possible. JIP | Talk 20:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that's his point, though in all of cummings' work, playing with what the idea of poetry ought to be seems fairly implicit. Most modern poets, in my meager experience, are more concerned with how the words sound than what their strict meaning is. But I'm very much not a poetry buff or fan, so I could be very well quite wrong on this. But I think writing a poem (at least in its modern idiom) is generally speaking not an attempt to get across a whole lot of semantic meaning or information, and is usually an attempt to evoke emotions in the reader, which is a pretty different sort of endeavor. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense. It evokes springtime. It includes characters both old and young. Emphasis is placed on companionship. Frivolousness is evoked. In form it breaks convention, not being written properly, but the elements are there of a moment in time where lives intersect and where lives do not intersect but have the potential to intersect. There is no description of any interior (indoor) space—this is the outdoors, which is experienced most strongly when emerging from the indoors in the spring. Mud and puddles are present. The older "balloon-man" is "lame" and "goat-footed". But by occupation he is related to the games of the two pairs of opposite-gendered younger people. It is just an evocation of a situation that can occur annually. Bus stop (talk) 22:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not only did we have to read that poem in junior high, they even played us a tape of cummings reciting it, and even he sounded like he thought it was kind of weird. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is. Bus stop (talk) 00:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Free verse. --TammyMoet (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To just add some detail, "wee" is a play on words, I think. Following on from "far and," you can't but hear "...wide" coming. One letter is enough, but a vowel sound left trailing sounds like an evocation of the word "wide" just left unfinished. Then it is interrupted and it clearly represents we ( inclusive?), that is, we and those other dudes mentioned next. Then at the end, the reader having already been tripped twice, and alerted to the awkward parsing of the words, the simpler meaning, unfinished "wide," runs off into thin air. I think the contrast (punning use and free use), and the unexpectedness at the end, is meant to strengthen the effect of "wee" and make it linger. Just a theory. IBE (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help![edit]

I just deleted my google account 5 minutes back and then remembered I had some really important mails in there that I forgot to forward to my other mail inbox. Is there anyway I revert the change or get my data back??!! 117.227.35.93 (talk) 18:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might be able to follow these instructions, if you're quick. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch! That worked. :) I'm so glad. 117.226.178.231 (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Movie clip?[edit]

Apparently, this: http://media.photobucket.com/image/harry%20potter/Dim94/harry_potter.jpg?o= is a screenshot of the movie. But I get the feeling it's photoshopped. Can anyone verify? The sites where this crops up says nothing in particular. And I can't locate which scene this was taken from in the original movie... 117.226.178.231 (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's from Goblet of Fire and is photoshopped of course. Here is the original image (large file).--Cam (talk) 03:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, Harry Potter's arm would have to be broken to look like that. StuRat (talk) 04:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps somebody just removed the bones. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How many people are watching this particular page a day?[edit]

I have no idea at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xcvxvbxcdxcvbd (talk • contribs) 23:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, 1,840 registered editors have this page on their watchlist. That doesn't include the perhaps many others who (like me) just wander by occasionally. Deor (talk) 23:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enough to remove your stupid questions some of the time, but not enough to remove them all of the time? Adam Bishop (talk) 00:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested in the actual daily page views, see http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous. Reach Out to the Truth 00:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that page views are very different than unique visitors, especially on a participatory page like this (where I necessarily view it twice every time I write something in). My guess is less than 100 unique visitors account for those stats, but I don't really know. It is not hard to imagine that the hardcore Ref Deskers view this page at least 10 times a day. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]