Miscellaneous desk
< June 21	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 23 >

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.

June 22[edit]

Car spray paint[edit]

is there a car spray painter which can be purchased to paint a car . most of the ones i found on ebay and amazon are for minitiare or furniture painting. please suggest — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.69.164 (talk) 03:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you type "automotive paint sprayer" into Google, you get lots of results. I will leave it to you to peruse them and the product reviews to find one for yourself. --Jayron32 03:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The EU Times?[edit]

What's the deal with the EU Times? I was expecting a Wikipedia article on them but was disappointed that there isn't one. EUT poses as a legit news site, but picking an article at random reveals they are pretty far from mainstream, example: 'Russia Says IMF Chief Jailed for Discovering All US Gold is Gone'. (tried to link, seems EUT is blacklisted, so my hunch so far is good...) Is there someplace where I can read an objective appraisal of this "paper" -- organization history, backers, slant, etc? The Masked Booby (talk) 06:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surprised that site is blacklisted, it's a terrible site. Looks like its only purpose is to make the site owner ad revenue from people clicking on the multiple ads and popups. The "news stories" are just farmed from elsewhere. There are plenty of credible news websites such as BBC News. --Viennese Waltz 08:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above story appears to originate from [1]. While I won't link for WP:BLP reasons, a simple search reveals stuff suggesting the person behind that site isn't even genuine but making up stuff for money (or as a CIA disinformation agent) and their alleged background as a Russian academic or something is false, it's just a pseudonym for an American. Nil Einne (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

teleidoscope[edit]

I'm having a hard time trying to correct an entry. The inventor of the teleidoscope is definetely not John Lyon Burnside III. It's been around as long as the kaleidoscope has. Sir David Brewster describes it as the purest form of a kaleidoscope. Somebody is really trying to place Mr. Burnside as the inventor. He's everywhere! Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.57.19.253 (talk) 13:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd be happy to help you, but you'll have to explain where you came to find out that information. Wikipedia has a verifiability policy that requires external sources for facts. If you "just know" that won't be good enough to change the article. i kan reed (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

follow-up: the sources I'm finding suggest that it was invented by Burnside. If you have a specific source that says otherwise, please contact me. In the future, requests for help editing wikipedia should go to the Help desk not the Reference desk. i kan reed (talk) 14:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could also try the talk page of teleidoscope for assistance. Googlemeister (talk) 14:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Using the Google Ngram viewer, mentioned above, for teleidoscope for the English corpus gives an initial peak starting in about 1925. So maybe the OP is correct. See http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/graph?content=teleidoscope&year_start=1700&year_end=2000&corpus=0&smoothing=3 92.24.183.164 (talk) 19:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except that following the Google links, we find that the 1920s teleidoscope was a telescopic camera lens and the 1950s one was a version of the eidophor projection system. Disambiguation time. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I followed those Google links, and you have omitted to mention that there are three teleidoscope-kaliedoscope references from 1960 and one from the New Yorker 1961: "The Teleidoscope — a tower of eyeful! Point it at what you will, see the world in limitless kaleidoscopic patterns". The teleidoscope article currently says that Mr Burnside applied for a patent in 1970, but does not say anything about him inventing it in 1960 or earlier. I do not have the time or patience to search through the online material linked from the Sir David Brewster article to see if it is described earlier. Another point is that although the kaliedoscope was invented and manufactured in the 19th. century, an article linked from the Mr. Burnside article says he was getting royalties from kaliedoscope manufacturers in the US, even though he obviously did not invent it. Since putting a lens on the end of a kaliedoscope (or putting mirrors inside a telescope) would be such a simple and fairly obvious thing for the Victorians to do, then it would not surprise me if they existed in the 19th. century. In fact you would not need any lenses, just looking through the mirrors alone may be sufficient. 2.97.218.142 (talk) 10:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coupons[edit]

I live in LaSalle, Ontaria Canada.

Windsor, Ontario residents receive coupons, we do not, is there a reason this for this. We are in between Windsor and Amherstburg Ontario. We receive other fast food coupons in the Windsor Star paper. Thank You for your reply REDACTED PERSONAL INFO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.45.118 (talk) 14:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This question is better directed at your local newspaper directly, as they have their own internal policies deciding how advertisements are distributed. i kan reed (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many newspapers vary the distribution of their inserts by geography at the request of advertisers to target different audiences. Advertisers pay less for limited distribution, as opposed to full distribution. It is often done by Zip Code, although other methods are used as well. For example, a small retail store may want its inserts going only to customers within a certain distance from its location, thinking that others further away would be unlikely to shop there. — Michael J 16:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Makeup[edit]

How do you start to wear makeup without having to ask your parents and without trying to avoid them, or having to wash it off as soon as you get back from school?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lamoflower12 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this question is very difficult to answer without knowing the specific conditions. My two cents would be that if you have to do a lot of unnecessary work to conceal your makeup from your parents, it's not worth it. Also, I'd recommend you to ask your parents, because they usually know the best. Also, I assume you haven't used makeup before and thus you may need help applying the products properly. Zakhalesh (talk) 17:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wear a ski mask at the same time? Googlemeister (talk) 18:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC) [reply]

