Miscellaneous desk
< July 6	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 8 >

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.

July 7

A man called "The Professor" that associated with the Founding Father of the United States.

I recently watched a show entitled "Secrets of the Founding Fathers" one the History Channel and while the show in general was quite interesting, one specific part of it really caught my attention. This part was in reference to a man the show called to as "The Professor". It described him a a mysterious man that seemed to have a lot of influence over the Founding Fathers. The program never mentioned his name. The really strange part about it was that he was described as being other realmly or other dimentionally. While this could be taken several ways, the show was trying to emply that he was not from this world. I tryed to find some information on this figure but I came up empty. Anyone have any info? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.158.143 (talk) 00:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the stuff on the History Channel is pretty good, but anything that calls itself "secrets of..." is pretty much crap. There's been stuff on there about how the Freemasons run everything, how aliens came to earth to teach the egyptians how to build pyramids, etc. etc. I am not saying there's not a character called The Professor who may have been a real person, but take his supposed "influence" and "importance" with a grain of salt. If he was supposed to be some sort of ghost or alien or "other worldly being" then the show was 100% bullshit.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe this was total whacko loony stuff, from this loon. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Hinkley? I always wondered how he was able to construct all those things with just coconuts and bamboo... It's all so obvious now - he used advanced alien technology. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]

MacGyver had nothing on The Professor (and Mary Ann, here on Gilligan's Isle). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, I can't help thinking that MacGyver would have worked out a way to actually get off the island. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not while they were still under contract to do a series. Or am I letting reality interfere here too much? :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My favorite Gilligan's episode was the one where they almost got off the island, but Gilligan screwed up and they're still stuck there. PhGustaf (talk) 21:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was pretty much every episode, wasn't it? They were finally rescued by a passing steamer, the good ship Cancellation Notice. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure it wasn't "The Doctor"? -- 128.104.112.85 (talk) 23:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If they've got Dr. Who showing up on the History Channel now, what's next? Peabody and Sherman? I'm going to have to seriously consider cancelling my cable subscription. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swimming championships in Luleå in 1953?

Were there swimming championships in Luleå in 1953? If not, were there other sports championships there in the early 1950s? JIP | Talk 06:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Swedish Swimming Championship for 1953 was held in Linköping. If you are talking about local championships, I think you'll have to hope that an old local swimmer is passing the Reference Desk. Fouracross (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was there some swimming contest in Luleå in 1963 then? The Swedish championship was held in Stockholm and the FINA championships hadn't even started yet, but was there some minor event? JIP | Talk 17:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quality and quantity

How correct is it to say that quality and quantity do not go hand in hand or parallel, as in the endeavour for quality the quantity is compromised? I think the right quantity in itself guarantees quality. Anybody? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.36.6 (talk) 15:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have read this several times and I think you're asking, "Is it true that increasing quality decreases quantity?" The answer to that question is yes. I do not think the generalization the right quantity in itself guarantees quality is correct at all. What do you mean by the "right" quantity? What if the factory (or country) cuts corners everywhere to hit their production targets in order to reach "the right quantity"? Tempshill (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Love and Death, Woody Allen said that the quality of your love life is more important than the quantity. "However, if the quantity drops to less than once every six months, I would definitely look into it." Does that help? :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

¶ If you're talking in terms of pure, abstract logic and rhetoric (since you haven't said if there's any specific thing whose quantity and quality you're considering), I'd have to say the reverse is true: that quality would presuppose the right quantity. However, if the quantity's right, that doesn't guarantee quality. A pound of terrible coffee is the same quantity but hardly the same quality as a pound of Jamaican Blue Mountain. Five hours of a dream date is the same quantity as five hours of a never-to-be-repeated nightmare. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a quote I like, "quantity has a quality all of its own," which I think was from Stalin, talking about tanks. Then there's the words "qualitative" and "quantitative", which denote importantly distinct concepts - for instance, a good criticism of a new theory is that isn't qualitatively different from a previous theory that has been shown to be flawed, only quantitatively different. Then you can say about it "that won't work either, for the same reasons". I suppose Stalin's point (whether he knew it or not) is that after a certain point, an increase in quantity may surprise you by showing emergent properties. 213.122.53.138 (talk) 16:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

straight from the eye ???

