Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:09, 24 March 2017

Welcome to the miscellaneous section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

WP:RD/M

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
Note:
- We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
- We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
- We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
- We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

March 19

Why aren't talk pages for general discussion

of the topic?32ieww (talk) 01:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because idle talk is not encouraged at Wikipedia. If you want to talk about something, the rest of the internet is FILLED with places where you can go and chat with random strangers about anything. The purpose of the talk pages at Wikipedia is to discuss improvements to Wikipedia articles and nothing else. Because that's why Wikipedia exists, to be an encyclopedia. If you're not particularly interested in improving the encyclopedia, please leave the talk pages for those people who are. --Jayron 32 02:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTAFORUM μηδείς (talk) 02:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, you have to engage the subject to some extent if you're talking about changes to a given article. But it should be about the article. For example, if you say on Suzie Floozy's talk page that she's promiscuous, that's idle chatter (and also a BLP violation). But if you say you have sources on her many marriages, that's about the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I always knew you were an anti-Floozian! In any case, policy Q's don't belong here. The OP needs to read WP:HELPDESK. or WP:NOTAFORUM and then check one of the policy based/new editor spaces like the WP:TEAHOUSE. We are somewhat misnamed in that we deal with references, not how to use them. μηδείς (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]

I suspect the OP is talking about this, which strikes me as being a bit nannyistic on the part of the other user. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum Safe Load for a Wall Shelf

I have attached a shelf to my wall to hold electronic equipment, such as my oscilloscope and desktop power supply. It is 55" long, and attached to 2 studs, each with a brace with 2 10 mm screws. Is there a rule of thumb for determining how much equipment I can safely store on this shelf without risking it pulling free from the wall? OldTimeNESter (talk) 12:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Too many variables. The weight of the shelf is more significant than the length, the type of wood used for the studs will determine how well the screws hold - as will the thickness and thread of the screws. How things are placed on the shelf is also an issue - weight towards the front of the shelf will exert more leverage than weight near to the wall. My one immediate reaction to your description is that 10mm screws sound very short for what you are doing. Wymspen (talk) 13:06, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I wouldn't trust valuable equipment to a shelf supported by such short screws. I tend to use three times that length to support anything more than a kilogram or so. Is the wall made from something strong such as brick or stone? If so, then I would drill into that and maybe use something like rawlbolts (I'm sure you have something similar in the USA), or if you have only studs then I'd find some more and put in some extra screws. Dbfirs 13:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)At a local street market some traders fashioned a canopy out of wood, which they nailed to a wall. They and the public would gather under it to do business. At 5:30 on a Saturday evening, just after the gaff had closed for the week, there was an almighty rending sound and the canopy crashed to the pavement. I'm no handyperson but I would have thought it would have been safer to construct your shelf using what I believe are known as "angle brackets". 81.129.13.243 (talk) 14:01, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I thought that was what OldTimeNESter had used (screwed in to the Wall studs), but I agree that the larger the better, up to the width of the shelf. Dbfirs 14:07, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If there is drywall on the wall, 10 mm screws are not even long enough to penetrate the drywall and reach the stud. A screw embedded in nothing but drywall has very little strength and can easily pull out of the drywall. The screws should be long enough to reach through the drywall and penetrate the stud by at least 15 mm or so. CodeTalker (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you West of Iceland? If so, it's not safe to carry any weight on a wall of typical US construction.

There are several aspects to this: shelf strength, strength of the attachment to the wall, strength of the wall. If you're US stud & drywall construction, or UK dry lined walls, then a specialist plasterboard (drywall) wallplug can attach securely to the plasterboard with a load up to the local bending strength of that plasterboard - which isn't much. A picture, a clock, but doubtfully a plant holder (I've seen too many pull out when the plant grows) and certainly not a loudspeaker or bookshelf. A non-specialist wallplug will carry the load in no more than an inch wide disc of plasterboard, and that's barely enough for a photo frame.

