May 9

If you can name the type of rose on this Flickr picture (taken be me). I was thinking Rosa centifolia or epcot rose. I really have no idea to be honest. Jolly Ω Janner 00:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some Hybrid Tea. But there are lots of varieties and they breed new ones every year. 71.236.24.129 (talk) 01:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not worth a barnstar. Anon there blew off your barnstar in the most casual way possible. Tempshill (talk) 03:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep barnstars for worthy effort not as bait for quick (but not necessarily accurate) answers. 86.4.190.83 (talk) 06:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leave barnstar positive reinforcement to the discretion of the awarder.68.148.149.184 (talk) 09:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had not realized that the ref desk turned into a competition site. I thought s.o. was genuinely looking for an answer and might be helped by getting a possible direction to look in. If the award committee above checked my summary they'd see that I'm aware it's not a comprehensive answer. 71.236.24.129 (talk) 09:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your answer was fine. I agree - there is no way for anyone who isn't a total rose-geek to stand a hope in hell of getting the breed right - and even total rose-geeks are going to need more than a photograph. The issue is the OP's offering of a barnstar - this isn't a generally liked practice - we don't have any rules about it - but I encourage our OP to leave out the up-front offer and restrict her/himself to awarding a BS on the talk page of anyone who you think gives an especially good answer. Over-use of barnstars cheapens them - and there is no way that a regular answer on the RD rises to that level. Save your awards for occasions where a respondant goes "above and beyond the call of duty" to find an answer for you. If someone walks 5 miles through a snowstorm to get to their local library to search the gardening section text books to find your answer...by all means, give them a barnstar! SteveBaker (talk) 14:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "positive reinforcement" in this case. It's a bounty. A silly one too. Moreover, this section doesn't have a descriptive name. APL (talk) 14:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess I'm not going to find the name of it. I'll just upload it and call it a pink rose. Thanks anyway. Jolly Ω Janner 12:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - I think that's your best option. SteveBaker (talk) 14:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why does atheism seem to be so prevalent online? I get that a lot of people are just trolling and know that attacking someone's faith will really get to them, but atheists (even discounting trolls) seem to heavily outnumber the religious online, despite being the minority in most of the world. Any ideas why? 86.8.176.85 (talk) 05:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well they have loads of spare time because they're not wasting it praying... --TammyMoet (talk) 08:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:). Also, they might be more "educated" or "enlightened" so as to use a more "intellectual" (for the lack of a better term, and please give me one, lol) medium of pastime.

Also, a lot of people are nominally religious. That means by name only.68.148.149.184 (talk) 09:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it appears to you that atheists heavily outnumber the religious online, you are almost certainly being affected by Selection bias. In other words, this perception may be caused by the ratios of those who frequent the same sites you frequent, while not being representative of the population as a whole. Still, there are reasons why atheists may be over-represented online. Those with higher incomes tend to have and use greater access to the internet.[1] There is a strong correlation between education level and income level,[2] and a correlation between atheism and education level. Finally, there is a strong correlation between wealth and a lack of religious beliefs. In other words, computer users are more likely than the general population to be wealthier, more educated and atheist. Also, the perception of online privacy (user names and aliases) allows people to express things online that they would never tell their neighbors ("I'm atheist"). In the end, though, the religious heavily outweigh the atheists online. 152.16.59.190 (talk) 09:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

from my experience the more vocal religious people stick to religion themed websites, or sites which support their views. atheists or religious people who don't push it in your face all the time are indistinguishable for the most part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.169 (talk) 11:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on irreligion lists data from a recent Gallup poll, which seem to imply that atheists (in a loose terminology) are the majority in developed Christian nations. The USA appears to be the only major country where religion "is important". --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 13:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - if our OP is from the USA, then a skewed view of the ways of the world is the likely problem here. In the UK, people who are actually practicing religion are relatively rare. In the US, it's MUCH more common. When you go online, suddenly you're yanked out of your local culture and dumped into the big wide world. Even if you don't live in the USA, if you are a religious person then it's likely that you tend to hang out with other religious people - and that too will bias your world-view. So that's likely to be the main reason. However, there is good evidence (see, for example [3], [4], [5]) that even in the USA, people with higher IQ levels - and especially people with scientific/engineering leanings have a much higher chance of being atheists. Those are the very people you meet more often online (especially here on Wikipedia).

