October 3

is there any creatures from urban legend or myth, like bigfoot, chupa cabra, that was proven to exist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.82.129 (talk) 00:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not yeti, maybe later. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The giant squid comes to mind. The cameleopard, once associated with other supposed chimeras (mythical beasts that are amalgamations of two or more actual animals), might be said to be another example. John M Baker (talk) 00:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See shetani and the many Zanzibaris who have been sodomised by Popo Bawa. μηδείς (talk) 00:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We also find trolls on a daily basis..... KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dragons. The bones people thought were from dragons were from dinosaurs, and some dinosaurs were pretty dragonish. Apart from the fire breathing bit. Cliko (talk) 04:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also Griffins, now thought to be based on fossils of Protoceratops found in what used to be Scythia, and Cyclops, possibly inspired by fossil skulls of Dwarf elephants which used to inhabit various Mediterranean islands. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.215 (talk) 07:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Cryptozoology.

—Wavelength (talk) 04:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WPHAAOE Prokhorovka (talk) 07:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Okapi, the Giant panda and the gorilla come to mind. They were stuff of legend to Europeans at least. Googlemeister (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, that reminds me of Griffons which turned out to be Protoceratops skeletons. See Dzungarian Gate. μηδείς (talk) 16:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The IP four posts above you already thought of the Protoceratops, Medeis. I suppose the pygmies are more a case of naming several real peoples after an imaginary race from Greek mythology, but there's always the black swan, which used to be a figure of speech for any impossible thing until they were discovered in Australia. --Antiquary (talk) 18:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The same IP insinuated his comment within existing posts and didn't indent. Off with his head. μηδείς (talk) 19:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did so because my post was not a reply to that immediately preceding, but a contribution at the same level and continuing the same theme: in my estimation the second, third and fourth replies were unnecessarily indented, but as long as no ambiguosity results, maybe it's not such a big deal. Anyway, apologies for pre-emptively plagiarising your post :-) . {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.78.36 (talk) 14:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's the platypus, which has always been real, but the British thought it so unlikely that they believed the colonials had assembled the specimen from parts of other animals. For a while there, its European status was legendary. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely. How proud I must feel to be from a country of idiots. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And birds-of-paradise which first arrived in Europe stuffed without legs leading people to conclude that it must have flown endlessly without ever alighting... and the only place they can possibly do that, is in paradise. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 05:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly (well, to me, anyway) they were already primed to accept legless birds: there was a widespread belief that swallows and swifts had no legs and never alighted on the ground, hence the common heraldic charge of the legless (and sometimes beakless) Martlet. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.78.36 (talk) 14:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do Martlets land on their beaks? ;) Don't forget the swans from goose barnacles thing, as well. heh -- Obsidi♠n Soul 21:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A week or 2 ago I provided citations in which scientists expressed doubts that gorillas really existed, insisting that reports of gorilla sightings were probably exaggerations of smaller apes such as chimps. Edison (talk) 14:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A similar scenario played out much more recently with the Bili ape. Early reports were, I recall, largely discounted by primatologists. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.78.36 (talk) 14:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_megafauna_discovered_in_modern_times#Megafauna_initially_believed_to_have_been_fictitious_or_hoaxes is interesting. The Okapi is the primary example here. It used to be considered a myth. It was sometimes called "The african unicorn". Now they've got them in zoos. APL (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Narwhal? (Believed to be an unicorn) Okapi? (So strange looking that the explorers thought the indigenous people were describing a mythical animal, and refused to believe it existed until a dead one was produced!) Harley Spleet (talk) 15:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I purchased this snack on a beach from a street vendor in Gisenyi, Rwanda.

http://imgur.com/SUM1W

The white thing tasted sort of like a combination of rice and Rhubarb with a very sticky and gel-like consistency similar to the chinese Zongzi. It tasted bitter. The package on the left is a pack of salted peanuts. Initially, I just took the white thing and ate it it by itself. Everyone on the beach laughed at me and started staring like as if I was, for example, eating just mayonnaise by itself for something. The vendor came up to me and handed me the pack of peanut and demonstrated to me that i should eat both at the same time.

