April 18

are there any federal grants available to private business owners for the building of residential housing for low to moderant income seniors? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.142.191 (talk) 00:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google found me this link: [1] in less time that it probably took for you to wait for me to find the link for you. If you search google with the phrase of the thing you are looking for, you may find more than this one as well. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am try to find the name of an Australian pastry that has two different coloured creams on top . It start with N, 7 letters and the second word is tart —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.217.211.186 (talk) 02:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neenish tart. LANTZY^TALK 03:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using Wikipedia to do crosswords? Is this common on the Ref Desk? Vimescarrot (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where it is forbidden. It isn't really homework or medical advice, now is it? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's common. I cannot recall another question that was openly a crossword clue. Algebraist 19:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I can. There was a spate of them a while back. We've had posters giving us multiple clues in the same post. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So now we need a 'dyoc' template? SteveBaker (talk) 20:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if it's common. If it's suitable, we'll answer it. For example, one time I recall a request for street directions from a cellphone. ~AH1^(TCU) 00:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chess players know the rule of thumb: a bishop or knight is worth 3 pawns, a rook is worth 5 pawns, and a queen is worth 9 pawns. This rule seems to be common knowledge among chess players. Who came up with this rule? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.158.58 (talk) 08:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Chess piece relative value mentions some of the history. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth bearing in mind that the relative values concept is widely held, but players may differ as to the precise values allocated. Furthermore, the relative values can vary in a game. For instance, a pair of knights on a congested board are worth far more than a pair of bishops, especially if one bishop is hemmed in by pawns on same-coloured squares. --Dweller (talk) 09:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• On the other hand. On wide open boards, a bishop pair is more valuable. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The whole concept is rather vague, but it is a useful tool, especially for a beginner. --Dweller (talk) 11:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Is that always the case? In an open board, if you have 2 knights and your opponent has 2 bishops, would you trade a knight and a pawn for one of his bishops often? Just asking - I like knights. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On an open board, I might consider giving up a knight and pawn for a bishop, but I'd far rather give up just the knight :-) --Dweller (talk) 09:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember who said it, but I like this: "My favorite (chess) piece is the one that wins the game." DOR (HK) (talk) 03:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing how the reference desk here often gets weird queries, I'm just wondering if any library reference desk workers have written books or otherwise talked about all the stragne queries they've gotten.

Now, granted, the anonymity of the Internet has to have added some - I doubt that people ever called librarians asking about genitals and such - but some of the others on here, and some of the medical and legal advice asked, is the kind of stuff I imagine they could have gotten in bygone days. And, some of those dummies who call 911 with routine things.

Speaking of which, if you have a concern that is not life-threatening and doesn't require the police, PLEASE use Wikipedia or your local library, so those in more need get help they need. Pass it on.209.244.30.221 (talk) 11:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On LibraryThing there are discussion thread detailing funny requests from patrons and creepy requests. Also intriguing is odd things found in the library and strange bookmarks. meltBanana 12:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't imagine there's anything that a veteran librarian hasn't been asked! [Former NYC public librarian here.] Telephone reference librarians are particularly susceptible to the sex question. I remember giving out definitions to some heavy-breathing questioners ... But my favorite was the genial fellow who came up to the desk, hands cupped in front of him, and asked, "Can you tell me what's wrong with this [large, live] bird?" (We couldn't.) Catrionak (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It depends what you think is weird. I came across a website about a village, run by one person (who presumably lives there). One page is entitled "strangest requests", and many of them don't seem all that weird to me. [2]. Maybe he doesn't know the answers, but that doens't make the questioner wrong for asking. BrainyBabe (talk) 01:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My sister works in a library, sometimes at the reference desk. She says they routinely get calls for driving directions. So far I've only seen that once on Wikipedia. Pfly (talk) 05:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to think of the name of that old movie about reference desk people (I think at a newspaper) who get replaced by a computer...It's old enough that they still called the computer "an electronic brain". There were lots of examples of silly/impossible questions in there (which, needless to say, the humans get right). I think it's instructive. SteveBaker (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're thinking of Desk Set. —D. Monack ^talk 21:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Desk Set! The cinematic Bible of telephone reference librarians. Although it bothered me when Katharine Hepburn answered questions off the top of her head without citing a source. Well, I guess she is Kate, the one and only. Catrionak (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I worked in a medical library, but not as a reference librarian. Once when the reference librarians had left for the day someone called to ask if dogs have bones in their penises. They do. I had to look it up... I have no idea if that was considered a weird question at the time. --Moni3 (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For a veterinary library, fair enough, but for a medical library? Weird request! (On seoncd thought, maybe after hours all the city's reflibs act for each other, with crisis cover, like the system of exchanges between embassies to help thecitizens of friendly nations if their country doesn't have diplomatic representation there. So if the architecure refdesk is closed, just go ahead and ask the accounting refddsk which building was the first to have an elevator.) BrainyBabe (talk) 02:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey everyone, just wondering if anyone has any idea what this plant is? It's some sort of succulent or cactus, with a fleshy, triangular stem with a row of thorns and small leaves on each corner. I've had it about two years and the main stem is 38" from soil to tip, with a lot of smaller substems coming off it. As far as I'm aware, it hasn't flowered.