Anyway - we have LOTS of articles for you: Religiosity and intelligence, Demographics of religion, Demographics of atheism, Irreligion. SteveBaker (talk) 14:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to what was discussed above, your definition of "Atheist" may be very broad. How do you know someone is an atheist? Are you assuming that everyone who believes in evolution is an atheist? Are you assuming that everyone who criticizes organized religion is atheist? Are you assuming that anyone who criticizes "Bible Thumpers" is an atheist? All of those assumptions are very wrong. APL (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the OP may find that people of all belief systems are very prevalent on the internet. One example. Signed, an atheist. Avnas Ishtaroth _{drop me a line} 12:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's because the people you meet online are more representative of the world than the people you meet in your community (i.e. in real life)? There are some one billion people who are more or less officially atheist in just one country. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Chinese are officially atheist, then "official" doesn't mean squat. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually we have something called Chinese folk religion, but it's quite different to the judeo-christian definition of "religion" and so would appear atheist. --antilived^{T | C | G} 10:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Bengali calender, the birthday of Rabindranath Tagore is on 25th Baisakh (the bengali month), and according to the Christian calender, it's on 7th May. So why don't the two dates coincide every year? For example, this year, 7th May was two days before 25th Baisakh. Why does this discrepancy occur? Shouldn't the two dates fall on the same day, as the number of days that pass between them each year is always 365?? 117.194.224.143 (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Bengali calendar explains this more carefully - but basically, the Bengali month is based around the position of the moon - so the lengths of the months varies from year to year. Also, the arrangements for taking care of leap years is a bit different from the Gregorian calendar. I recommend reading our article to get the exact details. SteveBaker (talk) 16:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article says the names of the months are taken from those of the "lunar mansions", but the lengths of the months clearly show that they are not lunar. —Tamfang (talk) 02:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to find out the significance of the roses and vine design on the brim of fire helmets. There doesn't seem to be any mention of them, yet it exists on many helmets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.173.166 (talk) 16:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do You have a photo?91.109.202.119 (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I knew what the OP was talking about - but when I did an image search, it was really hard to find a fire helmet with this kind of pattern on the brim. However, I think what we're talking about is here, here, here, here and here - in all cases, it's some kind of a flower with black petals on the front of the 'crest' - not on the brim. SteveBaker (talk) 17:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "rose" looks suspiciously like an idealised St. Florian´s cross (St. Florian being the patron saint of the fire fighters). A few web sites support this theory. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds very believable. I'm bothered by the fact that we have yet to find an image with the design on the brim of the hat. SteveBaker (talk) 22:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want to get a particular artist's painting to hang in my home. I am not a multimillionaire so I will have to settle for a reproduction but I do not want an amateurish piece of garbage. There are well made prints available, in the range of $70, but I want an actual painting. I have found a number of sites online that have (or will paint) paintings by the artist I am after. These are advertised as fine quality hand painted oil reproductions done to order (though the catalogue of what they paint is set of course, since I assume they do some sort of paint by the numbers system). The prices are in the $500 range unframed. The larger the size the more expensive, with smaller painting in the $350 range and largest in the $800 range. So my question is, does anyone have any experience with such services and the quality of their work? Obviously, since I'm not posting any links (don't want this to look like spam in disguise) you can't tell me whether the particular ones I have found are okay, but I'm looking for other's general experiences, if any, with these types of services. By the way, I admit that the title of this post doesn't really quite grok, but I'm a Dick fan and couldn't resist.—70.19.69.27 (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're a fan of dicks? How horrific. And 'grok' means 'spit out phlegm' in British English, so I have no idea what you mean.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Grok," among people who've read Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land means to thoroughly understand something, or in the present context, something "groks" if it makes a lot of sense. "Dick" refers to Philip K. Dick, another science fiction writer. Also, being a fan of Dick's isn't at all horrific, depending on the context. I like to think that anyone in a sexual relationship with a man is a fan of at least one dick.... -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt the OP means he/she is a fan of a fast food restaurant in Seattle. Anyway, let's stop this debacle and let the question be answered. He/she is obviously in need of help (hence, asking the question).--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 21:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confessions of a Crap Artist by Philip K. Dick is what our OP is alluding to. SteveBaker (talk) 16:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might help if you told us who the artist in question is. An inexpensive copy of a Mondrian painting, for instance, is likely to be more satisfactory than one of a Botticelli painting. Deor (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The artist in question is the superlative Maxfield Parrish. I must admit that including cryptic (to some) literary allusions that can be misinterpreted as the mildly perverse is a great deal of fun and is always intentional. For a few examples (of Parrish paintings; not of intentional-cryptic-literary-allusions-that-can-be-misinterpreted-as-the-mildly-perverse), see here, here, here and here.—70.19.69.27 (talk) 00:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One solution might be to see if there is a university or graphic arts college nearby and see if one of their students might be able to do it for you. One way a copy can be made is by taking a slide photograph of the original, projecting that onto a canvas and then copying the image. I guess these days they might even do it with a digital image and projector. If you buy it online, make sure to read the seller reviews and check their return policy. If it says you can't return it, stay away. If it's from abroad check with customs. 71.236.24.129 (talk) 06:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are artist factories here in China where scores of pretty good artists punch the clock each morning and start in on another Mona Lisa. Perhaps a search for reproductions and China might yield some results. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise against getting the "oil reproduction" you mentioned. It is just a fake, probably not very good and shoddily done, and that kind of thing is both inauthentic and in very bad taste. It would be worse than a print. MPs pictures were, I think, made to appear in magazines. I would suggest seeing if you can get hold of one of these original magazines and framing the relevant page. Otherwise find a detailed image of one of his paintings on the internet, print it out in high quality, and frame that. At least have it on your wall for a couple of months to see how you feel about it. You might want to ask somewhere that does giclee or other large high-quality prints to print the image for you. 78.151.156.193 (talk) 23:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I've often heard people claim that New Zealand has an example of every kind of landscape possible (eg. rainforest, desert, tundra, etc). This is pretty obviously bollocks as it doesn't take long to come up with counter examples (I'd be interested in yours too, btw). But my real question is, where did this rumour start, or why or when or any information you may have on this topic.