If the wall has wooden studding, and if the shelf attaches reliably to the studding (you hit the middle of the studs) then it's rather stronger - but still not strong. Enough for a loudspeaker, or for a decorative bookshelf for people who don't read, but not for a real bookshelf. You can use the Sagulator to play around with wood strengths.

IMHO, just don't use cantilevered shelves. Supporting them with uprights on their front edge is much cheaper. As usual, a compressive load in an upright is cheaper to absorb than the bending loads of a cantilever. You can cantilever shelves on double-hooked steel adjustable shelf brackets, but they costs more than cheap wood uprights at the front. One wall of my workshop shelves are like that, and I do store anvils on it, but those are a strong shelving system, screwed into a concrete block wall on long screws and plugs. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What film format is this?

[1] Given the peculiar length of the boxes, I first thought it was 120 film, but the boxes state "400 film", obviously not referring to ASA. So, what is it? There is no "400 film" format on Wikipedia so far, be it as a standalone article or as part of the table found at Film format. The seller claims it would be regular 135 film, but as said, both the length of the boxes as well as the odd label on the box make me doubt that's what it is. --2003:71:4E33:E528:30F1:CC93:C64D:C3F7 (talk) 17:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say it's not referring to ASA? The chart in our article lists these films as ASA 400 in the 1960-1987 ASA scale: Kodak T-Max (TMY), Kodak Tri-X 400, Ilford HP5+, Fujifilm Superia X-tra 400, Fujichrome Provia 400X, Fomapan/Arista 400. The handwritten note in your photo says "400 ISO", which is consistent with this. CodeTalker (talk) 18:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because a.) the peculiar box size (it's guaranteed to not be 135 film with such an odd box), b.) the box doesn't read any standard film format like 135 or 120 anywhere on the box, c.) the "400 film" label is where any standard Kodak film box usually states "135 film" or "120 film" in reference not to speed but to format aka size, and d.) the film I linked is not on your list. Oh, and e.), you've accidentally linked to a disambig page. The handwritten note is what the seller *CLAIMS*, but especially the box size makes the claim highly unlikely. It's not that I doubt that 400 ASA film exists, it's just that the seller is obviously mistaking a format for a film speed. --2003:71:4E33:E528:30F1:CC93:C64D:C3F7 (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot answer questions on behalf of ebay sellers. Do not buy if you don't trust the advertisement. Jahoe (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also you could Google "kodak 400 film" and select images. Seems like it's their trademark for 35mm 400 iso. To buy or not to buy remains up yo you of course. ;)

Also note that ebay routinely converts images to 4:3 aspect ratio. Anyway, ask the seller, only he can give you a guarantee.

