I'm trying to insert commissioners from 1953 to 1971 into the table, see User:MB298/sandbox. I'm not quite understanding what's wrong with the table. It's fine if anyone edits the sandbox page to attempt to correct the errors. MB298 (talk) 04:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

It'll be best if you ask at WP:Help desk or WP:Teahouse. It may also help if you explain better what the problem is. I had a quick look at the source and it looks like there could be major problems with the table. For example there's a 6th column without a subject heading. The only person in this column seems to be commissioner 2. But the person listed as commissioner 2 for this time in the table was actually the mayor. The person listed as mayor was never mayor but commissioner 4. You'll want to make sure the rowspan for the people already listed are right before you make any adjustments to the people below, and make sure the ones on top are showing up in the right column (and for the right number of rows) then move on. Nil Einne (talk) 12:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I have a blog on Blogger where I sometimes embed YouTube videos. However, I've just realised that people who read the posts from the email subscriptions can't see the videos at all. Embedded images seem to show up fine in the emails, but embedded videos don't. I've tried mucking around in Feedburner trying to find a setting that will allow embedded videos to play in the emails, but I can't seem to figure it out. Please help. La Alquimista 10:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Is there any history of how this movement became a global phenomenon and also written from the perspective that as art it doesn't have merit? From searching there's a lot on how CIA money promoted its further glory after it caught on but I'm more curious about the early stages of its rise before the CIA took an active interest. Muzzleflash (talk) 09:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Abstract Impressionism is an art movement originating in New York City in the 1940’s. Robert Coates coined the term ‘abstract impressionism’ in 1946 in one of his critiques of the new artwork. The most important predecessor of abstract impressionism is Surrealism, which also emphasizes spontaneous and subconscious creation. See [1]. The Wikipedia article Abstract expressionism has an extensive section about its history. Reports that the CIA financed and organized the promotion of American abstract expressionists in the 1950s have appeared but have also been rejected as historical revisionism. The OP may be looking for opinion essays about hostility to abstraction in art, such as this example "modern abstract art is a disgraceful mockery of all that is right and good in the art realm". AllBestFaith (talk) 10:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Why do ducks have corkscrew penises that hinder mating when successful evolution would seem to depend on passing on ones genes? 109.207.58.2 (talk) 12:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Female birds have an all-in-one entrance called a cloaca. It's very rare for birds to reproduce by means of penetration of the cloaca: the sperm is usually deposited on or near the entrance.

I'm curious to know why the OP thinks a corkscrew penis hinders mating. I've not noticed a shortage of ducks, they seem to be a very successful family. Richard Avery (talk) 14:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

See Female Ducks’ Twisty Tracts Defend Against Screwy Males quoting recent research. It seems that the twisty male shape allows for a great deal of extension at the appropriate moment, but that female ducks (Muscovy ducks at any rate) have evolved parts that may spiral in the opposite direction so that they can prevent penetration by unwelcome males. Alansplodge (talk) 16:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

A more detailed report on the same research is at Yale Scientific - Unraveling the Mysteries of Duck Mating. Alansplodge (talk) 16:44, 14 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Penis#Birds goes into a fair amount of detail on the subject, including an appropriate photograph. See also Mallard Song. Tevildo (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

As for "Why?", see mate selection. The female's children (and therefore her genes) have most chance of surviving if they get the genes of the best possible mate, so the female has an incentive to keep the less desirable males away (and in turn, the males attempt to overcome these defenses). Smurrayinchester 12:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

What Jaguar model is this one? Took it today and reverse image search looks unhelpful. Thanks once again. Brandmeister^talk 18:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

It looks like a Jaguar XJ (XJ40) of some sort. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Confirm above, compare File:1989.jaguar.xj6.arp.jpg. Our article points out that both chrome and black window surrounds were available. Nanonic (talk) 18:31, 14 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I also felt it's some 1980s Jaguar. Brandmeister^talk 19:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

It's a Jaguar XJ40. The round headlamps suggest it's an XJ6 model, not a Daimler or Sovereign (the Jaguar badge and hood ornament confirm it's not a Daimler), while the lattice wheels suggest a later model, maybe 1992-3. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 11:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