Thanks for your help, diligent ref deskers.

Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• For such a small island, if NZ actually has all of that it's kinda interesting. But yeah, many coastal mainlands will have a wide range of landforms. Where exactly does NZ have "tundra"? If you mean permafrost mountain, I'm not sure that qualifies as tundra. In fact... what landform, save a continent, has all of those features? Shadowjams (talk) 10:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, I thought it was kinda interesting too. A quick search says that NZ has tundra here and subantarctic islands of NZ also List of tundra ecoregions. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 13:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it's not the first reference, but I first heard it from someone associated with producing the Lord of the Rings movies, perhaps Peter Jackson, talking about why they chose to film in NZ. Steewi (talk) 01:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lets see what we can do.

• Desert: For example, Rangipo Desert, which has varied terrain, seen more clearly here and [6] [7] (used for much LoTR filming), eg. gate to Mordor)
• Tundra: as noted above. See also Antipodes Subantarctic Islands tundra and the Montane grasslands and shrublands found in Central Otago and the Southern Alps.
• Rainforest: see NZ rainforests, and various images.
• Cultivate pine forest: [8]
• Snow-clad mountains: see Southern Alps
• Volcanic: see Volcanism in New Zealand
• Geothermal: see particularly Rotorua and these images
• Pastoral: throughout, but see images
• Lakelands: http://www.southernlakes.org/
• Great lake; eg. Lake Taupo
• Coast: soft and pretty: [9] wild and windy: [10]
• also: (examples) glaciers; fiords; wetlands, surf; skifields; urban