Jahoe (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not looking for a guarantee and I don't wanna buy the film, I just feel that Wikipedia is missing an entry at Film format. The image displayed is not 4:3, it's 16:9, and the boxes are much too wide for 135 film, so if anything, it'd have to be a 4:3 image that's been re-sized to 16:9, not the other way around. Plus, the stack of notes looks like the aspect ratio is correct. If you just google for kodak 400 film, you're bound to get results for 400 ASA films because films with that speed do exist, but it doesn't mean that "Kodak markets 400 ASA films as '400 film' ". --2003:71:4E33:E528:30F1:CC93:C64D:C3F7 (talk) 18:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another ad by the same seller: [2] Most of the boxes on that photo have a correct size for 135mm (with a few Holga films in 120 format at the top left), only at the bottom right is another box with that odd size, so this is proof that the aspect ratio is not at fault. Moreover, the seller claims that all the BW400CN boxes in the photo would be 35mm, so it seems he himself doesn't seem to be able to tell the difference. It can't even be two films in one box, as although the box is too wide for 135mm, it's not wide *ENOUGH* to carry two 135 cannisters next to each other. --2003:71:4E33:E528:30F1:CC93:C64D:C3F7 (talk) 19:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I notice the boxes say in the upper left corner they contain three rolls, which would explain why the shape of the box isn't right for a single roll. Of course whether to buy it is entirely up to you. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so it's 3 rolls per pack! Thank you. --2003:71:4E33:E528:30F1:CC93:C64D:C3F7 (talk) 19:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In one of the photos, you can see that the two packs with the word Professional in the name of the film reassure the buyer that they are to "Use in any 35 mm camera; process at any photofinisher". So that should settle the format question. What I want to know is why anyone would buy rolls of film that expired in 2006–2010. Or could the seller just be being wildly optimistic? --76.71.6.254 (talk) 19:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The table at Film speed confirms that ISO 400 is the same as 400 ASA or DIN 27 or GHOST 350. The text on the film packaging "Use in any 35 mm camera... and "24 exposure" should be noticed. The condition of outdated film stock depends on how it has been preserved; ideally kept in sealed cans (against humidity) at -18°C (0°F) or lower. Blooteuth (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Back in the 1960s and 70s, it used to be common for photography shops to have a basket of expired films at reduced prices. For those on a tight budget, it was worth a gamble. 10 years is a bit of a stretch though. Alansplodge (talk) 01:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I don't know why there's so much doubt over this. The boxes easily look like they could store 3 35mm film canisters. And other than the fact the photos clearly say 3 rolls, the seller is selling 18 rolls but only has 6 boxes. And ISO 400 (although not so much 400 ISO) is the standard way to refer to the film in a lot of places. It seems even clearer with the other eBay listing. While in that case it doesn't seem to say on the photo how many rolls are in that big box (that I can see), you can see there are 72 exposures in that one large box and 24 in the smaller ones. Further the seller says there are 7 but there are only 4 boxes plus the big one. Most telling of all, if you consider parallax etc, even if you don't know the size of a 35 mm film canister it's not that hard to work out that 3 of them would fit in that big packet (obviously stacked vertically rather than horizontallly as the single packets are). Nil Einne (talk) 06:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's hardly a mystery. The Kodak HD stuff is available new here; the 400UC stuff is here. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 05:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 20

Coke vs. anthracite

As a rule, which costs less: coke or anthracite? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:5900:99FF:87AF:35DC (talk) 08:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the days of town gas made from coal, coke used to be much cheaper because it was a by-product. When natural gas came along, the price of coke rose considerably, but it is still slightly cheaper than anthracite, at least here in the UK. Dbfirs 12:05, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about that @Dbfirs:? Our Coke (fuel) article suggests it needs to be specifically 'cooked' from particular types of coal. Rojomoke (talk) 12:53, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was last time I bought some. It seems to have gone off the market now except for bulk supplies to ironfoundries. Dbfirs 15:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And anthracite is the rarest and highest-quality type of coal. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 12:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coke's about £30 a gram; couldn't say about anthracite. — O Fortuna!^{Imperatrix mundi.} 13:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is presumably a joke about cocaine prices. StuRat (talk) 13:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coke is also 0.03-0.10 cents per gram. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia note: In 1945, the last time the Chicago Cubs were in the World Series prior to 2016, there was a coal-and-coke plant immediately west of the ballpark, on the other side of a railroad siding.[3] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Coke" in reference to coal is of somewhat obscure origin.[4] "Coke" in reference to cocaine and also Coca-Cola refers to the Coca plant. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, this supplier sells coke at £5.00 (US$6.20) for a 20 kg (44 lb) sack, and anthracite at £7.25 ($9.00) for 20 kg. Prices from other British sites varied widely, some almost three times as much. Alansplodge (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(un-indent) Thanks all! So, coke usually (but not always) costs less than anthracite, right? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:5900:99FF:87AF:35DC (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the more expensive coke is designed for special purposes, not for heating. I used to use a mixture of half coke and half anthracite. Dbfirs 21:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is the more expensive coke used for? Steelmaking? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More or less (and other refining). The most expensive coke. See: The most important chemical properties are moisture, fixed carbon, ash, sulfur, phosphorus, and alkalies. Fixed carbon is the fuel portion of the coke; the higher the fixed carbon, the higher the thermal value of coke. Will over-look Dbfirs's fux pass because he was obviously taking about domestic heating where high sulfur fumes etc goes up the chimney and so doesn’t matter. Unless of course one is old enough to remember before the clean air acts came in where cities such as London suffered pea soup fogs that became green, due the the sulfur from coal fires – but I digress. Solid fuel is priced by calorific value/weight. Anthracite has a higher value than coke. fuels-higher-calorific-values Hence the price difference. As Michael Caine (a British Londoner) might say “Not a lot of people know that”!

