:another option: enter the address into wolframalpha [http://www.wolframalpha.com/]. [[User:Gzuckier|Gzuckier]] ([[User talk:Gzuckier|talk]]) 18:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
:another option: enter the address into wolframalpha [http://www.wolframalpha.com/]. [[User:Gzuckier|Gzuckier]] ([[User talk:Gzuckier|talk]]) 18:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
== BaseballBugs and StuRat ==
These two members on Wikipedia always confuse me in a sense that they seem to share the same attitude, writing style, or voice that it's easy for me to mistake one for the other. What is the difference between BaseballBugs and StuRat in terms of attitude, writing style, writing voice, and areas of expertise? [[Special:Contributions/140.254.121.34|140.254.121.34]] ([[User talk:140.254.121.34|talk]]) 21:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Revision as of 21:40, 27 February 2013
Welcome to the miscellaneous section of the Wikipedia reference desk.
The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.
I have seen other references to the battle as "Greasy Grass Creek" or "Greasy Grass Ridge" or some such. But what is greasy grass? It has nice alliteration but I can't think what would make grass greasy, or what Black Elk's family was "following". --Trovatore (talk) 19:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This site [1] gives greasy grass as a common name for Tridens_flavus, both namethatplant and our article mention oiliness as a characteristic. I suspect they were following it because, in the same quote, he says "My two younger brothers and I rode in a pony-drag." -- so the greasy grass probably lubricated the pony-drag. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, I'm guessing that it meant "following the Greasy Grass Creek", like you might say "following the Colorado". Your explanation does make a certain amount of sense, but one doesn't ordinarily speak of "following" a plant. --Trovatore (talk) 20:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I reverse searched Google for links to the page, and nothing stuck out during that timeframe. There was a reddit discussion but I think it came later, there was a Washington Post mention, but it was earlier by a while. I didn't see any obvious answer. It's possible that the grok server was acting up, or that someone's bot or automation acted up and just kept reloading it. If that much odd traffic came from one IP it probably would have been blocked so maybe the wikimedia team knows. But I don't know if they'd tell you if that's what it was. I'm as stumped as you. Shadowjams (talk) 05:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ask on IRC. I don't watch enough TV, so I wondered if some talk show host or investigations show mentioned some random common misconception. --Lexein (talk) 07:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You could look at editors who first edited the page on Jan 8 (there are only a three) and ask what led them to the page. A bit of a long shot, but you never know. You could also ask some of the more prolific, but still active at that page, editors like user:Rracecarr or user:Mr swordfish if they know anything. Matt Deres (talk) 13:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What are you supposed to do? There are a wide variety of Parenting styles, and I hesitate to tell you which one is right for you, but in general... talk to him. Read to him every day. Be kind. Don't hit him or call him names. Teach him things about the world, and create opportunities for him to meet people who can teach him things you don't know. Set reasonable boundaries and enforce them consistently and fairly. Make him a cake on his birthday. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)17:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With most modern super cars using electronically assisted sequential manual paddle transmissions, what are some of the fastest moderns cars remaining that still use traditional manual transmission (with a clutch pedal and an actual shifter)? Acceptable (talk) 20:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean exactly by modern? My manual shift (column change) fifty-five Chevy was super. It just left my schoolmates blinking in its dust. Mind you, my daddy didn’t have a job at the time and so that was all he could afford. Hey, did you see Two-Lane Blacktop? Lesson: always wear shot-sleeved shirt when racing chicken – no leather jackets – or remove all the door handles. Oh, they were the days – do you remember how much it cost to fill the gas tank up to over flowing? --Aspro (talk) 01:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which restrictions are you including and not including in "all"? If you remove restrictions such as "must be accelerated by the wheels", the unlimited-class land speed record is 1223.657 km/h, so the racing speeds would be limited mainly by how creative the engineers are when it comes to high-speed cornering ability. --Carnildo (talk) 05:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, well HiLo's so clever rhetorical answer aside, there are all kinds of restrictions on F1 cars. The F1 article details those quite well. If you created a class of cars where there were no safety restrictions, I suppose someone'd do better. It's kind of an interesting