February 9

It has been recommended in order to maintain a healthy body weight you need frequent physical exercise along with appropriate nutrition to achieve those results. When they say frequent physical exercise what do they mean? And maintain a healthy body weight what does that mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.151.55.109 (talk) 12:16, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For your first question, the World Health Organisation says:"Adults aged 18–64 should do at least 150 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic physical activity throughout the week or do at least 75 minutes of vigorous-intensity aerobic physical activity throughout the week or an equivalent combination of moderate- and vigorous-intensity activity". See Physical Activity and Adults. You can find this information yourself really easily by the use of Google or another search engine. Alansplodge (talk) 14:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We really cannot offer you advice on this. Everyone's nutritional and physiological needs are different, and you ought to consult a doctor who specializes in this sort of thing.--WaltCip (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 10

I posted last week about a GFCI circuit breaker randomly tripping a lot. It started tripping more and more often, so I unplugged stuff one group at a time, except for a hardwired ceiling light fixture which I left connected. The last thing I unplugged was a lamp and a space heater, both of which were plugged in but turned off. Both of them use 2-wire cords. The breaker hasn't tripped lately so these two devices are suspect unless it trips again (they are both unplugged now).

Questions: 1) is it even possible that a 2-wire device has a ground fault that trips a GFCI? I don't have a complete understanding of how GFCI works but I thought that unless there was a ground path through a wet floor or something, leakage in a device was likely to the ground pin of a 3-wire cord. The floor seems dry as far as I can tell, though I will check it for stains. 2) Is there a way I can test these two devices with a multimeter, to check for such faults? Thanks. 73.93.155.38 (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 1) is it even possible

Yes.

This is the main purpose of GFCI (RCD). The fault diverts current to ground (literal earth), probably through you.

In the earlier pure three-wire (with ground) non-GFCI system, the fault current was expected to divert to the earthed case and return through the ground wire). This is a low impedance path, a high enough current to then blow the protection fuse. This might work for table lamps with low 1A fuse ratings (if correctly fused, on the British system), but it worked very badly for either heaters (with large fuses) or non-British installations reliant on fused radials, fused at 15A and upwards.

You can test these faults with a multimeter. You might even find them. But you can't test the device completely without a machine such as a PAT tester (for most appliance types). See Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2018_March_6#earthing Andy Dingley (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but the heater and lamp are both just sitting on the floor: where could the ground path be? That's what I'm having trouble understanding. The PAT article is helpful and I'll check the plugs and stuff, and will also open up the cover plate and check the outlet itself. Your post from March 2018 is great too. The next suspect after the lamp and heater may be the inside-walls wiring, which I think means call an electrician. I think the breaker has not tripped since I unplugged that stuff, but I was out of the house for a while, so it's possible that it tripped and someone reset it. I'll ask them when I can. 73.93.155.38 (talk) 01:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I believe the heater has an indicator lamp that glows when the heater is plugged in even if it's turned off. So if the outlet is miswired, maybe the indicator lamp pulls enough current to trigger a fault: does that make any sense? There is an outlet testing gizmo with three led's (or neon lamps or something) that can detect a miswired outlet.[1] I guess I could get one of those if it seems worth trying. 73.93.155.38 (talk) 02:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It's possible that it could be anything - I just can't see from here. But GFCIs do have a failure mode with age where they become sensitive and prone to nuisance tripping. It would also depend what its current rating is - a modern sensitive one (maybe 30mA) can easily be triggered by damp.

I find the idea of a space heater (presumably quite powerful) on a 2 wire cord terrifying - but then I have a horror of US electrics.

If you have a multimeter, then test both appliances, as best you can (you can't prove they're safe with limited tools, but you might find the fault). I don't much like those simple outlet testers because they don't tell you numbers, so I prefer one of these: [2] The same thing, only £50 (!) but it tells you roughly the earth loop impedance too. Every live band needs one!

Testing the appliances depends on whether they have a metal case or not. If it does (or a touchable part to the lamp holder) then test that with a multimeter - there must be no measurable conductivity to either of the conections. Even a few thousand ohms can trigger a GFCI. Proving that they're safe would require a Megger (high voltage insulation tester). If they're plastic, then focus on a visual test to look for damage. Heaters are especially prone to their insulators or heating elements getting covered in dust, dirt or conductive grime. I'd try to look inside it, if it were mine.