In America, how do people get to be a presidential candidate for a political party? My question is prompted by the reports that the Republican party does not really want Donald Trump to stand as a candidate for them. Nevertheless, he is doing so, so how did this happen? Why was he accepted if the party doesn't want him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.224.55 (talk) 03:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC) (PS, I understand that he isn't yet the final choice of candidate for president. I understand that part, so there is no need to explain it.)Reply

The primary elections and caucuses currently underway are how the parties chose their candidates for the election. Many state parties do not have any party membership requirements, whoever shows up and takes a ballot is part of the party. Ballot access explains a little of the process but each state (and state party) is different, gathering signatures may be required, paying a filing fee, registering with the Federal Election Committee. Rmhermen (talk) 03:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

What do you mean by "takes a ballot"? (I am not asking about who can vote but who can stand.) I looked at Ballot access, but it is long and daunting and I can't understand its relevance. It says "Each U.S. State has its own ballot access laws", and then there is a long list of per-state detail, but I don't understand how this applies to my question. Trump is standing across the whole country, not just in one state. There must be a country-wide procedure whereby he can stand as a Republican. That is what I want to know. 109.152.148.126 (talk) 12:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Why do you think there "must be a country-wide procedure" be? As I understand it, there isn't. The fact that Trump is "standing across the whole country, not just in one state" is largely irrelevant. I'm pretty sure the reason why Trump is standing across the whole country is not because there's some country wide procedure, but because he can afford to pay the people and attract the supporters who'll make sure he is eligible to stand in every "one state". Nil Einne (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

There has been some discussion in the US Republican Party about a need to change the nomination process to prevent people who aren't really Republicans from running. Presumably that would involve something like what we call superdelegates to decide who can run in the Republican primary. Unfortunately, there seem to be many people who vote Republican who don't want a traditional Republican candidate, so that might mean they would no longer vote Republican, if people like Trump were excluded. On the other hand, if people like Trump win the nomination, they aren't likely to win the general election, so the Republican Party is in a tough position either way. (Personally I think they need to cut the "tea party" contingent loose, to form their own tiny party, and hopefully the Republicans could then pick up more moderates from the US Democratic Party and the independents.) StuRat (talk) 04:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, you say "change the nomination process", but what is the existing nomination process? That is my question. 109.152.148.126 (talk) 12:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC) PS, in case there is still confusion, I am not asking about how the primary elections and caucuses work. I am asking how people get their names on the candidate lists that people vote on in the primary elections and caucuses. 109.152.148.126 (talk) 12:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

You say that Trump is standing across the whole country, not just in one state. Actually, he is standing (running as we Americans say) separately in each state. Each state sends delegates to the national Republican convention, and the delegates there vote for who should be the national party's candidate. So the candidate tries to win as many delegates as possible in each state, according to the rules of that state. Loraof (talk) 15:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

So someone like Trump would need to go through 50 state-specific procedures in order to get on the ballot in all 50 states? 109.152.148.126 (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes. Which is why one occasionally has serious "candidates" that fail to the get on the ballot on all of the states. The participation requirements vary widely. New Hampshire is one of the most liberal states, and anyone can stand in the primary by paying $1000 and declaring they want to represent the party. Which is why there were 30 Republicans and 28 Democrats on the ballot [2]. Dragons flight (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I see, thank you very much. I didn't realise it was state-by-state. 109.152.148.126 (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Trying to get some clarity here...we're talking about how you get to become a candidate to enter the race to become the party nominee for the presidential race...in other words, how do you get to the position that Trump, Cruz, et al are at right now?

First, you're supposed to set up an exploratory committee to and a political action committee - people within your chosen party assess whether you have the ability to raise funds and capture attention. When those groups raise $5,000 - you have 15 days to file a "Statement of Candidacy"...and then 10 days more to file a "Statement of organization". These things are about legally collecting and spending money as a candidate.