question, but I guarantee you nobody here will answer it with any satisfaction. Now, if you turn an F1 track into a 10 mile stretch of desert, perhaps you can reach the speed of sound. Shadowjams (talk) 12:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Red Bull X2010. Is a fictional vehicle designed without any kind of restrictions. It isn't an F1 car and as others have said, the restrictions are what makes something an F1 car. But if the question is, how much faster could a conceivable vehicle be? The answer is a lot. Despite being the quickest way around most tracks, F1 cars are actually heavily limited in many ways. From most to least important (in my opinion): aerodynamics (active aerodynamic components are illegal and the shape of the car is limited under current rules), engine power (lots of room for expansion here, F1 has been trying to limit costs by restricting engine complexity, engines were more powerful 20 years ago during the turbo era. With modern technology and no rules you could probably reach 2500hp in a compact and light package),Sucker fans(currently illegal, but a massive and dangerous advantage to use a vacuum to hold the car to the road), number of wheels (six is probably better, especially if you don't have to worry about pit stops, there have been some six wheeled F1 cars, but it is no longer legal, see: [[Tyrrell P34]), advanced driver aids (computer driver aids are limited under current F1 rules, but traction control and automatic shifting would lower lap times), more than two wheel drive (currently illegal, but potentially helpful), enclosed wheel nacelles and closed cockpits (more aerodynamic). Exactly how much faster a car like this would be is pure speculation, but it would certainly run rings around any current competition cars. It would also be extremely dangerous for everyone involved and would never be built.
Of course we could think further outside of the box, eliminate the driver entirely and have the car driven by a computer. This might allow for cars to be much smaller and potentially faster, but perhaps they could no longer be considered race cars. --Daniel(talk)16:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speculative, of course, but would a fully-faired design (such as the Porsche 917) be faster than the front-wing-and-nacelle design of the X2010? Or does the extra weight of the body overcome the aerodynamic advantage? Tevildo (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If any of us could quickly and obviously answer that question we'd be working for Ferrari or perhaps Tesla, or... pick your favorite car company. Shadowjams (talk) 06:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To answer my own question, the Mercedes-Benz W196 was originally fully-faired, but changed to open-wheel as it was "not suitable for twistier tracks". Of course, that was with the aerodynamics of 60 years ago, but I think it shows that neither configuration is obviously superior to the other. Tevildo (talk) 00:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for fast in the sense of top speed, somewhat obviously aerodynamics would be more important than weight, so the nod would have to go to the covered wheel over the open wheel. Note that drag goes up with the square of speed, and the top of the tires are moving forward at double the speed of the vehicle, so we're talking substantial drag. Note also that both Bonneville style straight line speed records and closed course (banked oval, etc) speed records are dominated by full fendered cars. Top speed is actually not such a design element for F1; downforce to provide grip for handling and braking is much more important, and their aerodynamics are tuned for that, with resultant tons (probably literally) of drag. I had the good fortune to be on the bridge over the track once during an F1 qualifying session, and that little bathtub on wheels generates a shock wave that would make a tractor-trailer proud. Gzuckier (talk) 06:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gzuckier's answer to Tevildo's question is well thought out. I'd add that the shape of the X2010 looks more like the result of someone sketching something out based on their knowledge of aerodynamics rather than something that his been through extensive wind tunnel testing, not surprising given that the car is just a flight of fancy for a video game. Before 2009 F1 cars sprouted winglet all across their body as see in the picture. The X2010 doesn't have any, but I'm sure if the body had been through a wind tunnel and had undergone some serious analysis it would. --Daniel(talk)14:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you guys for the response. I understand that the entire reason why the cars are called Formula One cars is because they follow the "formula" set out by FIA. I guess perhaps a better way to rephrase the question would be, since this "formula" and its associated restrictions are constantly changing from year to year, if we were go go back to the season with the most lenient "formula" of all time and use modern-day technology to construct a car, how much faster would this car be compared to the cars of the current season?
Or if it is still too broad, perhaps, how much faster can the current F1 cars be if you were to allow turbo/superchargers, unlimited revs, full-slick tires?