Does anyone know the english name of these combo of snack and why it was so funny that I wasn't eating it with the peanuts? thanks Acceptable (talk) 05:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Might be ugali/fufu/nshima or similar starch-based African staples? They don't seem to be eaten alone as they are basically flavorless.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 08:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. I've looked around the Web at African vendor foods, and can't find anything similar. Seems like the peanuts would be a dead give away. Are you sure they weren't playing a trick on a gullible tourist? I'll bet you a dollar I can tell you where you got those shoes your wearing. :) Quinn ^{❀ BEAUTIFUL DAY} 02:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How to find a girlfriend? Can you help me? -Ewigekrieg (talk) 08:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're on a computer. Try computer dating. Or, real-life dating. For example, find a single girl and ask her, "may I buy you coffee/lunch/dinner?" Then talk to her. If a friendship doesn't happen, try someone else. 69.171.160.45 (talk) 08:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Get off the computer. Visit real places where you think a woman you might like to meet would "hang out". Bars are not ideal, and it is best to be sober so that you will make the right decisions and say the right things. Your age and social status will also come into play; sometimes it helps to bring a friend, sometimes it is better to be alone, it depends on the situation. There are also several different strategies you can employ. For example, if you have a cute sister who has a friend, you can bring them along to a coffee shop and hang out and read or use your smartphone/notebook/tablet. Pretty soon, you'll find women checking you out and you'll get an opportunity to say something. This is because women are highly social, and it is much easier to meet them in groups, as they feel more comfortable seeing you surrounded by other people, even other women, as it shows you have social skills and aren't some kind of creepy serial killer. This is why single men by themselves usually don't get hit on, but when they are with other women or men, the odds go up. Sometimes when you double up, such as going out with two men and two women you aren't dating, but are just friends, that will attract a lot of attention and will give you multiple opportunities to talk to other ladies. Keep yourself well-groomed, stay relaxed, and most important, be yourself and smile. Here is something that will definitely work, but you need to be very careful using it: sit down and ask yourself what you are looking for in a woman. Make a list. Ask yourself why you want a girlfriend. Really think about it for a few days. Then, before you go to sleep, envision the kind of woman you want to meet. Really visualize it in your mind and see yourself talking to her and having a conversation. Do this for a few days. Then, forget about it completely. What you want to do is get this woman in your mind so that you're not even thinking about it, so that when you do finally meet her, you will know exactly what to say and what to do without thinking about it. Again, I warn you this technique is very powerful, so please use it carefully and with great respect. Good luck. Viriditas (talk) 09:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Way back when I was in college, (in the US), back when there were "girlfriends" and "dates" rather than hookups and relationships and "friends with benefits," it was a common practice for some foreign students (Arabs, commonly) to simply approach American girls and inquire "Do you have a boyfriend?" without any preliminaries or beating around the bush. Certainly they got lots of cold rejections, but with the least persistence they soon had a girlfriend,(or girlfriends) who was curious, bored with not having a boyfriend, or whatever. One group of American students went from their (guys) dorm) to a girls dorm and serenaded the ladies, who came running downstairs to meet the guys, and some pairing off occurred due to the mutual interest. Interest in members of the opposite sex was common among both genders. Us guys were shocked when a delegation of girls from an all girls dorm said "You should realize that we feel exactly the same way you guys do." (Interest in the same sex was slightly less common among both genders). Some guys launched into long, carefully planned strategies to invite some girl from a class to a "study session" or to work on a project or lab report, carrying on the careful strategy long past the point when the girl was wondering when the guy was ever going to ask her out. Some guys took jobs as bartenders, and found it was an amazing way to get lots of dates. Edison (talk) 20:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep yourself well-groomed, stay relaxed, and most important, be yourself and smile." -very important indeed, also don't be creepy. This means do not come on too strongly too fast, and don't ask weird questions like questions about her feet. Also don't rant about Starwars or Libertarianism, show her your gun collection, and definitely do not tell her you edit wikipedia. Telling a girl these things early on will make a girl think you are weird, save it until you know her better, unless of course she comes out first as a huge starwars fan.