To be honest - it's still not clear how those committees are formed and who has to be on them. SteveBaker (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Wow, only $5000 ? That's not much of a barrier. I'm guessing that's a very old standard, set when that was a bit harder. So now we have the situation where pretty much anyone can run (and I do mean anyone !). StuRat (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Bugs Stu, I think you and Steve are talking a bit at cross-purposes here. The $5000, if I've understood correctly, is not a barrier to be achieved. It's a threshold at which US elections laws and regulations begin to apply to you. Presumably, if you somehow could run a campaign for $4999, you would be much freer in how to conduct it. --Trovatore (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

That raises a possibly interesting question: Could someone, theoretically, be running in both parties? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Many states require candidates sign some form of a statement of allegiance to the party in order to participate on the party's ballot and prohibit candidates from participating in multiple parties simultaneously. People do occasionally try this though, e.g. [3]. Dragons flight (talk) 19:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

@SteveBaker, when you talk of raising $5,000 and filing statements, do you believe that this is a state-by-state process or one process that covers the entire country? 109.152.148.126 (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC) Answered above. 109.152.148.126 (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Those are requirements under Federal campaign finance laws. Nothing to do with getting your name on a state ballot. Rmhermen (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Well, that seems to be different again. So you're saying there is a federal procedure first whereby "people within your chosen party assess whether you have the ability to raise funds and capture attention" etc., and then there are the state-by-state procedures too? I wonder how Trump got through the first stage? I mean, I'm sure he has the funds and can "capture attention", but could he not have been blocked under some pretext if the party did not want him? 109.152.148.126 (talk) 00:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

There is no national party to block him - there are 57 state and territorial parties for each. See Politics of the United States#Organization of American political parties. What the state parties want is what the primaries determine. Rmhermen (talk) 03:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for that useful link. From the perspective of someone in the UK, it is all quite strange and unexpected. Over here, candidates are chosen by political parties (or are independent). You cannot simply declare that you are representing a party without their endorsement. 81.152.224.34 (talk) 14:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

It used to be the case in America that the "party bosses" decided on the presidential candidates, but the process has become more democratic since then. The downside of that approach is that by the time the conventions are held, (1) the candidate is already known; and (2) the party can be stuck with a candidate who is unlikely to win the election. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

• The proper place to start is with the fact that the Constitution makes no provision for parties or primaries, whatsoever. The President is elected by the Electoral College, with each state determining by its own laws how its votes (based on the number of Senators and Representives it has) are determined. In the beginning, this was primarily according to the state legislatures, and usually on a winner-takes-all basis. The Constitution has no say in this.

As time passed, a two-party system arose, largely because the state and federal legislatures did not encourage the multiparty coalition-forming governments. Given that the parties are (quasi-)private organizations, they can set their own rules, and it used to be at state party conventions that candidates would stump for support, but the bosses might make their own decisions in back rooms, especially in brokered conventions.

Eventually, after the Civil War, and during the Progressive Era, the two major parties passed (widely varying) state laws providing for publicly subsidized primaries, and they provided automatic ballot access to themselves by requiring that, as in the example of New York, smaller parties have to reestablish their qualification for a slate on the ballot if they did not meet a certain threshold: Qualified New York political parties.

Basically, the primary system as it exists is a criminal conspiracy by the state Democratic and Republican election committees to make sure they retain the seemingness of legitimacy by holding publicly subsidized public votes, while making it hugely expensive for third parties to get a ballot spot. New York requires candidates to get a large number of verifiable petition signatures in each county for a candidate to appear. These signatures are regularly challenged by major-party functionaries, and disqualified on the smallest of technicalities.

Even major-party challengers are kept of the ballot at the state level. For example, there was no 1992 Republican Party presidential primary in New York, although Pat Buchanan ran as president against the incumbent GHWB. This was challenged in court, and although the primaries were held in public buildings and at public expense, Bush's operatives kept Buchanan of the ballot in many states.[4]

Even at the Federal level, the game is rigged. Even the "non-partisan" (i.e., three Democrats and three Republicans) Federal Election Commission sets and breaks its own rules. In the 1992 election, Independence Party candidate Ross Perot was allowed to take part in the presidential debates. A decision was set that in the future, any candidate polling at 5% or more would be allowed to participate in the general election debates. Then, before the first debate was scheduled between Clinton and Bob Dole in 1996, it was announced by the FEC that they would not allow him on stage, even though he was polling over 10%, because he was not a "serious" candidate.[5]

The party system in the US is corrupt, and rigged in favor of the two major parties.