Acceptable (talk) 02:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know exactly when the most lenient rules where in effect. It might have been 82' when turbo charging was legal and just before ground effect was outlawed. That or the very beginning when there were few regulations aside from displacement. It's very hard to make an apples to apples comparison because rules are designed with the technology of the time in mind. It's even harder, if not impossible, to give a quantitative answer regarding how much lap times would be reduced. In any even, Turbocharging is going to be required for the 2014 season, although displacement will be down to 1.6 liters compared to 2.4. For your second scenario I'd say that the combination of a turbo and no rev limit would make cars potentially very powerful. In the mid 80s, turbo F1 cars were capable of putting as much as 1300-1400hp from a 1.5 liter four cylinder. With today's technology and larger displacement you can imagine how incredibly powerful an engine could be. Again I couldn't give you a hard figure on exactly how much faster a car like this would be. --Daniel(talk)18:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
February 24
Historical locations in the Isle of Man
I'm working on an article about a legendary person from Manx folklore. The tale concerning him mentions a journey from the Isle of Man to Norway. I have been unable to find several of the locations mentioned, probably due to the passage of time. I want to be able to chart them on a map. The version in which they were mentioned was printed in 1884. The locations I have been unable to find are (in bold):
Shergdydoo (possibly Shergdy Dhoo) along the coast road from St Patrick's Isle. Either a place or a stream.
Footpath along the Clagadh - possibly a stream or river
death place of 12 druids, ordered burnt by St Patrick.
Since nobody has yet responded, I think you're going to have to contact a local library or museum. I had a quick look at www.old-maps.co.uk which has maps of the Isle of Man going back to 1868, but I couldn't find any of those names, which I suspect are earlier than that source.--Shantavira|feed me16:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm bored. So I wanna experience the illusion of another reality, or just escape reality. I'm wondering how I can do this.
Troll question, or med advice we can't give. Usual suspects chime in. Close it out.
I'm trying to find a way I can escape reality (I've tried sleeping, but sometimes I don't feel sleepy. So I can't make myself fall sleep if I don't feel sleepy. So I don't know if sleeping is the solution to my problem.). I'm looking for an activity where I can experience the illusion that I'm dreaming or that I'm in another reality. Is there such an activity? Perhaps there's such a place where I can experience this, huh 05ac (talk) 07:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was gonna say drugs, but after reading StuRat's answer, maybe that isn't such a good idea. They can work (sometimes) though. But you can sleep if you want. If you can't make yourself fall asleep, have a glass of wine or a beer. But there is a way you can experience the illusion of another reality (besides drugs). There's a virtual reality headset called the Oculus Rift. This is a way that was never possible until 2012. You can use it while playing games on tbe Xbox 360, PS3, or on PC. The headset covers your eyes completely. And it tracks head movements. So whether you look left, right, up, down, all you'll be seeing is the virtual environment of the games. Unfortunately, there are probably no other easy ways to escape reality, besides sleep, the Oculus Rift, drugs, and alcohol. And there probably isn't anyone who would disagree with that statement. Fanddlovernamedjason (talk) 08:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rcsprinter123 is correct in saying that we're not a help guide for car repairs, but I wish we were. I had to do some searching myself last week for a mysterious problem with one of our family's cars. Googling took me to all sorts of spam and scam sites. It seems that spam distributors think car nuts are an easy touch. Someone who could provide a clean set of service information online for those odd questions could get a lot of hits once well known. HiLo48 (talk) 03:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most auto part stores sell service manuals with procedures for most repairs you should ever need to do. The book for your car is probably less than $20. You can also check at your local library. Mine stocks service manuals that cover pretty much every car sold in the US. 38.111.64.107 (talk) 14:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
well, it's apparently possible, but not yet observed in the wild. [4] (note also such items as the Exxon/Mobil speedpass, which are not subject to such safety factors discussed in the snopes article, e.g. passwords and user names and security codes, and could be presumably cloned from captured signals.) Gzuckier (talk) 07:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
buying silver dollars direct from federal govt. to avoid buying from u.s. mint a for profit corporation
