… 209.195.249.118 (talk) 15:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a chat site or a blog host. If you want to express your thoughts about various subjects, search for sites that provide blogging services. There are many to choose from. If you have suggestions for improving specific articles, you are very welcome to discuss your suggestions on the talk pages of those articles. Or if there is something that needs to be fixed, be bold and fix whatever does not reflect verifiable sources, notability, and other policies. 85.76.32.204 (talk) 15:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you experience technical problems in using Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) is the place to mention them. If you think Wikipedia could be improved by specific, not policy-related changes, propose them at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals).  --Lambiam 19:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you think a specific article is badly written, criticize it on that article's Talk page; or you can change it yourself, but be prepared to give reasons for your changes if someone disagrees. This is how articles are improved by many hands over time. —Tamfang (talk) 01:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @IP.118. You should create an account on Wikipediocracy, the self-styled "The Wikipedia Critics' Forum". You will not find a body of more intelligent individuals committed to nuanced and analytical commentary of both Wikipedia's public image and internal processes. You will be in good company; several upstanding members of this community already have accounts there, such as Users Just Step Sideways, Carrite and Levivich. Good luck! SerialNumber54129 13:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Blimey, they must be intelligent! Martinevans123 (talk) 13:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Martinevans123: So good I named it twice  :) SerialNumber54129 14:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah great. So not just a seething cauldron of disaffected and banned editors, after all. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  See also Wikipedia Review. Alansplodge (talk) 13:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The URL for Wikipedia Review is not working for me. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What's the one where the bizarre dude rants to himself all day? SerialNumber54129 14:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I wouldn't encourage anyone to look at that particular site. Also Wikipedia Review seems to be down. No great loss there. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just don't fall into the trap of finding some errors in an article on a subject you're very conversant with, and concluding that "Wikipedia is absolute rubbish and should be avoided by all serious scholars". That was pretty much the view of a friend of mine after he asked what "this Wikipedia thing" is all about, about 20 years ago. Sight unseen, he instantly concluded the concept could not possibly work, or if it did, the results would be garbage and he'd be having nothing to do with it. I must ask him, next time I see him, how often he uses WP in his academic research as a licensed psychotherapist. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 17:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editors probably need all the licensed psychotherapists they can get... But so glad not a "floating island of garbage". Martinevans123 (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't evasion of the mentioned trap just Gell-Mann amnesia? Folly Mox (talk) 14:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, why are glass noodles so much more calorific than their egg counterparts? (running at about 350 cals/100g compared to 150 cals,) Bon appetit. SerialNumber54129 13:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this cooked or uncooked? The USDA's FoodData Central database gives

• 351 kcal / 100 g for "Noodles, chinese, cellophane or long rice (mung beans), dehydrated"^[1] and
• 384 kcal / 100 g for "Noodles, egg, dry, unenriched"^[2] and
• 138 kcal / 100 g for "Noodles, egg, unenriched, cooked, without added salt".^[3]

 --Lambiam 19:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lambiam: cooked, I think. SerialNumber54129 20:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since cellophane noodles also increase substantially in weight by cooking, I suspect that your date are for uncooked cellophane noodles. The data I find on the web for cooked cellophane noodles are all over the place.  --Lambiam 21:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's why google and other search engines were invented. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Tio be fair, my question was why calorifically one != the other. It's not that important: a good dollop of bean paste mixed in with a bowlful is food of the gods  :) SerialNumber54129 12:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The state of New York, joins the other states that punish faithless electors, with a special law. However, I can't understand one thing: presidential electors, (this year there will be 28), cast their pro-forma vote on a ballot, with the candidates' names already written on the same ballot, and so they don't have to do anything else; to cast their vote, they simply have to put it in a ballot box. But if so, since they cannot change their vote, what is the point of binding the presidential electors themselves? Unless the ballot changes: we shall see. Thank you. 93.150.80.20 (talk) 14:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That they don't have to do anything else does not imply they can't do anything else. They could scratch out the written names and write in other names before putting the ballot they were handed in the ballot box. Or they might come in prepared with an alternative ballot in hand and put that one in the ballot box.  --Lambiam 19:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They could also refuse to sign. Because so many states are pre-printing the ballots, it is easier to wait until the last moment and refuse to sign than to try and trick the system with a different vote. So, the point of binding the electors is to make sure you have people who will not make a spectacle of the process at the last moment unless they agree to the punishment for doing do. 68.187.174.155 (talk) 12:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying my hand at learning vector drawing and I figured I would try cleaning up some WP images that need vectorization. Does anyone know what font is being used in the image here? The user that initially uploaded it is no longer active. Thanks! Matt Deres (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. It's Impact. Matt Deres (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sweet sweet anachronism —Tamfang (talk) 01:23, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is a good notable topic? Everything has already been written about. NoBrainFound (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given that determining notability is a major (and initial) part of the work of creating an article, it is unlikely that many people have spent time finding notable subjects and then not gone on to create the article.

Requested articles is a place where people have made suggestions; but in most cases they have done nothing to determine whether the subject is notable.

