Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 April 13

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 13

Kate Gosselin's Hair

Where can I can found pictures of Kate Gosselin's many short haircuts because it seems to me she experiments with them?

Basically, both of us have the same basic cut and also we love to experiment with our hair. At least I do and really unsure if she does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessicaabruno (talk • contribs) 00:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course there is the old google image search: [1]. Bus stop (talk) 01:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Bobbi McCaughey

Does anyone know what is her maiden name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.22.146 (talk) 00:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hepworth. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Becki Dilley

Does anyone know what is her maiden name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.22.146 (talk) 01:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Since both of these women only gained notoriety for these barely notable events, and they were already married at the time, I think your best bet would be to contact local newspapers in the cities in which they lived at the time. Dismas|^(talk) 01:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Stauffer. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Millennium clock at Pompidou Centre

On a visit to the Pompidou Centre sometime in the last century, there was a digital clock in the plaza which was counting down the seconds to the new millennium. I seem to remember that there was a sign next to the clock which promised a surprise when the clock reached zero. Does anyone know what, if anything, the surprise was? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 10:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It was probably not as exciting as the promise of the surprise was. ;-) Brief Googling for New Year's celebrations at the centre don't turn up anything world-shattering... --98.217.14.211 (talk) 12:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Possibly an announcement that the Millennium didn't end for another 12 months?86.209.155.155 (talk) 12:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)DT

Pedant. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 13:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

This, though not a reliable source, indicates that the digital clock was removed during renovations before the countdown ended, and later another one was set up somewhere else in Paris. I too remember seeing the clock and wondering what the surprise would be, but I hadn't thought about it ever again, until this question was asked here. :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 13:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Oral sex

How to convince my partner to have Oral sex with me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.246.174.130 (talk) 16:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The lack of specifics here reminded me of a Limerick thus:

A masculine girl from Khartoum, took a feminine boy to her room; they spent the whole night in a helluva fight about who should do what - and to whom.

92.23.165.231 (talk) 17:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I remember it thus:

There once were two queers from Khartoum who spent the whole night in a room. They argued all night over who had the right to do what, and with which, and to whom.

Each version has its advantages. —Tamfang (talk) 01:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Oral sex is fun for both parties, and it gives pleasure to someone you presumably want to give pleasure to. Honestly, that's pretty much the only argument there is for it. The arguments against it tend to be kind of pointless -- it's disgusting (it's not), it's wrong (it's not) or it's too weird (it's not), but if someone really sticks to them, the problem isn't really with the oral sex. Sex columnist Dan Savage likes to say that oral sex is standard; any model that comes without it should be returned to the lot. Personally, I tend to agree. (Obviously, this applies equally to both men and women.) That said, there's no magic trick that will make him or her agree to it, other than explaining that it's fun and that it feels good, and that you want to have some (and, obviously, are willing and eager to give some). If that doesn't do the trick, you can either work on gently broadening their horizons or accept that your sexual needs and their resources don't match up. If you're in the latter situation, and they're unwilling to do anything about it, you're pretty much in a position where you need to figure out if your unfulfilled sexual desires are made up for by the other aspects of the relationship. In any case, this is not really a problem that people on the internet can help you with, and it's not going to be solved without communication with your partner. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 17:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, one could see that some people have a disgust reaction to sexual fluids, which could explain why they are reticent to do it. If a man, for example, finds the odor or taste of vaginal fluids to be nauseating, it could be difficult for him to perform said act on his partner, and visa versa. Coercing someone to do something they find distasteful could have negative implications on the health of the relationship. (Thankfully for Mrs. 32, I don't have that reaction). However, the key is to talk it through with your partner. If you understand why your partner does not want to do it, you could work out some alternate plans. They could be convinced that the act could be made less uncomfortable (for example, the male could assure the female he would not ejaculate in her mouth, which may allay some of her concerns) or, if such accomodations cannot be made, alternate means of sexual gratification could be arranged. The MOST important thing is to discuss this openly with your partner, and find out what works for BOTH of you together. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, people have disgust reactions to all sorts of things -- I mean, some people insist on only having sex in the missionary position, under the covers, with the lights turned off and with a minimum of movement while trying hard to think about something else. That's not much fun for anyone involved. The point is, either they're willing to talk about their inhibitions and make the effort to meet the other party's needs, or they aren't; if it's the latter, people need to figure out if that's a deal-breaker. And I think it's okay to start out awkwardly, I should probably add. Nobody's an expert at this stuff right out of the gate. Obviously, communication is key. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 02:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Some cultures and religions make oral sex taboo. So do some superstitions. So do some very much more everyday phobias and distastes. Have you tried talking to her about it, rather than trying to convince her? There is a difference... in one, you're likely to find the cause of her resistance. In the other, you're likely only to break or reinforce it, depending on your skills and the level of her determination to resist you. --Dweller (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Give before you get. Give pleasure in its widest sense, asking for feedback. Explore new things together. Find out what your partner wants and make an effort to provide it. (All of the above apply to much more than sex.) And then, in a quiet and unpressured time and place, ask nicely. BrainyBabe (talk) 23:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Watch porn with your partner with a lot of oral sex and foreplay. Almost all good porn has oral sex. Sex without oral sex is no sex at all. Sex is not always done to produce babies. It is for fun. - DSachan (talk) 05:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a remarkably unhelpful comment. FYI, there are many ways to enjoy sex that don't involve oral sex. They may not have ready access to porn, depending on where in the world they are living. And nowhere does the OP say that they are only interested in having sex for procreation. A comment like that is just likely to increase the OP's anxiety. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 06:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• You don't give much specifics. The first thing would simply be to ask. If your partner doesn't want to, convincing them to do so against their will would be a very bad thing. - 131.211.210.206 (talk) 12:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes, people without any reason get anxious of different kinds of things and all of a sudden, when they come to grips with that thing later sometime in the life, they realize what a great thing they were missing so far. Exploring different things is the way the life should be. Sometimes the action may not be enjoyable, but sometime it could be and that action may well become a good source of joy in life. I guess oral sex is one of those things where several people may freak out at the beginning just by the idea, but that doesn't mean that sexual partners should not (if one feels it is great) try to convince the other one to do so. There are hesitations in several good things in the beginning (in general), but they may well become enjoyable later (sometimes even after first attempt). I am sure there are ways to convince the partner (and finally give pleasure through it) to do the oral. - DSachan (talk) 13:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Traffic Light Frozen on RED in Scotland UK..