Astrology

When used together, what does the “House” and “Sign” word mean? 116.58.200.44 (talk) 09:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Signs pass through astrological houses throughout the day. Signs are sectors of the swath the planets' paths are in as they move through the constellations on the celestial sphere. In the West they do not care if the constellations move through the signs over thousands of years. In India and probably some other places they do so their signs don't change constellation every 2,000 years. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 10:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bit of a dark question....

Say there was a moderate to severe nuclear exchange, it's inevitable that nuclear power plants would be damage. Hell, look what just a tsunami could do to Fukashima NPP. So the big question is, has there been any modelling done that takes into account what damage and consequences of on hits against nuclear facilities. Obviously, the effect of nuclear conflict would be unimaginable in terms of loss and destruction. But NPP's on top? Inconceivable?! So any pointers or rabbit holes that a can sneak down for safety on this matter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.80.74 (talk) 21:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A bomb shelter constructed after 1950 should provide complete protection against all radiation, from reactors as well as the atom bombs -- the only difference is, if a reactor is destroyed near where you live, you'll have to stay in the shelter for a longer time (possibly years, as opposed to a few weeks if your location is affected by fallout from nuclear weapons alone). 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 23:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Military nuclear facilities are hardened against bombing but a civilian Nuclear power plant is vulnerable to attack from the air before a controlled shut-down can be completed. The Israeli Air Force studied damage inflicted by Iran in Operation Scorch Sword 1980 on Iraq's nuclear reactor when planning their Operation Opera strike that destroyed the reactor in 1981. Blooteuth (talk) 01:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could tell us what you had in mind regarding "damage and consequences". Your typical reactor dome is basically everything-proof, but as hinted the harm that is generally considered is nuclear meltdown following a failure of cooling systems before shutdown can take place. Nuclear Power plants are supposed to be designed to be able to shut down in spite of any disaster they are expected to face, but I don't imagine most civilian plants have nuke-proof backup power and cooling systems. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that the Fukushima plant was built sub-spec by mobsters. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/japan-earthquake-and-tsunami-in/9084151/How-the-Yakuza-went-nuclear.html. μηδείς (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The risk from nuclear power plants would be many orders of magnitude less than the damage from nuclear weapons. Consider that the tiny atomic bombs used against Japan in WW2 (see atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki) killed 129,000- 246,000, while the worst nuclear power plant accident in history, Chernobyl, killed 31 directly, and perhaps some more due to cancer. Modern hydrogen bombs would kill millions, perhaps billions, while the deaths from nuclear power plants would still be in the Chernobyl neighborhood, per plant. StuRat (talk) 04:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- We might get our hair mussed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Price of milk might go up. --WaltCip (talk) 12:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - But no more than 10 to 20 million people killed, tops! Depending on the breaks.--WaltCip (talk) 12:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 22

Two questions about the US restaurant industry

This is a sequel to a question I asked here five years ago. This time I have two questions:

1. What is the largest US restaurant chain not to have an international presence? Largest in terms of revenue, and largest in terms of number of outlets.