What else do you want? (By the way, I don't think Peter Jackson was claiming NZ was unique in having great variation, but just that it was all within easy reach of his studio, which is desirable for a film maker.) Also, Shadowjams, NZ is not really "such a small island". It's a group of islands, totalling 268,680 km², which makes it larger than the United Kingdom, and 155 other countries. So that it should have varied terrain is not all that remarkable. Gwinva (talk) 22:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention beautiful, quiet and a source of great wine.DOR (HK) (talk) 03:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a product that claims if you plug it into the wall, it will either kill bugs or prevent them from coming inside. How does this work and what is this product called? I believe I saw an infomercial for this. --67.85.117.190 (talk) 19:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean this?--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 21:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, that is a UK site, but the plug is clearly from Spain.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a normal Europlug used (between Lisbon and Vladivostok, but excluding the UK) for all appliances which do not need to be grounded. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The product emits some kind of ultrasonic whine that is imperceptible to humans and allegedly affects bugs. No idea whether it works or not. Tempshill (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are two varieties. The version Temshill describes [11] and a version that heats a pad that is soaked in a substance that then is vaporized e.g. [12]. This can be either an Essential oil like Cedar Citronella Litsea cubeba or Lavender or a bug repellent like Pyrethrum Permethrin, DEET. Or even a pesticide. For outdoors there's also a unit that electrocutes bugs [13]. (Don't use it indoors it produces ozone.) As far as effectiveness is concerned I have no idea to what percentage any of them are wishful thinking and placebo and to what degree there actually is an effect. (OR I have a sonic repeller plugged in an outlet and we still occasionally get bugs in that room. Some of them just don't seem to mind the buzz.) 71.236.24.129 (talk) 05:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK we have this 'no smoking in the workplace' bollocks. Would that include people who test cigarettes (like wine-tasters or chocolate tasters)?--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no. Library Seraph (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a specific exemption for trying out pipe tobacco or cigars in a specialist shop before making a purchase. I don't remember anything else likely to apply to a professional tobacco taster 93.97.184.230 (talk) 21:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They could go outside if there isn't an exception made for them. --Tango (talk) 21:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I personally quite enjoy the liberty of not having cancer forced on me every time I go to a public place. Following on from the OP's question, how does this apply to actors? Are they exempt? I've seen them smoking on TV. Vimescarrot (talk) 04:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I personally quite enjoy the liberty of not having people hassle me (personally, without reason) when I smoke outdoors in the United States. Do you, personally, have any information about the regulations governing smoking in the United Kingdom? Deor (talk) 05:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actors use fake 'puff' cigarettes. See [14] for an example. Exxolon (talk) 05:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The UK smoking ban also has an exemption for actors where "the artistic integrity of a performance makes it appropriate" to smoke. 93.97.184.230 (talk) 09:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - Let's keep the passive aggressive politics out of this. Shadowjams (talk) 10:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no. The English (and Welsh) smoking ban has an exception for theatrical performances. The Scottish smoking ban does not. http://www.whatsonstage.com/index.php?pg=207&story=E8821183383971 --ColinFine (talk) 15:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt there are any cigarette manufacturers left in the UK - that being the case, the question of how they'd "test" the product may be entirely academic. SteveBaker (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to this map Imperial Tobacco have at least one cigarette factory (probably in Nottingham) and one "other tobacco product factory" in the UK. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benson & Hedges springs to mind. According to the article they are still manufactured in the UK, even though they have become a subsid of Japan Tobacco.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just manufacturers that need to test things, though. Buyers do as well. Tobacco products are certainly sold in the UK, those sellers must decide what to sell somehow. --Tango (talk) 10:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If by "buyers" you mean the ultimate customers, I'd have thought that they'd have to actually buy a minimal quantity of the product in question and try it (at home). If you mean the Buyers employed by product stockists to choose new lines of product for retail outlets, then they are likely to make a decision based mostly on the marketing package offered by the manufacturers. Similarly, when I was the Paperback Buyer for a Bookshop, I didn't have to read all or any of the hundreds of new titles published every month in order to decide which to stock. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 04:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the latter. I know buyers for things like chocolate (for places like Harrods, perhaps not for places that sell cheap chocolate!) spend a lot of time tasting them. Similarly for expensive coffee, tea, etc. I expect good quality pipe tobacco is tested before being stocked, a pack of 10 Marlboro probably isn't, though. --Tango (talk) 14:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And from today's Daily Star we have a story about a pub that has declared itself a "Smoking Research Centre" to allow people to smoke indoors. Nanonic (talk) 11:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Damn! I was just about to post the BBC version myself, which actually partly answers my question, because it says there is the 'The Smoke-Free (Exemptions and Vehicles) Regulations 2007', especially for research into smoking.--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 07:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot get the bolt out of the crankshaft pulley. manual just says "remove bolt" was told it was left handed bolt. on line searches have conflicted. some say left, some right. have broken 1/2" extensions, impact wrenches, ratchet adapters,and bent breaker bars. I have tried heating bolt, whacking with hammer. NO JOY. it would surely help to know for sure witch way the bolt comes out. thank heaven I have not stripped the crank threads yet. really need some help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.0.131.213 (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know which way you should turn the bolt to undo it, but if you look at which way the crankshaft turns it won't undo that bolt. If you are still unsure, why not ask at your local car repairers. One thing to note however, anything bolted to the crankshaft is tightened to as very high torque (when I worked on my father's car many years ago, it was the tightest bolt on the entire car), so are you sure you are applying enough torque to undo it? Astronaut (talk) 02:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Penetrating oil is probably the answer here. Go to your local car parts store and you'll find a dozen different brands - soak everything in the goop - marinate the thing overnight - try several different brands - one may do what you need. What worries me is that if you have broken tools while trying to extract it while not understanding which direction to turn it, you may well have been tightening it beyond the torque limits it's designed for. I would go to a Honda dealership - and ask to buy one of those bolts - when the guy brings it to you, you can look at the thread direction and say "Nah - I changed my mind"! When all else fails - you may just have to drill it out. SteveBaker (talk) 16:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]