I seem to recall that the US Post Office regularly gives silver dollars as (unwanted format) change. You might be able to ask them if they have a new batch in, and they could give them to you straight out of the package from the mint. To avoid fingerprints, you might want to wear gloves and bring a disposable pair for them, too. Banks will also sometimes have new coins, so you could ask there, too. StuRat (talk) 21:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The OP may not mean the current base-metal dollars (which you can get on request at most banks, they will be happy to oblige), but the old-style 90% silver dollars which were struck until 1935. Consult one of the large coin dealers. If you need further information on how to do the old-style dollar purchases, you may wish to contact the American Numismatic Association. I am a member, and they are a very reputable organization which patiently deals with calls (and visits) from members of the public.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) For the OP: Do you mean actual dollars made of silver, or do you mean U.S. dollar coins? The last actual U.S. dollar coin made of silver was the Peace dollar, last struck in limited run in 1965; last struck for widespread use in the 1930s. The last struck "silver-colored" dollar coin was the Susan B. Anthony dollar which was only struck for 4 years: 1978, 1979, 1980, and 1999. Since 2000, all circulating dollar coins have been "golden" colored alloy (with no actual gold), being the Sacagawea dollar and Presidential dollars, which have overlapping mintings. The U.S. does mint commemorative American Silver Eagle bullion coin; it has a nominal face value of $1.00 but contains 1 troy ounce of silver, which is trading at about $35.00 per troy ounce: You cannot get such coins from anyone for $1.00. Also, the United States Mint is NOT a for-profit company: it is an agency of the U.S. Government, under the Treasurer of the United States. There are other companies which create silver-colored coinage in the U.S., with names like "American Mint", or "Mint of the United States" or similar official sounding names: these are usually "fly-by-night" companies producing silver-clad trinkets designed to confuse you with their advertising. THOSE are for-profit companies and not part of the U.S. government. If you want stuff from the U.S. government itself, http://www.usmint.gov/ is their website. --Jayron3222:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For clarification, the 1964-D Peace dollar (struck in 1965) was never issued and is believed to have been all melted. We have a picture of a replica in our article.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on how much money the OP has at his disposal. If he has a (good) financial consultant then buying Krugerrands off-shore might a better deal but the gold price appearer to be peaking. Copper ore reserves have been bought out by the Chinese and oil reserves are grossly over estimated. There is (it appears) a 400 year cycle between east and west. If you're in the US then move your money aboard and get out fast. Ebenezer Scrooge may have loved counting out his coinage but the world today is different. The money markets do what ever they can to parasitically drain yesterdays sound investments. Coins (and money sitting in bank accounts) are bad. After the second world war Japanese shares under when a growth of several hundred and sometime a 1000% growth. Now, india is a the same level and investment there is showing amazing returns. Not in coinage but paper investments. Go to a students book seller and buy (they are expensive do to the low print volume) the latest book on international commerce etc., but you don't get naught for nothing, because that's what ordinary people want and by that time, everybody else know as well and the market is saturated.. Don't listen to good ol' uncle Joe – he is living in the past. Buying silver dollars at this stage means your just another joe that's been taken in by yesterday's hype.--Aspro (talk) 00:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Now we have digital photography (no need of silver nitrate) ; other that jewellery (and since governments no longer mint real silver coins for common circulation) what use is there in hoarding silver. Read about Nelson Bunker Hunt – thats a generation ago. Things go around in three generations. So.... How are these old stocks of silver going to be deposed of in 2013? They need honest Joe's that want to by into the dream that has long since past -that's how. So the investment rags spout the wonders of investing in sliver – (or their journalists will find they don't have jobs no more if they suggest anything else). However, If you are really looking for a sure-fired way to make a really good investment, then send all your money to me. I guaranty youin-black-and-white at least a 1000% return on your privileged investment that I don't just offer to anybody. "WARNING: Your investment may go up as well as down!". But I will give you all that in writing – even if its in too small print for you to bother to read nor understand the legal clauses. Trust me - I'm your friend am I not? My every desire is to make you rich because I think you are a really nice guy. So, all send your money to me, then I'll let you into the secret of how you can second mortgage your house to gain extra financial leverage. Gosh, can't wait to meet you in the Florida Keys to see what type of Yacht your have bought with the profits of our soon to be profitable partnership. Remember my motto: He who dares wins. Send me all your money - Now!