I know this is not a legal helpline so I shan't ask for any legal advice BUT I would appreciate a redirect to a reliable link that can solve my problem. Today, I was in a supermarket parking area that could only be egressed on to the main road via a traffic light controlled single exit lane - but the light was stuck on RED and a queue of 20 or so cars waited patiently for about 10 minutes while the main road traffic sequentially obeyed the lights and kept on moving and stopping as normal. Eventually one driver approached the leading car and spoke with the driver and obviously suggested she drive through the red light when it was safe to do so - which she did, and I followed. I subsequently reported the fault to the police and they helpfully promised to report it to the roads department. But when I asked what the legal position was in such scenarios the police person couldn't (or wouldn't) advise. So I have hunted the web high and low without finding any helpful advice for future similar situations, save to say that the responses I did get stated that it is ALWAYS illegal to go through a red light - even if it is clearly not working. So again, I know I can't ask for legal advice here, but if the police can't help, and the web doesn't seem able to either, where can I get advice from. Thanks. 92.23.165.231 (talk) 20:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess the obvious first question is whether there was any other exit from the parking lot...if so, you should obviously take that instead. For US readers - it's important to note that in Scotland (and all of the UK for that matter) there is no "Right turn on Red" rule (it would of course have to be "Left on Red"...but we don't have that law either). SteveBaker (talk) 23:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The legal position is probably (don't quote me!) that it is illegal. But, having had this situation myself, it has to be done. You just need to be extra careful about giving way. pablo_hablo. 23:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

In Ontario, the traffic reporters on all the radio stations frequently announce that when a traffic light is malfunctioning, drivers are required to treat the intersection as a 4-way stop (i.e. as if there were stop signs for all traffic directions). This presupposes that it is obvious to traffic approaching from every direction that there is such a malfunction, something that does not appear to be true in the O.P.'s case. // BL \\ (talk) 02:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

What Pablomismo just described is the defence of necessity. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

No it's not. Wikipedia doesn't have an entry on necessity in Scots Law, but the concept is very limited. Generally you can only act to prevent death or serious injury and where there is no alternative. Wanting to get home on time is not an excuse. (Moss v Howdle 1997 SCCR 215 is probably the most important case in Scots Law re necessity; LORD ADVOCATE'S REFERENCE NO. 1 OF 2000 sets out the law.) The legally correct action would generally be to contact the police and inform them of the situation. --193.172.19.20 (talk) 12:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Ladies and Gentlemen, Boys and Girls...Please remember that we're NOT allowed to give legal advice on the WP:RD - please don't stray into that terratory. SteveBaker (talk) 23:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

You might be interested to note that this happens to bicyclists all the time, because the under-street detectors often don't register their presence. An amusing work to rule protest of this situation I've read about is for the cyclist to simply do the legally correct thing and wait at the light until so many cars line up behind him that a cop shows up to flag them through -- and then it's on to the next light! --Sean 13:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

