Hi Team,

Just to bring it to your notice that form this morning I could see a mobile number added to our whatsapp friend group called WIKI SERVICE. If we ask anything using key word for example "WIKI IBM" and click on send, after few seconds we are getting some basic information from these numbers which are real information though. Morning it was +91 7401017248 and now they says "Wiki service has moved to.Please add +91 9043536417 to this group to get wiki service"

Kindly check and advise.

Regards,

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.102.255.50 (talk) 08:30, 20 January 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty certain this is not any official Wikipedia or Wikimedia service. It is worth noting that there are many, many wikis besides Wikipedia. "Wiki" does not imply any connection to Wikipedia or Wikimedia. With that said, it sounds like they're grabbing information from Wikipedia, which is perfectly fine. (They should be attributing it to the editors who wrote it, but with short-form things like text messages there's probably a de minimis argument to be made and blah blah no one is going to sue them over it.) The only other issue would be if they were implying an official connection to Wikipedia or Wikimedia without permission, such as by using trademarks like the Wikipedia logo. But as I said, "wiki" is not a trademark belonging to Wikimedia, so I doubt there's any issue here. If you think otherwise you can report this to the Wikimedia Foundation. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 14:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have a pair of headphones/earbuds/whatever that's basically a cheapie-cheap version of those earbuds that have a little built-in controller for volume/track-skipping- it only has one button that I think is only supposed to pause-unpause when it's pressed. However I'm running into a weird problem when I use this on my iPod; if I touch the jack head in any way when it's plugged in (usually the rubber casing that houses the 1/8-inch jack, but for all I know it could be happening when the wire gets disturbed elsewhere as well), it'll either pause/unpause the song, skip the track, or start fastforwarding it! It's super annoying, sure, and I figure it's probably just something wrong with it (they've been sitting in a tangled mess at the bottom of a Tupperware tub full of electronics for 1-2 years now before I dug them out, so I'm not particularly surprised), but I am curious as to why this could be happening and if it has something to do with the way the built-in track control works-- it seems really weird that the jack head of all things would be sensitive to input.