What does it mean if a girl/women you do not know/interact stares in the eye all the time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.95.140.188 (talk) 16:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It means you should see an ophthalmologist. There might be some deformity with your eye that you're not aware of.--WaltCip (talk) 16:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Body language can mean anything. It all depends on context, which we can't see and I doubt you'd be able to describe in enough detail (You wouldn't know exactly what to look for, nor would we). If you were just after possible answers, someone else might have some - I'm just letting you know that no answer you get will be definite. Vimescarrot (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's the sort of thing vacant teenagers do a lot, amongst other people - but hey! this page isn't a coucilling service. 83.100.250.79 (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Think about this for a moment. Here's the thing. The only way you can tell which way their eyes are pointing - is by pointing your own eyes towards their eyes...light travels in straight lines...it's basic physics! Hence, you are staring at them for at least as long as they are staring at you! Now, if you are doing this habitually - perhaps just to check whether other people are staring at you because you're concerned about it - then perhaps they are as freaked out about you staring as you are about them staring. You could easily be causing the very thing that you're worried about! The only solution here is to break the cycle - stop stressing out about it and revert to maintaining a "normal" level of eye contact yourself! Of course you'll never know whether it worked or not...but that's the entire problem here! SteveBaker (talk) 04:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural differences maybe? I grew up with a cultural background that discourages direct eye contact. I had to learn to obtain what Steve describes as "normal level" of eye contact and sometimes still have to remind myself to look at people while speaking to them. Maybe her culture has opposite ideas. I think I read s.th. about s.o. trying to "find love in s.o. else's eye's" so maybe she's trying to get friendly. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 14:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has someone drawn glasses on your face in biro? --Tango (talk) 15:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sinebot

How do I ban Sinebot from posting on my talk page every time I forget to add the little ~ things? I know how to sign posts, I just don't always remember and Sinebot does not help. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 16:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See User:SineBot. Algebraist 16:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oh Sinebot lol, at one point I have over 30 messages from him on one of my old ip talk pages —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.91.128 (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I need help learning makeup

I want to learn how to apply makeup to myself. I'm 16 and my parents divorced and I live with my dad and he's no help. Where do I start? Where do I get the materials needed (I'm in the san francisco bay area)? I'm mostly concerned about something that can cover up acne. Thanks. --12.48.220.130 (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google it? "How to apply makeup" turns this up as the first link. I know nothing about makeup, though. Does it help? Vimescarrot (talk) 19:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you asked your friends? It is hard to give advice on makeup without knowing things like skin tones and such. Wikivanda199 (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't ask your friends, then perhaps the staff in a shop that sells makeup might be willing to help. I don't know how friendly the strangers are in your area, though. Vimescarrot (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm assuming this is normal cosmetic makeup, not theatrical, why not ask your female friends,

or the nice friendly assistant on the 'cosmetics' counter at a local store?

In general though to cover up mild acne, what's I think you need is a concealer(?) stick (which is kind of like a 'lipstick' but for your face in a suitable flesh tone) which you apply as patches over an affected area and gently blend in.

Over this you would use normal foundation, which comes in either liquid form ( for which you would need make-up sponges) or powder (which uses a brush or 'powder puff').

If you have skin allergies seek professional advice on what products are suitable for you as the reference desk CANNOT give medically related advice. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the main ways in which teenage girls learn to apply make-up:

Buy some cheap make up from a drug store or similar, perhaps on a trip with friends. Experiment, again perhaps with friends. Sleep-overs and generally hanging around in each other's rooms are opportunities to play around with make-up.
Teen magazines usually have features describing how to get a particular look, which can be useful for getting tips for up-to-date looks.
Make-up counters at big stores are almost always staffed by people who would be delighted to introduce you to make up tips, give you a make over, suggest what works for you, and try to sell you some things. They do tend to cake it on, though.
My sister was worried about this when a little bit younger than you. For her birthday, my parents hired a make-up artist to spend an hour showing her how to get different looks and apply various cosmetics. This seemed to work for her, and make her more relaxed about it.
If you're looking for a smoother look to your skin, as Sfan says the usual approach is concealer and foundation. Concealer is for small, specific areas that need covering. Foundation is for giving your whole face a uniform appearance. Once you've put on foundation, you probably need at least lip gloss and a little (discreet!) blusher to make your face look natural again.