You can test the socket outlet, but again, that's non-trivial testing. Sometimes visual inspection with the cover off will show a fault though. The cheap neon testers are always better than not testing, but don't assume that their "no faults found" is proof they aren't there despite! Andy Dingley (talk) 02:48, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll try to find out what is in those fancy testers and whether I can fake it with a multimeter. I'll also examine the lamp and heater and outlet. Meanwhile, any idea why there is a GFCI breaker at all? It doesn't seem to be running anything in any bathrooms. The bathrooms have GFCI outlets of their own, but they are not on the same circuit as this breaker. GFCI breakers are pretty expensive so if it is the breaker itself being flaky, I wonder if it's bad juju to replace it with a regular breaker. 73.93.155.38 (talk) 06:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I would always (except when a GFCI is inappropriate) replace a GFCI with another GFCI, not just remove it. They are a significant improvement to electrical safety. Here in the UK our '18th edition' of the wiring regs has done what the last five have done over 40 years and required more use of them, in more places. We're now getting to a point where each circuit is expected to have its own, rather than protecting the whole panel with one or two of them. The cost looks a lot when comparing component prices, but it's not much in an overall system, or if you factor in labour.

Testing your circuits now is likely to need a Megger, more than a simple multimeter, because you're looking for a leakage current which might just not show up at low applied voltages. This testing also needs to be carried out by 'a competent person' (not necessarily qualified and certified, but that's the implication). Another useful UK publication is something called an "On-site Guide" which is the toolbox guide book on a condensed version of the wiring regs. it costs £15 rather than £80 and is 50 pages rather than 500. It lists the test sequence for carrying out this test. It's also good practice to measure the earth loop impedance (although that doesn't sound like your fault today) and that often requires a specialised test meter (annual certification on mine to use it for trade costs as much as a decent new multimeter), or at least a multimeter which can accurately measure fractional ohms, and a rather awkward testing process. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GFCI is required by code is many places that other than bathrooms. In the US, each successive edition of the National Electrical Code has increased the types of locations where they must be used. Local jurisdictions may have other specific requirements (or at least declare which NEC edition is in force, and how much can be grandfathered). DMacks (talk) 18:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both of you. I'm more and more suspicious of the space heater (and to some extent the lamp), since the breaker hasn't tripped since I unplugged them yesterday. Before I unplugged them the tripping had gotten up to around 1x per hour. I'll keep trying to figure out what is wrong with them. 73.93.153.166 (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Try plugging them into a different GFCI circuit and plugging in (and using) other devices on this original circuit. That could help decipher "device" vs "circuit/GFCI" as the problem. A wiring fault somewhere between the wallplate and the GFCI breaker could allow current leakage from neutral to a path to ground. From the GFCI's perspective, this is an equivalent circuit to a ground-fault in a device that only occurs when a device on the circuit sends current to neutral. DMacks (talk) 05:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2-wire appliances in the U.S. must be double insulated, or otherwise not be at risk of exposing a user to live from a single fault. U.S. appliances with switches/controls use polarized plugs to ensure a fault in the switch leaves the appliance dead rather than live. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• That's generally true for appliances worldwide. However it's still widely not the case for older appliances, many of which are still in use.

In many cases these can't be brought to modern standards, or made anything like adequately safe, for 2-wire connection, but can be safely converted to a 3-wire connection. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I was just elaborating: only applies to things "up to code" of course. I (in the U.S.) had one electric heater go kaput some years back, and if I recall correctly what happened was it would instantly trip the GFCI breaker when plugged into a GFCI outlet and switched on. I'm not 100% sure; this was years ago. I suspect the poster has the same issue, but in my case it was a lot easier to diagnose! --47.146.63.87 (talk) 03:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lets say I created an article on a poem, but its copyrighted. Would I still be violating copyright guidelines if I only copied 5% of it? For example the entire poem has 100 lines and only 5 lines of the entire poem are inserted into the article. 79.67.74.81 (talk) 17:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are no numerical definitions per se, and we can't give legal advice here, but the relevant doctrine (in the US) is fair use which is a 4-prong subjective balancing test: 1) what is the purpose of the copying (article about the poem), 2) how much of the copied work are you using (5% in your example), 3) type of work being copied (a published poem I'm presuming), and 4) effect on the work's value (depends on the specifics I guess). See the "U.S. fair use factors" section of the fair use article. If you're asking about writing a Wikipedia article about a well known poem, it's reasonable to just look at comparable articles and follow them as examples. E.g. the article Howl quotes a dozen or so lines from the Ginsberg poem with commentary and seems like the type of thing the fair use doctrine is intended to allow. 73.93.153.166 (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What article? If you are referring to a wikipedia article, you should worry about more than copyright. See WP:NFCC for a start. For textual work, any content which isn't your own work should be clearly indicated as such. For content not available under a CC compatible licence, the content should only be included if it significantly adds to the article, and needs to be clearly marked e.g. as a quotation. For an article on the specific poem, there may be merit. For an article on love often there won't be any merit for such an inclusion. Nil Einne (talk) 11:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only part of the WP:NFCC policy that is relevant here is this one sentence:

Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author (as described by the citation guideline), and specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks, <blockquote>, {{Quote}}, or a similar method.