Your question takes me back to nearly twenty years ago, when I was a new editor, and desperately looking for a topic that I could write an article about to "make my mark" on Wikipedia. Since then I have learnt that creating articles is not the only way to improve Wikipedia. We have hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of seriously deficient articles that are crying out for keen editors to improve them (or in some cases, nominate them for deletion). For some strange reason, not many editors seem to want to spend their time in this way (and I don't much, either: I mostly spend my Wikipedia time on the help and reference desks, helping other editors). ColinFine (talk) 23:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Inventions have long since reached their limit, and I see no hope for further developments." Frontinus (c. 40–103 AD)

"In this field [physics], almost everything is already discovered, and all that remains is to fill a few unimportant holes." Philipp von Jolly, 1878. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, Frontinus' words are discussed here and translated very differently: "Having set aside siegeworks and siege engines, because their discovery was completed long ago (so I attend no further to any material from those arts)...". --Antiquary (talk) 08:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know the level at which you can contribute, but there are many notable topics on which we do not have an article. One example is pseudospin, a concept used in the description of the quantum state of two-level systems. One readable treatment can be found here; a different approach to introducing the concept can be seen here. It would probably be best to start with a relatively simple stub article. We already have an article on the Bloch sphere and a redirect from Bloch vector to that article.  --Lambiam 08:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is the official website of Sumiton, Alabama? The domain thecityofsumiton.com has been usurped, and I am unsure if thecityofsumiton.org is the new official site. Cherry Cotton Candy (talk) 09:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The pages of that site have at the bottom "© 2021 THE CITY OF SUMITON".  --Lambiam 14:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the Big Five personality traits is the most closely correlated with self-confidence? Camph26 (talk) 13:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People who score high on neuroticism are more likely to interpret ordinary situations as threatening and can perceive minor frustrations as hopelessly difficult. This is negatively correlated with self-confidence. In fact, here the neuroticism trait is called "a measure of a person's emotional stability and self-confidence".  --Lambiam 13:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article may be useful: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4834661/ Stanleykswong (talk) 16:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another Wikipedian famously posted images of their son and daughter. Their son looks exactly like them and their daughter looks exactly like their wife. However, this isn't true at all with my relatives. All joking aside, why do some children end up looking exactly like their parents while others do not? In my family, for example, we all, both on my mother's and my father's side, take after our grandfathers, great-grandfathers and grandmothers and great-grandmothers, not our immediate parents. This also goes for my first cousins, who do not look like their parents but their grandfathers and great-grandfathers. Any ideas? And yes, I've had genetic testing done, and my parents are my parents. :-) Viriditas (talk) 23:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pure chance. An individual's more striking facial features are largely determined by a limited number of genes. Biological inheritance is a complicated subject, but the expected distribution of specific gene combinations can reasonably be assumed to be governed by Mendelian inheritance. Every now and then the random gene shuffles in combination with such phenomena as dominance will produce offspring looking much more like one parent than the other, or more like an ancestor of an earlier generation.  --Lambiam 05:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Surely someone has studied the "Mini-Me" phenomenon, where a parent produces offspring that looks somewhat identical to themselves? Viriditas (talk) 09:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a very similar conversation with a reference person and he showed me multiple studies. It turned out that soft tissue is based on a very small set of genes and human facial recognition is biased by soft tissue structures, mainly the nose and ears. That is why when you look at a family, you notice that they all pretty much have the same nose and ears. It is also why there is the affect that people from a different countries tend to look alike, because your brain is simply telling you that their noses and ears look different and they all get clumped together. 68.187.174.155 (talk) 13:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then there is the issue that in mate selection there is a preferential tendency for mates whose faces appear similar to one's own face.^[4] This increases the likelihood of spitting-image offspring.  --Lambiam 15:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am reposting my request with the hope of better luck. Now, with the understanding that the thing itself is worthless as obvious, the image in the link depicts fake Arizona electors casting their “votes” on a fake ballot for Trump in 2020. If you look at the image, I even tried to enlarge it but couldn't understand much, how were these “electors” casting this fake vote? The ballot seems drawn in such a way that maybe they had to put their signatures on it, but you can't see much. It's just a little curiosity, but I want to take it off anyway. Thank you. https://eu.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/arizona/2022/01/22/how-arizonas-trump-electors-planned-deliver-him-victory/6604574001/ 93.147.230.249 (talk) 17:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your link is behind a paywall, so it is not accessible. 68.187.174.155 (talk) 18:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page 353 of the final report of the January 6 Select Committee contains an image of the true and the fake Arizona ballots, side by side. It can also be seen, with a lower resolution, here.  --Lambiam 07:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Ballots are counted by scanners in a central counting station, along with postal ballots. If there is this general counting mode, why can the machines (again optical scanners) placed in polling stations with closed ballot boxes, since they are configured to do so, also print the results, before the ballots can be transported to the counting center? If then the central count and precicnt count do not match? Thank you very much. 93.147.230.249 (talk) 13:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your question does not make sense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to specify exactly which voting location you are referring to. There are many wildly different methods of voting across the United States. 68.187.174.155 (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take Miami-Dade County. This county uses ballot-counting machines (optical scanners), which print the results on a paper ribbon once the polls are closed. After counting at the precinct level, the ballots are equally transported and counted in a central facility?