Any ideas would be gratefully received! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 13:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been identified as Euphorbia trigona by a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 14:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I got mine like this it was called dragon bone plant. I have seen it grow to about 5 meters high, a small tree, but not in a flower pot. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Few people i guess would admit it, but i think most of us secretly enjoy smelling our own farts. Why is that exactly? I am trying to understand the psychology behind it. Does it have something to do with the fact that we are pleased to have removed this gas from our bodies or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.186.6 (talk) 14:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hate smelling my own farts, it's horrible. I just despise the smell of any fart/fecal related substance. Now petrol, there's a nice smell that I can't get enough of.--Deceit from wherevermore (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's an evolutionary adaptation to allow us to check how our digestion is going? TastyCakes (talk) 17:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may find the answers to these similar questions helpful [3] [4] 8I.24.07.715 ^talk 18:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The smell of my emissions varies quite a lot, with diet or so I assume. Maybe your diet is such that your farts are consistently relatively inoffensive, at least to you. Do great apes use poop to mark territory? If so, one's own smell may carry a comforting sense of 'home'. —Tamfang (talk) 04:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How did the producers of the films make the actors playing the hobbits appear so short? There are times when the faces of the actors are clearly visible with other characters in the movie, and they still appear short in comparison. How?130.127.99.54 (talk) 16:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you get the DVDs, they explain a lot of the tricks they used. Quite a bit of it is done by putting certain people in holes or others on top of crates to get the heights right. Also, a lot of forced perspective was used. Dismas|^(talk) 16:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a section on this at Special_effects_of_The_Lord_of_the_Rings_film_trilogy#Scale which mentions forced perspective as Dismas notes. I think a bigger problem was that the guy who acted as Gimli was one of the tallest actors in the movie. Apparently kneeling was an effective tool. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the stuff in the article, the DVD commentaries also mention that they used extremely tall people in some scenes to make hobbits seem smaller (as they enter the Prancing Pony, the guy who cuts in front of them was some basketball player or something). They also used midgets. Peter Jackson said (again, in the DVD) that it was important to use as many different methods as they could; using only forced-perspective, say, or midgets, would eventually lead to people seeing through the trick. Along that same line, they also tried to use the "wrong" method for a particular scene. For example, in the scene where Frodo and Gandalf are riding on his cart, they used Elijah and a very large man for the embrace, but switched to forced perspective on the moving cart, which was extremely difficult to do. But, because people would probably expect a differently sized double or maybe a computer simulation, it was important to not do that and so appear more realistic. Matt Deres (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's useful stuff. You should consider adding to the article (you can use ((Cite video))) if the DVD commentary counts as a secondary source. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember right, McKellen (Gandalf) embraced a midget, and the giant at the Pony was mostly a dummy (the actor's head was inside a false torso). — I was struck by how rarely the hobbits seemed small to me when not touching someone else. —Tamfang (talk) 04:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should we be using the word "midget"? Just a thought. Kingsfold (talk) 18:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to Encyclopedia Dramatica and search for "dat ass" you will see a page about this 4chan meme, generally involving variations on a black guy with sunglasses, probably a rapper or something, and I suspect that 'dat ass' is like a lyric in a song... can you tell me please where it comes from and what exactly is the parody reference? Thanks.--Deceit from wherevermore (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The original seems to be this, and the term "dat ass" is pretty common place. I don't recall seeing this since before about July 08, probably there is no more back story to it than that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.169 (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, precisely who is the man in that picture you just linked me to?--Deceit from wherevermore (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I was forced to guess, I'd go with Jamie Foxx.--droptone (talk) 20:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'd recommend trying 4chan's request board.--droptone (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elsewhere someone said it's Rich Boy. —Tamfang (talk) 04:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]