μηδείς (talk) 03:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I am buying a new refrigerator. Regular, standard size. The company (Lowe's) will have it delivered and will haul away my old refrigerator. It has to be delivered up a flight of stairs to the second floor of the house. Do I "tip" these delivery men? How much? I have no idea if I do and how much I do. I assume they will send two guys, not just one? These are not Lowe's employees; I believe that Lowe's simply contracts with a delivery service company. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

There will almost certainly be two people. In Germany, I'd tip them EUR 20 (but I'm generous, it's not really required, and EUR 10 might be more common). In the US, tips are normally higher than in Germany, but if you hand them US$20, they will probably be happy. If you are elsewhere, I'm out of my comfort zone ;-). In any case, it certainly also depends on what you can easily afford. If you plan to tip, it's a lot less awkward if you have bills for the exact amount (or a range of amounts, depending on quality of service) at hand. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I once lived in a motel for two weeks and didn't tip anything because I couldn't afford to. I think this is why my phone charger was stolen. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

It would not occur to me to tip someone for this sort of delivery unless they did something extra special, and carrying the shipment up one flight of stairs does not count. I'm in Canada, by the way. However. here are a number of opinions from people in the US, including some who disagree with me. --69.159.9.222 (talk) 21:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

It depends. If I liked the service, I might tip them lunch money, i.e. 5 to 10 dollars each. More if they go above and beyond the call of duty. But if they refuse the tip, I wouldn't fight them. If you're really concerned, call the store and see if there's any sort of policy about it. Although, obviously, what you do behind closed doors is up to you. At the very least, though, offer them some cold water before they leave. They'll probably have their own, but the gesture will be appreciated. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Yes.