In my jurisdiction (Wisconsin) they recently passed a law which states that if you're stopped at a red light for more than 45 seconds and the light doesn't turn green, you are allowed to treat the red light as a stop sign (that is, you can proceed when it is safe to do so). This only applies to two wheeled vehicles (e.g. bicycles and motorcycles), and only if the rider believes the signal is detector controlled. -- 128.104.112.117 (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I had a similar situation once, where I was at a red light that refused to change, with one car behind me. The problem was that the car behind me was a police car. I wasn't going to take any chances, so I resolved to out-wait the police car, even if it meant sleeping in my car all night long. After about 10 minutes, the police car drove past me and through the red light. When the cop car disappeared from view, I followed. StuRat (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm a cyclist and it's never been a problem for me. Cyclists also have the same rights as pedestrians in the UK, so if the light was stuck (as has happened a number of times), I just go onto the pavement, cross over the zebra-crossing, then back onto the road, leaving the frustrated line of cars behind me. Incidentally, it is actually the law to do this when in Japan (I lived there for ten years and cycled to work every day). Back to the OP's question, though. If I had been the driver of the front car, I would be very apprehensive about going through the red light, even in the situation described. For the next few weeks I would be expecting a ticket through my door, because of all the surveillance cameras we have, and even if it did seem defensible, I wouldn't enjoy a court appearance.--KageTora (talk) 04:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Cyclists do not have the same rights as pedestrians insofar as it is illegal to cycle on the pavement (see the highway code). You must dismount and push the bike (which is, of course, perfectly legal - but you are then, arguably, not a cyclist). 94.168.184.16 (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

History

How did Allies deal with the problem of war crimes in Europe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EPICbre (talk • contribs) 22:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Did you try putting War crimes into the search box at the top left of any wikipedia page? Dmcq (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Or more specifically, check out Allied war crimes during World War II and the see also section of the article Dmcq links to SN0WKITT3N 13:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the OP was necessarily asking about allied war crimes (although it's an interesting topic); my interpretation was that the question was about the Allies' approach to Axis war crimes. However, it was also my impression that this is a high school history homework question, so unless the OP comes back to explain in more detail, I'm disinclined to offer more advice. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I was going to answer, but I think I'll watch Judgment at Nuremberg, instead (where else can I see Colonel Klink and Captain Kirk in the same movie ?). StuRat (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

While the OP should do his own homework, he/she could start by reading the article Nuremberg Trials. --Xuxl (talk) 18:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

See Victor's justice. The Allies, after World War 2, tried persons from the defeated countries for violating laws which in some cases did not exist when the crimes were committed. The rules were arbitrary and ad hoc. The U.S. has more recently refused to abide by the International Criminal Court for fear its politicians or soldiers might be tried for war crimes. Edison (talk) 05:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The principles under which Axis personnel were tried at the Nuremberg trials were developed from well-recognised principles of international law that had existed before the war. Though some of the specific charges were innovative, they were incremental, not drastic innovations on the existing law.

The US has blatantly placed its state sovereignty above co-operation with the international legal system, by not only not participating in the ICC, but actively subverting it through bilateral agreements with other countries so that its soldiers would not be prosecuted for war crimes. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't care if those who committed the Holocaust/Rape of Nanking/etc. were "legally entitled to do so" (mainly because they made those laws), I'd want them punished by any means necessary. StuRat (talk) 14:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Divorce records

Why are divorce records available for public view? --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 23:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Because divorces are handled in a court of law, the proceedings of which are public. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Both the answer to the question and the accuracy of Jayron's answer depend on where in the world you live. --Dweller (talk) 12:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

True, but given that the question presupposes that divorce records in the OP's jurisdiction ARE public records, that would lead one to the conclusion that he is in a jurisdiction with an open legal system. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Not legally relevant, but there is a long tradition that a marriage is a community thing. That's why in many places marriages are conducted in public, and notices or Banns of marriage have to be read before a marriage can take place. The community is witnessing the agreement of the couple. Following that it would be logical that the fact of a divorce at least, if not the details, would be a matter of public record. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Applying for Student Visa US

Where can one go to download or attain all the necessary documents for the student visa application to allow one living in Canada to study at a US university?

The official State Department website does not appear to have the forms available for download: http://travel.state.gov/visa/temp/types/types_1268.html

A Google search also yields this site,[[2]], which does contain all the forms, but for a fee. Is this the only way to attain the forms? Jamesino (talk) 23:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You could try e-mailing the State Department, or writing them a letter, with ink, and some paper. Or asking the embassy in your own country. pablo_hablo. 00:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Canadian citizens don't technically need a visa to study in the US, they just need an I-20, as stated here (you also have to pay the SEVIS fee and keep the receipt). The I-20 has to be signed by the university's registrar each year of study. If I remember correctly, the school that accepts you provides you with an I-20. You also need to show that you can support yourself financially over the course of your studies, since you will not be allowed to work off campus. This can either be showing you have a bunch of money in the bank, sufficient scholarships or bursaries, or a letter from a parent or whatever saying they'll pay for it and proof that they have the money available. Or something like that. When I went through the process, the school's international student office was the most useful. TastyCakes (talk) 00:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm I did have a little insert in my passport that said F1 though, and I can't remember where I got it. I have a feeling they gave it to me the first time I entered the states on my I-20. I'd second Pablo's advice, contact the nearest American consulate and ask them exactly what you need and then make sure you have it all. TastyCakes (talk) 00:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)