If you don't want to have to avoid your parents or wash off the makeup whenever you are around them, then you are going to need to get their approval. You may find it easier to get their approval if you compromise with them (eg. start with just some lip gloss and a little eye liner rather than bright lip stick and lots of eye shadow). --Tango (talk) 20:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a suggestion: Have a (girls only) slumber party and get your parent's permission to put on make-up at the event. Since you won't go out in public like that, or be around boys, they are more likely to agree. This will give you a chance to practice applying it. If you do a good job, be sure to show your parents, so they can see that you can apply make-up without looking like a prostitute. That may convince them to start letting you wear it in public. And one other hint: "less is more", so don't overdo it. Too much make-up makes girls look more like a clown, not prettier.StuRat (talk) 21:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Freddy Mercury would be outraged at your unstated assumptions ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly Boy George would be a better example, what with Freddie being dead. Until the Zombie Apocalypse, anyway. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.95 (talk) 23:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Freddy is a better artist dead than most others are when alive ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Situations vary, but these tactics have been successful for others in the past:

Ask for a make-up lesson/tutorial from a professional as your main birthday present
- often involves receiving a basic starter pack of decent make-up
- teaches you how to use make-up effectively without looking like you're wearing a lot
- lets your parents feel consulted and in control
Buy light make-up aimed at teenagers, that can be applied subtly
- if it only gives a subtle effect, you don't have to be as careful to avoid overapplying
- you don't actually need strong/heavy stuff, because you have youth
Watch tutorials online, and practice in your room.
- you might be able to borrow or 'inherit' some make-up that friends or your mother or an older sister no longer want, so you can practise.
Maybe stick to very light foundation and lipgloss at first, maybe a very careful application of very light blusher to counteract the effect of the foundation.
- blusher and eyeshadow are the hardest to do without looking like a clown.
Remember that the goal should be to look like you aren't wearing make-up, but just look like this naturally.
Remember that every single person you see on TV or in magazines, and most of the women you see generally, will be wearing make-up, and the ones on TV and in magazines are made up by professionals and then photoshopped! Natural skin doesn't look like that, so don't beat yourself up for not looking naturally like that. Everyone else at school will also be thinking their skin/face isn't like everyone else's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.66.52 (talk) 10:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Washing hands with hand sanitizer[edit]

Normally, after I defecate and wipe my ass with toilet paper, I wash my hands with water and soap. How effective is alcohol-based sanitizer compared to water and soap for the same purpose of cleaning one's hands after defecating? Is it just as effective in preventing e. coli spread? Acceptable (talk) 18:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was sitting in a hospital waiting room this morning, and on the wall was a poster informing people of how to clean their hands. Basically, if your hands look clean, rub them with the sanitizing gel: if they look dirty, wash them with soap and water: if you've been caring for someone who has (or if you have) vomiting and/or diarrhoea, wash your hands well with soap and water. Apparently the temperature of the water isn't critical, cold will do just as well. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason to use warm water is that it's more pleasant. The water would need to be over 70°C or so to have a significant impact on the germs and that would burn your hands pretty quickly (so you would naturally wash your hands very quickly and, therefore, very ineffectively). The purpose of hand washing isn't to kill germs, but to remove them from the skin. The mechanical action of rubbing your hands together combined with the soap lowering the surface tension of the water does that very effectively. Alcohol-based hand sanitiser isn't supposed to be better than soap and water, it's supposed to be more convenient. If you have reason to believe that there are dangerous germs on your hands, then use soap and water every time (if possible). If you think your hands are pretty clean and just want to err on the safe side and would rather not take the time to use soap and water, then use a sanitiser (they are also useful in circumstances when soap and water isn't an option). --Tango (talk) 20:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that alcohol dries the skin, so using that too often isn't good for them. StuRat (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-bacterial soaps such as Dial also contain alcohol. One thing about warm water is that the soap will lather-up better. Whether that factor improves on the removal of bacteria and such, I don't know. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The lather itself isn't going to make much difference, I'd think, but the lather may well be a sign that the soap is having a greater effect on the water (as a surfactant), which could make a difference. --Tango (talk) 23:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on Hand washing (as well as one on Hand sanitizer). There is a very interesting image here. It seems to indicate more effective elimination of microorganisms "after disinfection with alcohol." Bus stop (talk) 00:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our Hand washing and Antibacterial soap articles mention, the benefit of antibacterial soaps is questionable. There have been some studies showing they may be more effective but other studies have suggested they aren't. The most important thing is probably to actual wash your hands since as Hand washing with soap mentions, many people do not. Also if you wash your hands it's better if you do it properly, according to our hand washing article this means a minimum of 20 seconds rubbing wet soapy hands outside the stream of water although I think I've seen some suggestions of 40 seconds. There are also techniques to help ensure you cover most of your hands. About the warm water thing our article says:

However, warm, soapy water is more effective than cold, soapy water at removing the natural oils on your hands which hold soils and bacteria.[3] Contrary to popular belief however, scientific studies have shown that using warm water has no effect on reducing the microbial load on hands.[4][5]

Drying your hands with a towel is also an important part of the washing, our article on handwashing says it helps remove remaining contaminants (the first part isn't sourced but there's a more thorough discussion of drying later). I believe another concern is with insufficient drying your hands are more likely to pick up contaminants from the environment.

About the hand antiseptics vs soap thing, the hand washing has some sourced claims although it's all over the place (see my comment in the talk page). Definitely as others have mentioned when your hands are clearly soiled soap and water is better. In other cases it may depend on what you are trying to remove. Alcohol based hand antiseptics with additional antiseptic agents may be more effective for Staphylococcus but less effective for most spores (which are unlikely to be killed by either but are much more likely to be removed with soap and water) and probably viruses. As Tango and others have said the general recommendation is soap and water where available or both. Bear in mind there's no reason to only be concerned about E. coli.

Nil Einne (talk) 09:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]