December 5

What was shoeless Joe Jackson's lifetime batting adverage against the Boston red sox pitcher George h. Ruth?---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.8.153.246 (talk) 09:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Babe Ruth's page on Baseball-Reference.com [1] only has game logs starting in 1916; he only pitched 4 times in his first season, 1914, but had a full season for which there is no data in 1915. In 1916, Jackson went 4 for 11 against Ruth, then 7 for 24 in 1917 (with some approximation for the games in which Ruth was not the sole pitcher; complete play-by-play records are not available). The two did not face each-other in 1918, and in 1919, Jackson went 4 for 10. Ruth only pitched once in 1920, and not against Jackson's team, the White Sox; after that season Shoeless Joe was banned for life for his role in the Black Sox Scandal. That gives a total of 15 for 45, or a .333 batting average for the five seasons for which we have data, which is below Jackson's career average of .356, but still quite good for a lefthanded batter facing the top left-hander of his day. --Xuxl (talk) 13:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrosheet, which I think is one of Baseball-Ref's sources, appears to have box scores for Jackson in 1915.[2] It could be a little tedious, but you could look at the games against Boston, see if Ruth was pitching, and see if you can infer which pitcher he hit off of (if any). You could also look for game summaries on microfilm of major newspapers such as the NY Times. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I went to check their web site for if my elderly mother can get any kind of coverage, but the highest age they list is 64. Does this mean there is no coverage offered through this program for the elderly ? I'm guessing they intend them to use Medicare alone, but she was hoping to find a plan there to supplement Medicare, particularly for catastrophic coverage. Does Medicare already cover such claims (like if a heart transplant is needed) ? StuRat (talk) 10:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See here. Not that it was in any way obvious, but senior coverage is not an intended part of the health care marketplaces. That link I provided gives the various options your mother has. She can purchase insurance in the new health care marketplace, but she will not be eligible for a tax subsidy like those under 65. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I went through the Medicare web site to find her a Medigap plan. StuRat (talk) 12:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How many states are there in India? What is the easiest way of locating this information on Wikipedia? Thanks in advance, XOttawahitech (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to find this information is typically the use of a search engine; a Google search for "states of India" refers to our states of India article as the first result. — Lomn 20:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The easiest way is to read the article on India. See India#Subdivisions. RudolfRed (talk) 23:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an archives researcher/writer at the Canadian Bushplane Heritage Centre in Sault Ste. Marie, Canada, trying to contact Cwmacdougall, primary author of your excellent article on Frank Archibald MacDougall. Is there any way you can advise this contributor that I'm trying to contact him/her? - David Helwig [redacted] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.5.176.222 (talk) 22:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See if Cwmacdougall (talk · contribs) is still active and/or allows e-mails. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes on both. If IP's can't do e-mails, then leave the user a talk page message. But DO NOT post your own e-mail address here, unless you enjoy endless spam and malware. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs has, as usual, offered an incomplete and incorrect answer.

1. User:Cwmacdougall last posted here back in July - but only has sporadic bursts of activity separated by months of nothing.
2. If you go to his/her user page, you'll see an "email this user" link in the menu over on the left - so, yes, you can definitely send email.
3. Posting your email address here isn't recommended because of the fear of spammers harvesting email addresses. But in practice, I've had my web site and email address (<steve@sjbaker.org>) posted publically here and on my User: page for over 8 years and have not noticed any increase in my meager spam volume as a result. So I'm quite sure you wouldn't suffer "endless spam and malware" if you decided to do the same thing.