The rest is about other media, such as images and audio clips. "The guideline" referred to, WP:FAIRUSE, says this about the acceptable use of text:

Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. In all cases, an inline citation following the quote or the sentence where it is used is required. Copyrighted text that is used verbatim must be attributed with quotation marks or other standard notation, such as block quotes. Any alterations must be clearly marked, i.e., [brackets] for added text, an ellipsis (e.g.(...)) for removed text, and emphasis noted after the quotation as "(emphasis added)" or "(emphasis in the original)". Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited. Please see both WP:QUOTE for use and formatting issues in using quotations, and WP:MOSQUOTE for style guidelines related to quoting.

No quantitative criterion can supplant a common-sense application of the fair-use criteria, which depend on the why and how of use. In some cases 5% will be too much, in other cases 10% will be fine.  --Lambiam 22:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the only part that is relevant is that. Note also that I said, start with. The lead and rationale section of NFCC apply to everything. They make it clear that our restrictions on the usage of copyrighted works intentionally goes beyond the requirements of fair use under US law. While this issue mostly arises in relation to images, it's important that any contributor to wikipedia understands that even when it comes to textual work. It helps editors understand why we are very strict on such inclusions, and why it's a serious mistake for them to think, even if for example they are a lawyer experienced in such matters, 'my use of the copyrighted text in this article is okay under US fair use provisions, so I"m fine'. I do agree there will never be any clear numerical threshold. Nil Einne (talk) 03:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, one point I was also trying to make without going into much detail is that we should also distinguish between 'copyrighted' and WP:NFCC material. The latter requires quotations etc. But copyrighted material can also be added to article if it's under a CC BY-SA 3.0 compatible licence in certain circumstances. In that case as we are following the licence for reuse, it does not need to be as a quotation, but you do need to do some things to ensure licence compliance. All my contributions including these comments, are copyrighted where eligible for copyright. I've agreed to licence them under the CC BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL my writing them here, but I retain the copyright. Nil Einne (talk) 03:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 12

I would like to compile a list of people who received the Order of Australia. I realise the list is by now quite massive, but where could we get the full list so I can create a subpage? I'm in particular interested in the breakdown by gender so I can contribute to the Women In Red initiative. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 06:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Go to Australian Honours Search Facility. Scroll down to Award Name, choose the level of the order you want, and hey presto. Then choose the next level and repeat. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read WP:LISTPEOPLE if you have not already done so.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which reminds me we have the following lists: List of Companions of the Order of Australia and List of Knights and Dames of the Order of Australia. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Am I allowed to use Google translate to copy an article from german Wikipedia to English Wikipedia? 79.67.77.22 (talk) 12:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Translation and especially the section on machine translation. DuncanHill (talk) 12:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't someone ask this same question a few days ago? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:45, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, here: #Copy. Looks like the same OP.  --Lambiam 16:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, same subnet and both from near the same corner of England. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Boleyn, the second of Henry VIII's six wives was executed on charges of incest, witchcraft, adultery and conspiracy against the king. Were her accusations and the rumors about she entertaining, flirting and having sexual relations with Mark Smeaton, her brother George Boleyn, Henry Norris, Francis Weston and William Brereton true or false? 86.143.182.61 (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article says most of those charges are bogus. Keep in mind that her real "crime" was failure to produce a male heir. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Lady In The Tower: The Fall of Anne Boleyn by Alison Weir has a lengthy preview on Google Books and has plenty of detail on the background. Alansplodge (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But on the other hand: Anne Boleyn was guilty of adultery, new biography claims - "Charges for which she was executed, long thought to have been cooked up, are likely to have been true, says historian George Bernard". Alansplodge (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guilty or not guilty: why did Anne Boleyn have to die? by Suzannah Lipscomb tries to present both sides of the coin; "When it comes to Anne Boleyn’s fall, historians give their ‘best guess’ answers on the basis of the available evidence – which is too sparse to be conclusive. For my part, it is the final ‘cock-up theory’ that convinces me. I believe that Anne was innocent, but caught out by her careless words". Alansplodge (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do the final three episodes of the second season of The Tudors confirm that? 86.143.182.61 (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was that show a documentary? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was a historical drama tv series. 86.143.182.61 (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was. So why would you assume anything presented as "fact" is supported by evidence? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So she and those men were in fact innocent and all the accusations against them were false? 86.128.175.30 (talk) 20:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Henry VIII acting dishonestly? Imagine that! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody will ever know for sure. However, most modern historians conjecture that the accusations were false, the exception being George Bernard (linked above) who thinks otherwise. Alansplodge (talk) 10:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 13