If you want to look more made up, you can move on to lip gloss with more tint, lip stick, eye liner, eye shadow, mascara. These are all things that you might want to buy cheap versions of, as described above, to experiment with. 89.168.106.72 (talk) 22:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey everyone... thanks for the help... but I forgot to mention that I'm a guy. Thanks.--12.48.220.130 (talk) 22:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, a big difference! You probably don't want to go further than concealer, then. Although, it might vary depending on your social circle. Concealer, in a variety of forms, can be found with the other make up. Some enterprising places market versions specifically at teenagers by the face wash/anti-spot lotions, but generally look for the make up section, usually near the foundation, for things with 'concealer' in their name. You'll probably have a choice and can pick what you think will work best for you. 89.168.106.72 (talk) 00:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot a key point of advice: Make sure the lipstick complements the dress. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case it might help - I googled "san francisco free makeover" - and got quite a few relevant hits. Perhaps you could go for one of those and chat with the person doing the work to see how they do it? I also googled "how to apply makeup" and got a bazillion seemingly helpful web sites...ditto for YouTube where there seem to be endless numbers of videos showing each of the separate skills. SteveBaker (talk) 04:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you really do have acne then applying makeup (even the stuff shops will sell you as "formulated especially for acne sufferers") is about the worst you can do without contacting a dermatologist first. You can seriously mess up your skin if you apply the wrong stuff or make your acne much worse and more persistent. Concealer is going to plug up your pores no matter what the friendly lady behind the counter promises. The stuff that dries up pimples and comes in "concealing skin tones" can lead to cysts developing if you apply it to the wrong kind of skin or problem. A dermatologist can tell you what products are good for you and can prescribe stuff you can't buy at the cosmetics counter. If your doctor is of the "fly by" type I so often encounter, ask a nurse or assistant at the office for tips and help on how to apply it. Even if you don't have insurance that covers that you may come out ahead. You'll save on wasting a lot of money on stuff that at best doesn't do anything but cover and at worst convert your temporary problem into a life-long hassle. I'm usually not in favor of our all too common "contact a doctor" solution to questions, but in this case it's the only thing that really makes sense. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 11:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

needs delete

Idiotarod needs deleted. Wikivanda199 (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Algebraist 19:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on Algebraist's interrogative, the article was already nominated for deletion, and the result was Keep. In any case, the Reference Desk is not for discussions about Wikipedia articles; try the article's talk page or Wikipedia:Help desk, but be prepared to make a stronger argument than you have here. -- Coneslayer (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, that thing is for serious? Wikivanda199 (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

lol looks like. more weird articles here if you're interested -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.91.128 (talk) 20:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly it looks totally non-notable, despite the keep, and I think you know it.. Some sort of student/young person prank/meme. Perhaps "FAT MOUSE" should have had it's article kept too? (Would this article exist if it weren't for the internet)

My very strong suggestion: ignore it - it's just childishly wanky, don't waste your time on getting into any arguments over it.83.100.250.79 (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly concur with those who voted keep on its AfD nomination. Amazingly, it fulfills all of our criteria. This isn't a one-off event, it's been happening for years and in many cities. It's gotten tons of press coverage from extremely reputable sources - so it's more than adequately referenced. The article is quite complete - with lists of winners for many years. Just because the event itself is kinda silly is neither here nor there. Just because an IP user (who never edited anything else) wrote it isn't a reason to delete it...it's the GOAL of Wikipedia to bring in more editors to work on the more obscure corners of human knowledge. Just because you've never heard of it is no reason to delete it either. There are 2.8 million articles out there - most of them are about things you've never heard of! We're an encyclopedia - it's not our job to judge the "worthyness" of the event itself - only the notability it has garnered from the press and our ability to verify what has been written about it. SteveBaker (talk) 04:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They still deleted FAT MOUSE though, bias I say, apparently papers with circulations of millions that have been going for decades carry 'more weight' than metafilter.com and blogs - fuck you [1] [2]