As for technical specs... not sure about the headphones, I got them 2-3 years ago, I think they're JVC but I'd have to give them a proper look, were about 5-15$ CDN, no idea what model. The iPod I got new in 2012-13, so it's probably a 5th gen. Not sure if this is Computing desk stuff but it had nothing to do with programming, so here this goes. 74.205.176.200 (talk) 13:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not to be called Weird. No need to worship the jack head of all things ( Or indeed ? ) It may also be called: the Digital Age. Almost all about it in Jays_AB_headset_for_Windows, see also our Phone connector article (#PDAs & Mobile phones). --Askedonty (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not really sure what you're getting at here. I get that these earbud types have an additional bit of wiring to transmit playback command signals and mic input; I'm just curious why touching the jack head of all things would generate actual input commands instead of cutting out the sound or something, if there is a fault in the wiring. 74.205.176.200 (talk) 16:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing particularly additional regarding the jack itself: they are using the ground line for control signals, somehow control signals are modulated outside frequencies used by the audio. But the tech article says that Apple uses a non standard control signaling method, and your earbuds are probably the other type (OMTP, AHJ). Then your fingers could generate a magnetic field (radiated electrical noise ) the iPod takes for a signal, or rather the jack under conditions generating a magnetic field that moving the cable or touching the head would be disturbing, unless it's the loose connector problem you're supposing. The former could be depending on the implementation of the control circuit however. For a simple idea about how the control system is implemented using the ground line, seethis VCR hack. Another view on the inside of the TRRS headphones cable is here. --Askedonty (talk) 10:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How do I volunteer to answer Reference Desk questions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.212.167 (talk) 14:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Click "edit", and type in your answer. You should look at the Reference Desk guidelines if you haven't. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well...click [edit] next to the title of the question you want to answer - scroll down to the bottom of the list of answers already given, then type in your answer. Usually, put a colon (':') in front of each line of your response so it gets indented nicely - and 'sign' your response with four tilde characters ('~') at the end. Welcome to the team! :-) SteveBaker (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you answer a question for me? If Hillery Clinton is indited and the President or the Attorney General grants a pardon or fails to follow through with FBI terms, can they themselves be prosecuted for aiding and betting a fugitive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.127.40.149 (talk) 14:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The decision not to prosecute is within the legal discretion of the prosecution authorities, so unless they've come to that decision by doing something illegal in itself (e.g. taking bribes), what they have done is not criminal. If you are trying to challenge a decision not to proceed with a prosecution, you are basically saying that decision was wrong, in some way. You are probably looking for a writ of certiorarian action for judicial review. For background, I suggest reading United States administrative law. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is a little muddled, but there are some interesting issues here. First, I'll point out that an indictment is not a conviction; it's an accusation. With that said, an interesting thing is that the President can grant a pardon even when someone has not been convicted of a crime. This was the case when Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon after Nixon left office. But also, in the U.S., the courts have held that accepting a pardon implies an admission of guilt. I'm not sure what you mean by "fails to follow through with FBI terms". But in general, the President, and Cabinet members, are not immune from prosecution or judicial process. For precedent, we can again look to Nixon, as well as Bill Clinton's legal troubles (Paula Jones#Jones v. Clinton, Lewinsky scandal). They could be charged with crimes, if prosecutors felt they had committed any. (Also, I think you meant "abetting".) --71.119.131.184 (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant to Presidential immunity, is this article about the 1982 Supreme Court ruling which established that the President is only immune from civil litigation related to his/her official duties, and is NOT immune from prosecutions related to criminal offenses, nor for civil prosecutions for actions unrelated to their official duties. Thus, you can't sue the President because he issued an executive order that you felt caused you damages in some way, but you CAN sue the President if he runs over your cat with his car. --Jayron32 16:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I don't actually see anything in that link about criminal cases. I thought there was a body of opinion that the president cannot actually be criminally prosecuted while in office, though he can be criminally prosecuted later for acts taken while in office. So this view holds that if the president robs a bank, you first have to impeach and convict, and then the Attorney General can have at him. I don't know how widely this view is held. --Trovatore (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Has any recent (post Kennedy?) US President actually driven a car while in office? Given the sheer size and complexity of the security "circus" that accompanies a President's every move, it seems to me rather unlikely. There's probably a Secret Service regulation that effectively prevents the President from driving anything bigger than a bicycle or golf cart. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, Reagan used to drive a jeep around his ranch. Dubya may have done likewise. Recently, Obama was driving while Jerry Seinfeld was riding along. All of these examples, though, are in well-defined and confined areas, i.e. not on public streets. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My example was not meant to be scrupulously likely, merely illustrative of the fact that you are allowed to sue the President for personal damages unrelated to his performance of his duties as President. If you did not learn that from my example, but instead tried to learned something different, you missed the entire point. --Jayron32 02:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The OP's questions sounds like trolling, but I have to ask: Since when is Hillary Clinton a "fugitive"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd point out that the president can fire a prosecutor for not prosecuting a case, and that the congress can impeach either. Ford's so-called "pardon" of Nixon for crimes of which he had not been convicted was never challenged in the courts, has no precedent, and is now quite moot. Had Carter or another later president chosen to try Nixon, it's unlikely the Supreme Court would have dismissed the case on double jeopardy grounds, since there had never been an acquittal or even an indictment in the first place. On WP:BLP grounds we shouldn't be speculating about living people and what officials might do to them. μηδείς (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a question of double jeopardy, I think. If the DOJ under Carter had attempted to try Nixon, he could simply have invoked his pardon. I have never heard of a pardon expiring just because the executive who issued it has left office. --Trovatore (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But that's the exact point. His pardon . . . for what conviction? One cannot simply be made unprosecutable before the fact by presidential fiat. Nixon's lawyers might have tried such a thing, but I assume they would be laughed out of court. Ford made the decision not to prosecute Nixon for any crimes and worded it as a pardon, but that placed no limit on Carter or future prosecutors. μηδείς (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so your position basically is that the pardon was invalid from the start. I suppose that's possible. The language in the constitution doesn't say anything about whether you've been convicted, though. It just says the president can grant pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment. --Trovatore (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, there were questions about the legal legitimacy of the pardon, but I don't thing anyone ever seriously challenged it, so it stood. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether it would have held up or not. I'm pretty sure you can grant a valid pardon without a valid conviction being currently in effect. Otherwise, for example, a governor could not pardon a prisoner whose conviction had been overturned in a habeas proceeding. I bet you can find an example of that, if you look.

The really unusual thing about Ford's pardon was not so much that it was in the absence of a conviction or even indictment; it was that it didn't even state any particular facts being pardoned.