Among my very many areas of total ignorance are dolls. I note that we have an article on Edison's Phonograph Doll; do we also have a more general one about "talking" (i.e. sound-emitting) dolls, perhaps lurking under some title I can't think of? -- Hoary (talk) 08:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's also Chatty Cathy, which has links to other stuff. If there's no article or list, you could create a category grouping them together. Also, if you google "wikipedia talking dolls", you'll find some others. And there are also various works of fiction on this subject, such as Living Doll (The Twilight Zone). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, BB! -- Hoary (talk) 09:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Teddy Ruxpin was a robotic bear airship captain so boys didn't have to admit they were friends with a doll, but he did wear tiny clothes, so... InedibleHulk (talk) 04:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the Jewish/Israeli law, is there any other legal system in which:

The childless intestate grandfather's property - is divided unequally among his three grandsons - if, one grandson has no siblings - whereas the other two grandsons are full siblings.

(The Jewish/Israeli law - gives a half to the grandson who has no siblings - because, he represents his dead parent who - would have inherited a half - if the grandfather's two children had been alive).

87.70.102.206 (talk) 11:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to read per stirpes, which has a fair amount of discussion about the various ways the estate may be divided and a few US examples.

Anyway this isn't legal advice. But per stirpes is generally followed in NZ law too. If the death is intestate the grandchildren will inherit if their parent who would otherwise inherit pre-deceased the decedent [3] [4] [5]. But as they represent that parent they only inherit what that parent would be entitled to, divided among them depending on their number. Also this doesn't apply to any generations beyond the grandchildren of the decedent, i.e. if person A dies and their child A1 pre-deceased them, and their child A1a pre-deceased A, A1a's child A1a1 will not receive anything if there is a living child or grandchild or spouse. Excepting some rare cases where they can challenge the distribution. (But being a great-grandchild is not one case where they can.)

Note when there is a will, whether the grandchildren will inherit will depend on the will. But if it doesn't otherwise specify, the grandchildren (but again no further generation) will inherit the share of any their parent (child of decedent) who pre-deceased the decedent [6] [7]

However, whether intestate or even with a will, people including grandchildren may be able to argue that decedent had some duty to them which will depend on the specific circumstances [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] So a grandchild who is a minor with special needs and under the care of the decedent could have some additional claim than an adult grandchild who had been found guilty of abusing the decedent. (Although as a number of the sources mention, the descendant being a adult with no reasonable financial need doesn't mean the decedent isn't perceived to have a 'moral duty' to them.) But from all these sources, I find it unlikely a court will allow a challenge simply because someone chooses a per capita by generation division of their estate. So per stirpes may be the default, but isn't required.

Also NZ law doesn't distinguish between the gender or sex of the child (or any party). And as many of the sources make clear, although there are the intestate rules, most people strongly suggest you don't rely on them, especially with a significant estate and instead make a will. (But you should consider the other legal requirements to reduce challenges and confusion. Besides the earlier examples, see e.g. [14] [15].)

P.S. I'm aware the NZ Herald source mentions "In theory, if a spouse died and his children who are next in line were no longer alive, the blood-grandchildren could miss out with the money going to the surviving spouse and his or her children from a former marriage." but I couldn't work out what circumstances it's referring to.

Nil Einne (talk) 14:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I came across [16], which when taken together with [17], makes me think per stirpes applies in the Republic of Ireland too. Maybe also Northern Ireland. Also [18] discusses in some limited way how various common law jurisdictions allow challenges to the distribution. Nil Einne (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your detailed answer. I appreciate it. 87.70.102.206 (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Historically, the fee tail usually gave everything to the oldest male child of the oldest male child, by operation of law (i.e. it was not even up to the grandfather). 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:7AC0 (talk) 04:25, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See also Lord Great Chamberlain. —Tamfang (talk) 07:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 16

In our last installment, I had a GFCI circuit breaker tripping more and more often, up to >1x per hour, and this stopped when I unplugged a lamp and space heater from one of the downstream outlets. We went for about a week with no trips, so I figured the culprit had been found. But we had another trip yesterday and one today, despite both of those devices being unplugged and with nothing plugged into that outlet.

Any further suggestions about how to isolate the fault? Some web pages suggest damaged insulation on wiring near the breaker panel or inside the walls. That sounds like a pain to locate. Do electricians ever use time-domain reflectometry for this sort of thing? Other ideas? Thanks. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 23:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]