This is coming from the user that created the Weasel chucking article? APL (talk) 15:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do have to say that article gave me a chuckle. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 15:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Idiotarod... isn't that the name of a ballplayer? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Economic Bailouts: Bush vs Obama

How much money has each respective president so far given out in bailouts and/or economic stimulus? Anythingapplied (talk) 20:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect knowing this would tell you very little, if anything all. Bush's first few months were considerably different to the first few months for Obama. ny156uk (talk) 21:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly an unbiased source but take a look at these numbers: [3]. There really was very little reason for Bush to do bailouts until there was an economic crisis, which he had a great hand in causing. The meltdown came just in time for him to do one bailout, and then handed Obama the fruit of his malfeasance. So like the person above, I'm not sure what the comparison will do for you.--162.84.166.147 (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Depends partly, I think, on how you treat the Bush tax cuts. Various macroeconomic reasons were given for proposing the tax cuts, including a soft landing from the popping of the dot-com bubble. But the attacks of September 11, 2001 did have sharp negative effects on finance and the economy (like shutting down lower Manhattan and the stock exchanges), so those favoring tax cuts could offer a stronger argument. Cynics will argue that, in fair weather or in foul, conservatives will always find some reason to cut taxes and spending, while liberals will always find some reason to raise them; but that's not my point: it's that you have to know what you're comparing. If you include the 2003 Bush tax cuts (and resulting deficits) as part of his overall stimulus or economic maintenance program, then you could add billions to his side of the comparison. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

US coin

there is a 1864-L one cent coin. From what I can tell, it is the only US coin with an L for a mint mark. What does the L mean? 65.121.141.34 (talk) 20:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page says it's not a mint mark, but a credit for the designer, James Barton Longacre. They were all made in Philadelphia, just like all the other US coins with no mint mark. Interesting; I had never heard of this before. Tempshill (talk) 21:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I remember that some US pennies similarly have the initials VDB for Victor David Brenner. According to that page, the US has gone back and forth over time as to whether coins should show the artist's initials, and a number of them now do. --Anonymous, 23:06 UTC, July 7, 2009.

I give up

Not sure if there is a conspiracy to delete history on the subject or if I am just looking in the wrong places. I can't find any definitive information about what happened to an organized crime ring from the 1970s. I believe it was called the criminal head quarters for underworld master plan. I was flustered enough to create an account here to get an answer. What I do know is that is was significantly curtailed in early 1970's by government operatives (Hairi(sp?) I believe was one identified by the media). Was the organization completely shut down? What happened to the fugitives, such as Ali Assa Seen? Is there any tie in with organizations in the news today such as the Taliban? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgub Ballsoft (talk • contribs) 23:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lancelot Link, Secret Chimp Rmhermen (talk) 23:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. That is it!! What happened to the orgainization and what about Ali Assa Seen? it there any updates available? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgub Ballsoft (talk • contribs) 00:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. Do you genuinely believe that this fictional TV show with talking chimps has any connection to reality or are you just a troll? Nil Einne (talk) 01:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) So are you yanking our chains or did you see this at such a young age that you did not remember that this was a children's show and was fiction, which renders your questions about what happened to these people and any tie in with recent terrorist organizations a bit academic.--162.84.166.147 (talk) 01:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's certified top secret, but I have inside information that they no longer exist because Maxwell Smart accidentally blew up the entire organization after he took a wrong turn in his quest to sneak into the HQ of the people he was trying to infiltrate. The resulting explosion required him to be reconstructed with the gadgets that you see in Inspector Gadget (voiced by the same man.)

Seriously, I have had dreams that I thought were actual scenes in episodes 1-2 times, but I always knew they were fiction. I suppose it's possible a person could have forgotten, though. Or, been so super young that they didn't even know they were watching fiction, like 2-3 at the time. I recall a cousin hearing a player with his first name in an NFL game when he was 3, and asking if that was him (thinking it might be a home video).Somebody or his brother (talk) 01:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've had dreams about TV too, but those dreams usually involved adult female humans. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you dream of Jeannie? —— Shakescene (talk) 04:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guilty as charged! :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While few doubt that Jeannie was female and adult, was she really human? —— Shakescene (talk) 08:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close enough! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]