Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous

February 2

U.S. Capitol Police division office

Does the U.S. Capitol Police (USCP) have a division office in the U.S. Capitol? The USCP headquarters is located elsewhere in D.C.
The question pertains to the following excerpt from Death of Brian Sicknick.

Sicknick later collapsed around 10 p.m. at the Capitol

Notes

References

Bob K31416 (talk) 15:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

The Capitol Police has a number of divisions, listed here, including one called the "Capitol Division" which presumably provides uniformed services to the Capitol Building itself; there are also divisions for the House Office Buildings, the Senate Office Buildings, and the Library of Congress. I have looked at available floor plans for the Capitol, and cannot find any information on which room their Capitol division is located in; such information may be intentionally not disseminated for security reasons. --Jayron32 16:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Sicknick served in the First Responder's Unit,^[1] apparently part of the Capitol Division^[2] – unless several divisions of the Uniformed Services Bureau have thus-named units, but this is made less likely by the fact that the first link does not mention a division, and that the other three divisions serve specific parts of the building.  --Lambiam 17:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Reportedly, the effects of bear spray on people who do not suffer from asthma or COPD, affecting their ability to see and breathe freely, typically self-resolve in 10 to 20 minutes.^[3] Officer Sicknick was sprayed at approximately 14:20 hours on January 6 and collapsed that evening at approximately 22:00 hours, about 7 hours and 40 minutes later. Although no report that I saw mentions anything to the effect, given these times it is possible that he, after recovering from having been sprayed, returned from the close-by offices at 119 D Street NE to the Capitol grounds, a ten-minute walk.  --Lambiam 18:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts. It appears that the information is not publicly available. So far the news media has not reconciled the two reports of collapsed after returning to the division office and collapsed at the Capitol. They may be doing the police a courtesy if the division office is located at the Capitol and that's sensitive info. Anyhow, thanks again. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

February 6

Science & Vie

(Not sure where this question should go): Is, or was ever, the French popular scientific journal Science & Vie in any way affiliated with its Russian counterpart? Or do they simply happen to coincidentally share the same name and a similar format? Also, is, or was ever, either of them affiliated with publications of the same name in Eastern European countries other than the USSR (in particular, in Poland, Czechoslovakia and Bulgaria)? 2601:646:8A81:6070:6C67:B2B6:D530:3F2A (talk) 10:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

According to the French Wikipedia, the French journal was founded in 1913 as La Science et la Vie by Paul Dupuy, whose father Jean Dupuy owned and published Le Petit Parisien. Paul had travelled to the US to study the press there and was inspired by magazines such as Popular Science and Popular Mechanics. Thus, an institutionalized link with the older Наука и жизнь appears unlikely, although the French name may have been borrowed from the Russian periodical. The Russian Wikipedia does not discuss a possible link but refers to Наука и жизнь in the "See also" section.  --Lambiam 08:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Night in Tunisia (short story collection)

Hi people, Tried to populate the isbn in the infobox from https://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=30859720972 (on the second image), but got a parameter error, Any ideas?, Happy to move the question elsewhere GrahamHardy (talk) 13:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Found Talk:International Standard Book Number should I move this question there?GrahamHardy (talk) 13:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

The ISBN that you attempted to add in the infobox had only 9 digits; it should have 10. What was your source for it, and did you transcribe it correctly? Deor (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Please see the image above...GrahamHardy (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

So the publisher got it wrong; you'll need to see if you can find another source, from a different printing or edition or from the back cover. --184.144.97.125 (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

The way the number seems to be grouped (0-905441-01) makes me think this is registration group 0 (English language), publisher 905441, and title 01, with the check digit improperly omitted. But this is all speculation. (If this is correct, the check digit should be "X".) CodeTalker (talk) 19:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

An ISBN of 090544101X is not recognized by WorldCat or any other site I've searched, and I've not been able to turn up a copy of the first edition in any library I've looked at. There is a copy of a 1979 edition by the same publisher in the British Library, for which the ISBN is given as 0904613569. Deor (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Whereas in the Toronto Public Library catalog, they show the 1979 edition ISBN as 0904613550. --184.144.97.125 (talk) 06:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I thought the correct ISBN might be 0-905441-00-1, but this has been assigned to a different book. Google Books lists its publisher as "Co-op Books" and the year as "1976", both the same as for the 1976 edition of Night in Tunisia. The 0-905441-0✽-✽ numbers beyond 0-905441-01-✽ are for books published in 1977 or 1978, making it more than likely that 0-905441-01-X is the correct ISBN. The publisher seems to have been inactive after 1982.  --Lambiam 18:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Plenty of editions are listed at Worldcat. 0904613550 is one of the early ISBNs, I couldn't find one for the edition linked to (ISBNs were still quite new-fangled in the mid 70s) Chuntuk (talk) 12:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

February 7

Edited book

Which is the world's first edited book based on contributions of many persons and selection of content based on some criterion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.0.35.180 (talk) 15:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

That's hard to say. It depends on how you define "book". Many stories, such as the Epic of Gilgamesh or the Homeric Epics, were passed down via oral tradition, and as such, can be said to have had many hundreds of contributors. If you want very old collections of distinct texts, the Vedas would be a contender. --Jayron32 18:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

This sounds more like an anthology, according to which, "one of the earliest known anthologies [was] the Garland (Στέφανος, stéphanos) ... by Meléagros of Gadara" (fl. 1st century BCE). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:41, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I’ll chip in with the Bible, or another religion’s counterpart. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I mentioned the Vedas above; they are several centuries older than the Bible. --Jayron32 11:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article on the history of books.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

February 8

Hi. Can I ask question about hair removal on legs?

This is quite a personal question. I'm almost 38 year old autistic woman with mortor skill problems (eye hand coordination issues) and sensory issues and I have a relative who shaves my legs because I can't and i would like to have another option of removing the hair since my relative is somewhat older now. I tried getting the hair removed on my legs with laser treatment and it hurt like hell and that is no longer a option. I also tried hair removal cream and my relative said that didn't work and I don't want to get my legs waved because it would hurt me.I have also also tried an electric raser/razer (not sure how it's spelled. Please give me some options if possible. Thank you. 2001:569:5262:A00:D880:97A0:65EE:1059 (talk) 13:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

It's spelt Razor. There are electric and manual ones. 81.187.116.230 (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Hair removal#Forms of hair removal and methods has some options. --Jayron32 15:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I looked into this a little, and it sounds like you've tried some of these, but this is what I found:

• Consider using hair removal cream, but test it on a small section of skin first as some people have reactions to them. Hair removal creams also have strong odor and unusual consistency, which could make them difficult to tolerate depending on your sensory sensitivities.
• Consider using waxing or sugaring. Sugaring may be better for sensory sensitivities as some forms of wax are hot. It also seems to be preferred over wax for hair removal across large areas.
• There are some products specifically designed specifically for people with disabilities such as the Gillette TREO. They appear to get good reviews. Some not designed specifically are still quite useful such as electric safety razors with dynamic grips, drop-proof, and water-proof. There's websites that offer reviews on products like these.

Sorry we couldn't be of more help! ––FormalDude talk 21:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)