I’ve been an official poll watcher, a few years ago. I got to stay and watch the ballots be counted at the polling place immediately after voting was done. We had witnessed that the ballot boxes were empty before voting started, that only ballots properly given to registered voters for that precinct went into the box, and that the number of ballots at the end of the day equaled the correct number. The ballots went through tabulating machine and the totals were printed out, with a copy for each party, for the reporters who stopped by and for the city clerk. Printout and ballots were turned in. Local counting and multiple copies would have made it evident if ballots had been altered or replaced. Today we can select electronic voting or a paper ballot. With electronic voting, a paper ballot is printed when done, and the voter oks it if it reflects his choices. Again the votes are locally tabulated and the totals preserved in multiple copies, as a check against fraud, but totals are sent in electronically to the clerk for quick reporting. Edison (talk) 22:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to know more about English language.when it started 105.234.178.192 (talk) 13:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See History of English. --Wrongfilter (talk) 14:07, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i just found this (List of sovereign states by Internet connection speeds) article and it lists both hk and macao (all are parts of the PR China), so that makes me wonder: are these two even be considered "sovereign"? Coddlebean (talk) 06:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously not, a cursory look at Sovereign state would've disabused you of this possibility. They're clearly there because the article is titled or scoped awkwardly and their inclusion in such a list seems worthwhile, not because that claim to their sovereignty is actually being made. In general, you should double-check and then discuss problems with pages on their respective talk pages, not obliquely litigate them at the Reference Desk. Remsense ‥ 论 06:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Their existence in the article comes from a time before the article was moved in 2022. Whether it was the move, or is the current inclusion, that is questionable is an exercise for editors and if necessary the talk page. Also @PK2: who made the move. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At its all-time historical peak during World War 2, what percentage of the Soviet Union's GDP (or GNP) was its military budget? 2601:646:8082:BA0:90B6:D6C1:A446:513E (talk) 16:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is highly unlikely that there is a useful answer to this question. It would require knowing the size of the USSR economy, defining those parts that are strictly part of the budget (as different from, say, survival consumption), and then defining those parts that were strictly reserved for the military (which may / may not include non-military security forces). The key issue is why do you want to know, and what might be a reasonable substitute for this particular answer? DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 20:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to CIA (https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80-00809A000700230019-4.pdf), the defense budget of USSR in 1940 and 1941 were 57.1 billion rubles and 70.9 billion rubles respectively.

According to “Harrison, M (2005) Why Didn't the Soviet Economy Collapse in 1942?”, GDP of USSR in 1940 and 1941 were US$417 billion and US$359 billion respectively.

If you could find the exchange rate of US$ to rubles in 1940 and 1941, then you would find the answer. Stanleykswong (talk) 22:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably the black-market exchange rate, not the official one.  --Lambiam 23:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, but it is difficult to estimate the size of black-market. Stanleykswong (talk) 09:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just did find the exchange rate -- 5.3 rubles to a dollar (this was the official figure, but it squares pretty well with the figures from later years that I know with certainty), which makes the percentage -- WHAT?! Only 3.7 percent?! Are my own calculations off by one zero somewhere, or is the exchange rate way off??? 2601:646:8082:BA0:90B6:D6C1:A446:513E (talk) 05:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in an economy not based on trade, there's no need to express everything in money. There was quite a lot of trade going on in the Soviet Union (it was certainly not a fully communist economy), but still, things like budgets and GDP could to some extend be arbitrary. PiusImpavidus (talk) 09:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The transfer of industrially manufactured commodities in the economy of USSR was also based on trade. Barter played a minor role in the whole economy. A reasonably accurate way of describing the economic system of the USSR is as state capitalism: like capitalism, but with one difference with Western capitalism: the enterprises are not privately owned but owned by the state. The consequence is that there is a single all-encompassing monopoly; domestic market competition is ruled out. For the rest, it is business as usual. In particular, the separate enterprises were required to make a profit, otherwise their management would be replaced.  --Lambiam 11:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What data is available on the breakdown by ethnicity of people in the USA taking commercial flights in the 1960s? I'm mostly interested in long-haul flights, but domestic flights could be useful too. Thanks, --Viennese Waltz 08:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When booking a flight, one's ethnicity is not recorded, so it would be surprising if any remotely reliable data exists.  --Lambiam 10:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's this, which relates to 2015. The source of that data seems to be a survey, not information recorded at the time of booking. It would be good to know if any similar survey was carried out in the 1960s. --Viennese Waltz 15:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See [5], [6], [7], [8] for some general discussion on the topic but very few stats. Nanonic (talk) 17:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1960s is long before deregulation. Flight costs were very high. If you could afford a ticket, regardless of ethnicity, you could purchase one and fly. Most people could not afford tickets at the time. 68.187.174.155 (talk) 17:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]