If your problem is just finding women, than you just need to get out more. You could try joining a club, like a gun club or an astronomy club, you could take up a co-ed sport, or get a puppy (excuse to go for walks and it starts conversations with other dog owners)(though only if you love puppies too). Public awareness (talk) 20:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If a girl on an initial date mentions Wikipedia, then it is probably ok to mention how many edits you have and how many articles created. Edison (talk) 02:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you don't know women very well. It could very well be a trap to see if you are a loser with no life who spends his time arguing about Pokemon articles. The best answer is, "Sorry, I don't have very much time for the Internet, as I'm busy taking care of my sick grandmother and walking her dog in between volunteering for the Special Olympics." Instant date! :) Viriditas (talk) 03:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except the OP said they wanted a girlfriend. That's not necessarily a great strategy if you want more than one date since it potentially won't take long to realise you were bullshiting Nil Einne (talk) 03:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Er, it was clearly a joke. Lighten up, Francis. Viriditas (talk) 03:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Er, it was clearly a joke. Lighten up, Francis." Nil Einne (talk) 03:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And don't limit yourself to girls. There's a whole nother 3.5 billion guys out there, some of whom are available. μηδείς (talk) 20:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a bad idea to me. Not the guy bit, that's up to the OP but 3.5 billion guys means nearly the entire world population of males. According to [1] about 945 million of the worlds males are under 15. The OP hasn't mentioned their age but presuming they are around 18+ I would urge strong caution with dating someone 14 years or younger and definitely someone under 12 would be a bad idea. It may not be illegal unless you have sex (and even then in some countries it may not be for a 14 year old) but socially it's likely to be rather problematic. And no, it doesn't matter whether they consider themselves available. On the other hand, if the OP is particularly young say one of those 14 year olds (which they probably shouldn't reveal on WP) then again dating some 18 years old or older is likely to be rather problematic. Nil Einne (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How good of you to clarify that, of the 3.5 Billion guys out there, some of whom are available, some are not available. Sorry that wasn't clear. μηδείς (talk) 21:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My point is it doesn't matter whether they are available. Socially it's a bad idea to date them in a number of countries including Germany and the US. You have to consider factors other then whether a person is available and age is definitely one of them (for males and females). You original comment seemed to imply any of the 3.5 billion who were available would be acceptable dating targets. Nil Einne (talk) 21:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it would be silly for me to include toddlers and the comatose as "available" simple because they wer not wed, but, in any case, I am sure you have saved our victim a lot of trouble by clarifying issues.μηδείς (talk) 03:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing the point. I'm not talking about anyone who is not wed as available. And besides a person who is wed may be available in some cases. I'm talking about someone who considered themselves available and is upfront and honest about the current situation which would generally be the best definition of someone being available. Using some other definition of available is a bit silly. A comatose person by definition can't considered themselves available. A toddler too. A 12 year old and 14 year old arguably could. If you for some reason don't want to date someone who is available that's your choice and sometimes a smart one, it doesn't mean they weren't available. Nil Einne (talk) 03:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing what I know now, were I able to go back in time and counsel myself on this subject, I would focus on two things: 1: Don't be afraid of rejection; and 2: Don't listen to your friends. Quinn ^{❀ BEAUTIFUL DAY} 02:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarrely enough, my experience has been it's best to steal her from a friend. But not being afraid of rejection, not being overly nervous (i.e., drink enough but not too much), and not listening to your friends is also good advice. (The last falls right in with stealing your best friend's girl.)

Take heart. I have a close friend who was a mid-twenties virgin until I had him shag a prostitute. He he's a skinny guy with a small endowment and horrible teeth. And he spends all his time now talking about how the only thing worse than his ex is the girl that's stalking him now on the streets and facebook. μηδείς (talk) 03:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, dating advice and internet. Seems like a bad combo. All I can say is it can often be a case of being in the right place at the right time. I know that's how I got mine, (boy was I in the right place). As Medeis says, watch out for crazy chicks. My bro is currently dating one, possible BB. You know when she says for you to put spending time with her over med school exams, she's too needy and possibly self-absorbed. My girl tells/demands/forces me to study whenever I have an exam or test and drops whatever she is doing the moment she hears I have any problem I need help with (and she's got some very big responsibilities). Not that I don't support her and have her fulfill her responsibilities of course. That's the kind of girl you're looking for, mate. Beautiful, extremely intelligent, ambitious, kind, driven, Israeli and bisexual. In fact, try Israeli women, they tend to have excellent personalities. That is my advice. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 6 Tishrei 5772 03:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC) Might I also add (and I apologise as this will probably sound sexist) that they usually dispense with a lot of the bullshit and games that you can experience with some American (and, in my experience, Chilean) women. 03:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before anyone takes the above advice, I recommend reading divorce law around the world very carefully. Viriditas (talk) 03:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You sound like my mother when she first heard that I have a foreign gf. The guy is looking for a girlfriend not a wife. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 6 Tishrei 5772 03:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, you're right. In any case, I was making a bad joke about green cards. Viriditas (talk) 03:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, apologies for my overreaction, but you see now how I reacted when she said that to me. Of course marriage is definitely on the table for this one. I would recommend, in the case of Israelis, that if you want to marry and you're really worried about that sort of thing then become easily become a citizen by the Law of Return (if you qualify); of course that would entail three years of IDF service and an ulpan, but it's a good experience at least. :p Of course, you should be able to spot danger signs long before marriage (again, unless you're my brother). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 6 Tishrei 5772 04:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's the divorce rate in Israel? Viriditas (talk) 04:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to this depressing sounding site, 15.7% in 2002 [2] Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 6 Tishrei 5772 04:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