2. What large US restaurant chains that lack an international presence never had one in their history? It surprised me to learn that some US-only chains such as White Castle and Chick-fil-A did have an international presence at some point but have since closed them down. What large chains have never expanded internationally ever? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the list of the top 100 U.S. Restaurant Chains as of 2012. Near as I can tell, Sonic Drive-In, #12 on that list, only has outlets in the U.S., and does not look like they ever had an outlet outside of the U.S. --Jayron 32 01:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Swam on wood

got a problem with water going under my in roof and damage my wood. I have cut it out and find the next stuff on the wood. I am living in a rural town in the Karoo in South Africa. Can somebody identify this and explain this.

Caption1
Caption2

It looks like you've tried to upload some photos to illustrate your question. Unfortunately it hasn't worked and you can't just upload any old photo to Wikipedia anyway. Upload them to an image hosting site such as imgur and link them from there. --Viennese Waltz 08:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The swam may be wet rot (coniophora).--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What does "swam" mean here? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Swam" is Afrikaans for fungus (from Dutch 'zwam'). - Lindert (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is that definition given anywhere in the English Wikipedia? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK it's not an English word, and Wikipedia is not a foreign dictionary, though fungus is linked to af:swam. - Lindert (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

inkjet printer ink and fountain pen ink

Are inkjet printer ink and fountain pen ink significantly different from each other? Would inkjet printer ink work in a fountain pen?

Reviewing Inkjet printing and Fountain pen ink, they seem to be of sufficiently different composition. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the early days of inkjet printers, I used to use fountain pen ink successfully to refill ink cartridges, though the quality of print was slightly inferior. This might not work with modern printers. For the other way round, just try it and see, but don't blame me if it clogs your fountain pen. Dbfirs 21:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I expect this to be an issue of viscosity. Inkjet ink has a very low viscosity because it has to squirt out a very tiny hole at incredibly high speed. Google shows inkjet viscosity <5 mPas. I cannot find viscosity for fountain pen ink. If it is higher, it would likely clog an inkjet printer. Next issue would be how vital the higher viscosity relates to the fountain pen. Is it necessary to make the pen work? I believe so. Low viscosity ink should drip off the pen too easily. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 14:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: References I've found for fountain pen ink are measured in dynes/cm2. One dyne/cm2 is 100 mPas. The inks go from around 15 to 45 dynes/cm2. So, they are 1500 to 4500 mPas, which is considerably more than 5 mPas max for inkjet ink. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 14:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised that the difference is so great. They seem to drip in very similar fashion. Olive oil has a viscosity of 81 mPas, and thick motor oil 319 mPas. What are you using in your fountain pen? I think you mis-read the patent which was for a gel ink. Most bottled inks have a viscosity of 5 mPas or lower, just the same as printer inks. Many fountain pens have a rubber reservoir. I don't know how the chemicals in a printer ink would affect this. Dbfirs 18:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also concerned. I only found one site giving specific values for viscosity and it clearly marked them as dynes/cm2. My gut tells me that they are actually mPas. So, I searched for contradictory information, but haven't found any. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 19:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Searching again on dinner break and found a great site [5] that I believe explains the confusion. The surface tension is measured in dynes/cm - which is in the range 42-48 for that manufacturer. The viscosity on that page is measured in cPas with a range of 1*1.25, which is 10-12.5 mPas. So, that fountain pen ink is at least twice as viscous as inkjet ink. It still supports my two fears. First, I worry that fountain pen ink will clog the inkjet printer. Second, I worry that inkjet ink will drip off the fountain pen too easily. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that seems to be particularly viscous ink, probably designed for calligraphy, and I agree that it would probably clog the jets in a printer cartridge. I can't find evidence yet, but I instinctively feel that the Quink ink, mentioned by Aspro below, and exactly the brand that I and others used for refilling cartridges, is less viscous than that, and less viscous than most printer ink. I agree that surface tension will also affect performance. Dbfirs 21:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As inkjet ink costs a lot more than the very best French Champagne, can't see why the OP would consider using it in a fountain pen. My printers are more often idle than my favorite fountain pen, yet don't seem to clog up unless left idle for a very long time, so wouldn't think the OP would notice any difference when using this ink in his fountain pen. Like Dbfirs, I refill my cartridges with pen ink (brand name Quink) which is a ruddy site cheaper! It works, regardless of the mPas ! Quality wise – I can read it clearly and easily! Whether I would use it to print out my résumé to a prospective employer is a different matter. But me-being-me, I think I would; because if my prospective employer wants to know about me, what's better than demonstrating to him how I work and live... Look: this is my experience and if you don't like the presentation of my résumé, I'll go off and work somewhere else !!!. As you know, some, many, most companies retail ink-jet printers a low prices so that they can recuperate vast profits at selling very expensive ink. Of course this approach of refilling would probably not work for my four colour printers use for printing photographs, as the inks of the right hues and tints don't appear available by other brands.--Aspro (talk) 19:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lest people believe that Aspro's anecdote regarding printer ink, the very best French Champagne (a redundancy since all Champagne originates in France) - Dom Pérignon Rose Gold '96 - actually costs about $49,000, and inkjet ink - though pricey in its own right - does not cost anywhere near that much.--WaltCip (talk) 19:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does your odd exceptions prove the rule? Tell me where you buy or steal your catriages from please! Printer ink seven times more expensive than Dom Perignon Unless of course... your in the habit of buying very rare 1947 vintage printer ink at exorbitant prices in which case I suppose Champagne might seem cheaper..--Aspro (talk) 20:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 23