I note in passing that Medeis's theory of the pardon — that it was really a decision not to prosecute — is certainly not how Ford thought of it. In the document, which is available through links from our articles, he doesn't refer to his authority over prosecution which is limited in any case — it's the AG who decides whether to prosecute, not the president, and I'm pretty sure the most the president can do about it is fire the AG. No, Ford refers specifically to his Article II Section 2 authority to grant pardons. Whether this pardon was within that authority or not might be a complicated question, but it was definitely something different from a decision not to prosecute. --Trovatore (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ford's stated intention was to put the Watergate era in the past and move forward. It may have cost him the 1976 election. But in retrospect it was a wise decision for the country, if not for Ford himself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard and read and watched stories about Saint Thomas the apostle who traveled from somewhere in the Near East to India and founded the Saint Thomas Christians. Also, there is a classic Chinese novel about a real historical figure that traveled from China to India to get Buddhist scriptures. Either way, what pathway would make such a trip feasible? Would they have traveled by foot, by camel, by horse, or by sea? 140.254.77.208 (talk) 19:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Xuanzang and Faxian for the Chinese monks who travelled from China to India - both by land via a northern route, though Faxian returned by sea via Ceylon. See Silk Road for a discussion of both the land-based and sea-based routes between China and the West. Less relevant, as he did not go to India, but see Gan Ying for an even earlier emissary who got close to (though never reached) his intended destination, Rome. --165.225.80.101 (talk) 20:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although he didn't leave an account of his journeys, Buddhabhadra (translator) was an Indian monk in China who was a contemporary and colleague of Faxian, so there were monks going the other way as well. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably best to go by sea. It was quicker by sea than by land in the days before motorised transport. The Roman road network only existed within the Roman empire, so would be no use travelling outside the empire. Travelling by land east from Judaea would take you through desert, and you'd cross lots of borders and tribal boundaries, with potential for meeting hostile people who could impede your progress. So if you want to go from Jerusalem to India, you'll probably want to travel across the Jordan to join the King's Highway, and from there south to Eilat on the Gulf of Aqaba - You'll probably want to go as part of a trading convoy for safety in mumbers - then find a ship going east on the Incense Route. You may have to make a few stops and change ships on the way. --Nicknack009 (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Periplus of the Erythraean Sea for an ancient description of going from the Mediterranean world to India. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This may be untrue, and isn't in his article, but I remember reading somewhere about Roman soldiers led by Marcus Licinius Crassus who were defeated and captured at the Battle of Carrhae, and the survivors sold as slaves. Some of them apparently ended up as mercenaries in China. I don't have a reference though; apologies if this is incorrect. 94.12.81.251 (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah-ha, found our mention of it: Sino-Roman relations#Hypothetical military contact. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 00:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Prior to St. Thomas, by many centuries people traveled much further distances, in some cases all over land. See Alexander the Great for example, who led armies from further west than Jerusalem (Macedonia and Greece) overland to northern India. It's a much more daunting logistical task to lead entire armies over that distance than it would be for a single person, or for a small group of travelers. Alexander made the trip starting in 334, when he crossed the Hellespont, to 327 when he started his invasion of India. Seven years, while fighting wars all along the way, along with a detour to Egypt. I have no doubt that a single traveler or small group could have done so in a matter of months, and many (whose names have been lost to history) likely did, well before St. Thomas. Heck, 200 years before Alexander (and half a millenium before St. Thomas) Scylax of Caryanda, a Greek explorer, traveled by land to India, and by sea back again to the Red Sea. In the other direction, Zhang Qian explored just as far from China, making known contact with several Greek states in Central Asia and the Near East, some 100 years before St. Thomas. Notably as well, we know that the Romans had occasional direct contact with the Central or East Asian peoples, possibly the Chinese, but also likely to be Mongolians other Central Asian peoples (see Serica for Greco-Roman accounts of China, and Daqin for Chinese accounts of the Roman Empire) While most people probably didn't travel far from their place of birth, it was not impossible for a person, in a few years time, to personally traverse most of Eurasia, and we have historical accounts of many people, in ancient times, doing exactly that. --Jayron32 02:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Antiquity there were already land and sea trade routes across/around Eurasia. Silk came as far as Rome by the Silk Road, while spices like cinnamon came from the islands present-day Indonesia around India. So travellers could hitch a lift with the traders. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article, Indo-Roman trade relations which is quite relevant and has a map which I have copied to this page. Alansplodge (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin of Tudela travelled in the 12th century from Spain to what is now Iraq. Now, that's not antiquity, but much of the technology would have been similar to that of Alexander's day. Benjamin wrote a detailed travelogue of his trip. It's a fascinating read. --Dweller (talk) 11:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You might also like to check out the Ancient and Medieval subcategories in our Category:Travel writers --Dweller (talk) 11:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]