SteveBaker (talk) 04:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And you're half-baked - as usual. I didn't redact the guy's e-mail address, in fact I hardly ever do that, as someone else usually does it first. As with this section.[3] So go yell at those folks. Also, Cwmacdougall (talk · contribs) is not a prolific contributor, but has a screen's worth of contributions since late October, including 9 in the last 3 day. Last time I checked my calendar, it ain't July right now. And by the way, wise guy, when I log out to my IP, the option "e-mail this user" disappears. Now, don't bother apologizing for your 3-strikes-you're-out. Just send 5 dollars in postage stamps to my lawyer, Hon. Charles H. Hungadunga, and tell him it's for my favorite charity, the Home for Disabled Veterinarians. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I redacted the email address, because it seems standard policy. Given the lack of response from Mr. Helwig, I informed Cwmacdougall on his talk page, with a link to the diff containing the email address. Ssscienccce (talk) 15:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the link I cited, Tevildo removed it. Be that as it may, Mr. Half-Baked may say it's merely "recommended", but it is in fact standard practice to remove it from ref desk entries. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct that you need to be logged in with an account to email someone via the wikipedia email function. In fact your account needs to have a confirmed email address to be able to do so. Nil Einne (talk) 20:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I'm somewhat confused by what the comment 'last posted here back in July' means. From what I can tell Cwmacdougall has never posted to any of the reference desks. However it doesn't seem a problem since I don't think anyone was suggesting to use the RD contact them, which is a suggestion which doesn't make much sense for account anyway (only really makes sense for fairly dynamic IPs which only frequent the RD). Incidentally, while I don't really want to get in to the above mess, and this is all a moot point since Cwmacdougall had already replied before Steve Baker's first post [4], I do agree with BB that their statement on Cwmacdougall's activity was sufficiently accurate. I looked thorough the history and until March 2012 Cwmacdougall was active every month. In fact, since that implies a maximum of 61 days or so between activity, and the activity before 30 March 2012 was 30 Janury 2012, we can specify a maximum of 61 days between activity until 31 December 2011. It's true the activity was more sporiadic before then, e.g. 28 August 2011 was the last before 31 December 2011 and then 29 July 2011 and possibly even more in some of the earlier times. But I question the need to go that far back, and it seems a little confusing to say 'only has sporadic bursts of activity separated by months of nothing' when the last time that happened was nearly 2 years ago. (Or at least if you're like me and when you say 'months between' it's assumed you generally mean more than 2 months because it would be normal to just specify a couple of months if that's all it is.) Notably as BB has said, in recent times they have been fairly active. In fact it looks to me like for at least a year (April-June & July-October 2012 it was around 20-30 days) they've generally been active for every every 18 days at a minimum (February 2013 was 18 days) with often less than 7 days, although I didn't look that carefully. It's of course possible they would go inactive again, and with such an activity profile it's somewhat more likely than with someone who has been very active for the past 6 years. But you can never guarantee someone will stay active even in such a case and considering the circumstances, it seem fair to simply say that the editor is active (perhaps adding the caveat 'appears' would be better). Nil Einne (talk) 22:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before this discussion, Cwmacdougall had last posted to User talk:Cwmacdougall in July. I guess that's where SteveBaker got the month from, but I don't see the relevance of the last post to the user talk page. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I noticed that and was in the middle of editing my reply when I found out you'd replied. Reading more carefully I realise SB did link to User:Cwmacdougall, so I guess 'here' meant the linked page rather than 'here' meaning where we are now. I presume this part was a reply to BB's suggestion of posting to Cwmacdougall's talk page. Except of course they linked to the user page (which hasn't been edited since September 2010) rather than the talk page so I still find it fairly confusing.

Particularly considering as you said, it doesn't seem relevant. A lot of people only use their talk page to reply to others. Some people still use the practice of replying on the talk page of whoever posted. And so the only time they edit their talk page is to archive and perhaps clear spam and stuff they considered unwanted.

The notification system (before this the orange box of doom) means people will often become aware of any message posted to their talk page if they're active and logged in. Some people have even set it up to get emails when it's modified.

None of which means they will choose to read it, let alone choose to respond in some way. But unless you have clear evidence the person generally ignores important messages, which will need to come from more complicated analysis and often you just don't know, don't worry about when someone edited their talk page.

In this particular case, a simple glance at the talk page history [5] will tell you no one edited it since Cwmcdougall did in July until the recent stuff, so it's fairly expected there would be no edits to it. (In fact, a glance at their talk page suggests to me they generally reply to most stuff fairly quickly.)

So yeah sorry to make a big deal about this dead matter, but although I'm frequently in disagreement with BB I just don't see what they did wrong in this case. Their statement was sufficiently accurate and helpful. And unfortunately for once, it's SB's statement which seems the more confusing or even misleading (well the spam/email bit is probably right). And this seems to have been borne out by what happened as well (Cwmcdougall also replied to Ssscience).

Nil Einne (talk) 22:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does seem a big deal about my talk page, which you're right I only use when someone contacts me there (and which I clean up quickly), while I think I edit articles quite a lot, if anything too much! cwmacdougall 23:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I flew in a [737] today and got to wondering about the gaps in the regular window spacing. I noticed that near row 8 there was approximately one window missing and the wall seemed thicker there. I'm pretty sure I've seen such gaps in other airliners. I'm wondering if this bit of thick windowless wall contains cables or ventilation channels or something like that? It can't be strengthening, because why would that be needed just there? Hayttom 23:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayttom (talk • contribs) [reply]

Ok, this isn't a sound reference by engineering standards, but SeatGuru confirms: "There are areas of the plane where air ducts or wires are run behind the wall. When this is required, it is not possible to have a window in this location, so instead, a solid blank wall will be there instead. Yes, airlines still advertise the seat as a "Window Seat" even though there is no window." [6] Various online forums give the same reasons, also talking about which rows are affected in which aircraft. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

I sure would be pissed of if I was promised a window seat and got a seat with no window or even access to the aisle. Might as well toss me into the cargo hold. At least I'd probably have more legroom there. :-) StuRat (talk) 10:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Note in some cases you will get a window which looks out over the wing. So if you want to be able to see the ground/ocean on the few occasions that's possible, even having a window may not be enough for you. Nil Einne (talk) 22:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm perfectly happy with a window over the wing. That gives me a chance to watch the gremlin as he tears apart the engine. :-) StuRat (talk) 11:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Especially if you discover that you're seated between William Shatner and John Lithgow. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]