When I had my posturepedic delivered, I asked the guy in charge, "Que prefieren como propina, ¿mota, o efectivo?" The response was, "¡Los dos!" So they got a five each and a fat spliff to share. The basic rule is that delivery people work on tips, those who charge the customer themselves directly by the hour for "labor" {such as plumbers and electricians) don't. μηδείς (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

````Hello, I submitted a Wikipedia page regarding Mr. Mir Abdolreza Daryabeigi' biography, It was rejected. I included all references. What kind of references are looking for so I can provide them. I am really disappointed why he was not accepted. There are painters of his time period with same kind of information were accepted. I am trying to gather more information through archives.- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirrezd (talk • contribs) 02:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

The notices already on Mirrezd's talk page answer the question better than we can do here, and indicate where to discuss it further. —Tamfang (talk) 06:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

A while back it seems to me you addressed the format issue and the fact many, in fact, very many articles are getting very long and directed specifically at "experts" and the already well read, rather than common knowledge and common information seekers.

Qualifying as a unique expert in very few fields, I would comment too many subjects are still so, and consequently not too useful. I find myself looking else where.

You might limit your experts to addressing and writing a common knowledge brief first, before allowing them to write their masters thesis on the subject.

Roger A. Newman (talk) 03:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

What's your question? ←Baseball Bugs <sup>What's up, Doc?</sup> carrots→ 03:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

This point has recently been raised at WP:VPI#Required knowledge in articles. The OP may wish to contribute there. Tevildo (talk) 23:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Simple English Wikipedia may become the main version, if this one becomes too complex for the average reader. StuRat (talk) 03:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello. May I ask you a question? I am not a European but I want to study in Europe as a visiting student for one year(undergraduate). Recently I have begun to make my motivation letter, but I have some problem. I know that admissions offices of universities are presumably interested in the extent of directly relevant knowledge and understanding, relevant language proficiency, and credible reassurances from a third party that the applicant is honest and mentally stable. But I wonder if there have been studies of the importance of other factors and/or the persuasiveness of different kinds of argument. (I'm particularly interested in northern European universities.)Hippojunior5 (talk) 04:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Do you particularly need to have transferable college credit for these studies? Rather than approaching individual schools, you might first contact the relevant country's Department of Higher Education (in the Ministry of Education) to inquire about admissions standards and requirements for non-nationals. For example, the European institution of higher education may require that a prospective enrollee has attended an equivalent undergraduate program in their country of origin and can provide a transcript of a minimum amount of coursework. -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Here's a current online article from NBC News: Why American students are flocking to Germany - and staying. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Where did the convention of having an "S" rank above an "A" rank come from? This is found in video games. — Melab±1 ☎ 05:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

The first hit I get on Google for "S rank" looks informative. Of course it's difficult to verify, but the page seems to jibe with my anecdotal knowledge (I'm a big gamer), which is that such ranking systems are most common in Japanese video games. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 07:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'll second that. Einhander was an earlier game that used it that I recall (and that you both should check out if you like 2D shooters :). This thread [6] mentions the speculation that it can be associated with "super" or "special", which is what I've always assumed. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

It's a Japanese thing originating from the anime Rosario + Vampire, in which various monsters are ranked from weakest to strongest, with the S-Class being the strongest. 109.207.58.2 (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Uhh, the S rank thing is way way older than Rosario + Vampire. It's in video games from the 1980s. Rosario + Vampire took it from video games, not the other way around. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 20:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Likely this belongs in one of those places I never go, but anyway:

Many of my Wikipedia edits are to tighten an article's language; consequently, it's possible that my net contribution, measured in bytes, is negative! I wonder, has someone made a tool to add up a user's net byte-count in article space, or to count up the plura and minora (that's plural of plus and minus for you non-Latinists) in one's contribution log? —Tamfang (talk) 06:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Plura and minora? I'm reminded of lung membranes and Jewish lampstands. -- Jack of Oz <sup>[pleasantries]</sup> 06:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC) Reply

[Moved to WP:RD/E ] Tevildo (talk) 08:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I would be interested in identifying a flower from a fairly well circulated photo, seen here. It is yellow, seen on the right half.

I had thought it was a buttercup, but on looking at images of buttercups in a field, they are far more dispersed than in the photo. I'm sure someone will know fairly easily, I'm just not a plant guy. Thanks in advance!

216.173.144.188 (talk) 09:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

It may depend on where it is in the world, but my immediate thought is oilseed rape. --ColinFine (talk) 10:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

It does not seem to resemble that in terms of shape of the flower in some cases. However, the wiki article for it explains there are many species, and it DOES bare striking resemblance to these, which are in fact featured on that page.

216.173.144.188 (talk) 10:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I concur that it is yellow rapeseed, or oilseed rape. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks to the both of you. I accept this answer. Question completed. 216.173.144.188 (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

(EC, and a little more info):There are indeed many types of rape, and it's just one of the many, many Brassica species we farm. Keep in mind that all the strains or cultivars of rape are still rape, and still the same species. But the farming is the key - this is obviously an agricultural field, so that rules out buttercups and lots of things that aren't grown commercially at that scale. If the photo was taken in north america, it is likely the Canola strain. If the photo was taken in Asia, it may be a different variety. As our article points out, a huge majority (90%) of the crop in Canada (and likely a similar amount in other areas) are GMO strains, usually Roundup Ready. So if you want to know the exact strain, it will be hard to know with certainty, but for North America, the safe bet is Genuity ™ rape from the fine folks at Monsanto, available at a retailer near you [7]. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

While oilseed rape is the most likely identification, it isn't possible to see sufficient detail of the individual flowers to be absolutely certain. The other, very similar plant which might be grown as a field crop is mustard - of which there are also several commercially grown varieties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.178.47 (talk) 15:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Is there any good data or inferences from indirect data that would allow for a comparison between these two groups based on IQ? Muzzleflash (talk) 13:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Even if all of them had taken the same IQ test (they won't have), there are significant problems with using tested IQ as measure of intelligence (Intelligence_quotient#Criticism_and_views). The question is unanswerable. Fgf10 (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

In common law jurisdictions, when using the defence of truth again a tort of libel and/or slander, what is the burden of proof for establishing the truth of the statement? 139.193.9.104 (talk) 14:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Historically, the defendant had the burden of proof in establishing the truth of an otherwise defamatory statement, and our article on English defamation law says this is still true under English law. In the United States, however, due to First Amendment concerns, the plaintiff has the burden of establishing falsity, as explained in this law review article. John M Baker (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

In addition to this, the standard of proof in English law is the civil standard of the balance of probabilities, not the criminal standard of "beyond reasonable doubt". Tevildo (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Reply