15% is depressing? That beats the 50% or so the US seems to have. Googlemeister (talk) 14:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not that, the fact that it is Divorce Magazine. There's so few 'cause Israelis generally make good wives (they make it so you don't have to do anything thinking or make any decisions on your own anymore. :p) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 6 Tishrei 5772 22:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No wonder she likes you! You have a great sense of humor! Women love that. :) Viriditas (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point of my mentioning my formerly girlfriendless friend, now troubled both by an ex- and a stalker, was not to warn against women wackjobs, but to point out that there is hope for everyone. You too may be so lucky as one day to have an ex- and a stalker. μηδείς (talk) 03:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

can u please help with this one,

when designing a slimes dam what are legal compliance issues and how do you construct a slimes dam. please help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.200.81.8 (talk) 12:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Even if we guessed your jurisdiction, a) we do not give legal advice b) the compliance issues are likely to be fairly highly complex and most of all c) how do you construct a slimes dam probably requires a few years of training and experience - not something you'll get from an internet forum, even one as distinguished as this one. Perhaps the best we can offer is a) consult the references at Dam#Tailings dam and b) consult a civil engineer specialising in this area. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bearing in mind incidents like the Merriespruit tailings dam disaster (17 killed by collapsing dam) I would strongly caution against building a tailings/slimes dam unless you are an experienced mining engineer. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your IP address suggests you are in South Africa. If this is true, then the relevant authority is the Dam Safety Office of the Department of Water Affairs. Their website tells you about the legal compliance issues. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 13:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In what countries do they use the term "slimes dam?" Sounds like something built by snails and slugs trying to emulate beavers. Edison (talk) 14:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's standard terminology in South Africa, as correctly identified by AlmostReadytoFly above. Roger (talk) 20:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

is there any news channel, or television network broadcasts enviroment-related news and/or programming related to enviroment 24 hours a day? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.42.24 (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Planet Green is the closest approximation to an all-environment network I can think of for the US, but our article notes that they also a chunk of paranormal programming, and I wouldn't be surprised if they've also got infomercials running during off-peak hours. Animal Planet is another candidate. — Lomn 19:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Planet Green is probably your best bet for U.S. cable stations, Animal Planet and National Geographic Channel also run significant amounts of environmental programing, though their fare tends more towards 'nature education' than environmentalism (i.e. environmental protectionism) per se. --Jayron32 19:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See http://www.ecoshock.org/.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I just encountered the most interesting question, and I am hoping you can help me find an answer. The question regards EEC countries' colonial market policies. The 1960 document that leads us to the question is found [[3]] (for free).

To spare you the read and work, I'll quote from bulletin 15, p.3: ".. our overseas territories and the overseas territories of the Six produce in general the same kind of things, and a broad bargain might be possible under which they would allow free entry of the produce of our overseas territories and we would allow free entry to the produce of theirs".

Now, this is interesting. What were the colonial market policies of the Belgians, the Dutch and French when they signed in 1957? Was their produce actually left unprotected? Were there any later provisions that dealt with the protection of their overseas markets? I should be terribly glad if any were to have the answers.

Thank you in advance. 88.91.84.136 (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the French colonial empire page; "...the French Community dissolved itself in the midsts of the Algerian War; almost all of the other African colonies were granted independence in 1960, following local referendums. Some few colonies chose instead to remain part of France, under the statuses of overseas départements (territories)." It seems to me that those colonies which wanted to remain dependant on France, were made Departments of France and therefore part of the Common Market. You may think that this is a typically underhand Gallic trick; I couldn't possibly comment. Alansplodge (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've since edited "midsts" to "midst", and "statuses" to "status". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Perhaps I should have added "(sic)". Alansplodge (talk)

OP here. Thank you for your answer, Alansplodge. Unfortunately, it seems as though Congo's far too tainted that I can find any mention of its trade output - with any ease, anyway. Similarly the Dutch didn't have much left after 1954, and none of the remnants produced any significant trade anyway. It's really Congo I'd suppose could offer an explanation here, as Belgian taxes on its exports would account for silly amounts of money. 129.241.222.66 (talk) 16:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]