Edits by Edward321 Help

disputed edits belong at the article's or editor's talk pages, or WP:ANI, but NOT here. μηδείς (talk) 22:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Please would you check the edits made on 22 and 23 March 2017 by Edward321 to the Wikipedia entry "Nader El-Bizri" and to some of its associated Wikipedia reference entries. The edits of Edward321 are extreme and radical and this might need some editorial intervention from your senior editors to look into them 2A02:C7D:36C6:8300:ED41:35E8:6F5B:3CE5 (talk) 14:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP editor. I see that, before you posted this request, you reverted two of Edward321's edits to Nader El-Bizri. You are entitled to revert edits that you think are not good, but rather than then launching an appeal to "senior editors" (who don't exist: some are more experienced than others, but there is not a hierarchy of seniority like that), you should discuss the matter with Edward321, normally on the article's talk page: see WP:BRD. If you think this is not just a disagreement about content but a behavioural issue (eg vandalism), you may post a request on the WP:administrators' noticeboard/incidents or WP:Administrator intervention against vandalism noticeboards; but if you do so you must have attempted to engage with the editor in question first. For what it's worth, I can't see any problem with Edward321's edits to that article, but I know next to nothing about the subject. --ColinFine (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 24

Cold War

When did the Cold War begin? Some say that it began with Churchill's Iron Curtain speech in 1946, others that it began with the Berlin blockade in 1948. So which is it -- or was there yet another event which started it? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 07:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 07:03, 24 March 2017 edit 2601:646:8e01:7e0b:f88d:de34:7772:8e5b (talk) →‎Cold War: new section ← Previous edit		Revision as of 07:09, 24 March 2017 edit undo 2601:646:8e01:7e0b:f88d:de34:7772:8e5b (talk) →‎Cold War Next edit →
Line 184:		Line 184:
	== Cold War ==		== Cold War ==

	When did the [[Cold War]] begin? Some say that it began with [[Churchill]]'s [[Iron Curtain speech]] in 1946, others that it began with the [[Berlin blockade]] in 1948. So which is it -- or is there yet another event which started it? [[Special:Contributions/2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B\|2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B]] ([[User talk:2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B\|talk]]) 07:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)		When did the [[Cold War]] begin? Some say that it began with [[Churchill]]'s [[Iron Curtain speech]] in 1946, others that it began with the [[Berlin blockade]] in 1948. So which is it -- or was there yet another event which started it? [[Special:Contributions/2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B\|2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B]] ([[User talk:2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B\|talk]]) 07:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)