--Aspro (talk) 01:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I could understand that the best screenplay/actor/makeup doesn't always produce the best film (someone else screwed up), but who can be a better director if not the one who made the best movie? OsmanRF34 (talk) 21:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Say I'm Auguste Escoffier, but I'm only given spam and Vegemite to work with. I'd whip up the best meal I could, but wouldn't you rather have [insert favorite dish here] even if it were cooked by an average chef? Even a great director can only do so much with a so-so script and crew. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The OP seems to be under the impression that the director is in charge of everything about the movie. That is so not the case. The people who accept the Oscar for Best Picture are the producers, not the director (unless the director happened to be a producer). -- Jack of Oz[Talk]21:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then, where do you see the greatness of the director? Some aspect of the movie has to be remarkable, and has to be linked to him clearly. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Expanding on my previous comment: Direction is obviously an important part of any movie, but it is not the only element. Critics make distinctions about the merits of individual elements of a film, and about the overall product. They might think some movie has the best sound track or best editing or best costume design in the history of the cinema, but overall the movie completely sucked. Or vice-versa. Just look at Argo (2012 film). It was:
Nominated for Best Director, and won: BAFTAs, Critics Choice Awards, Golden Globe Awards, San Diego Film Critics Society, St. Louis Film Critics etc
Nominated for Best Director, but did not win: AACTA International Awards, Detroit Film Critics Society, Satellite Awards and Washington D. C. Area Film Critics Association
It's clear how to discern the film and from the soundtrack. But, when you watch a film that sucks, you don't say "whoau, this film sucks, but what an amazing director." The question is still not answered: where do you recognize the director, if not in the whole product? OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I am misunderstanding the question, but one reason why best director <> best movie is because of who votes in these categories. Per the rules, Best Picture is really the only one where everybody in the Academy gets a vote. In the other categories, only those members who specialize in that respective field gets to vote. So those members who belong to the Writers Branch (i.e. specialize in writing) are the only ones who vote for best screenplay, only those members in the Actors Branch vote for best actor, and so forth. And thus for Best Director, only those Academy members in the Directors Branch (who know all the technical aspects of film directing, and all the duties as outlined on Film director#Responsibilities -- which is probably very subtle to the average viewer) are given the responsibility to choose the winner of that category. Whereas for the voting for Best Picture, you are getting the input from every voter of the academy, from all specialties. Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And that's all after the nominations themselves have been decided. There are processes for determining which movies get nominated for which awards, and a nomination for award category A is no guarantee of a nomination for award category B. There have been Best Picture winners that weren't even nominated for various of the other major awards; or were nominated but didn't win. Such as The Sting (1973) and Crash (2004). -- Jack of Oz[Talk]00:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The difference lies in movies where the producer is an investor/entrepreneur but not an artist himself. He knows how to get films made, but he is not necessarily the one who knows from a "vision" of the film, which shot, which angle, which take, how subtle, how lowbrow the product needs to be to be art. Jerry Bruckheimer is a great producer (his films make money and entertain some people) and a horrible director so far as I am concerned, while Orson Welles was a great director, perhaps the best, and one of the worst producers. μηδείς (talk) 01:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Orson Welles is a good example. He broke ground is so many ways with Citizen Kane. (Naturally, there was no Oscar for best director or film.) Conversely, Gus Van Sant added nothing of value to Psycho (1998). A poor director can ruin good material, a good one can make things better, and a great one can maximize what s/he is given to work with, but if the potential isn't already there, you can't squeeze blood from a stone. Plan 9 from Outer Space can never be The Godfather. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Recently when I renewed my drivers license, Nunavut, Canada, the woman taking the picture told me to take my glasses off. I told her that I needed them to see to drive. She said it didn't matter the picture had to be without glasses but the license would say that I required them. Of course when I got the new license the glasses requirement had been dropped, it was on the old one. I was curious to know if this, no glasses in the photo, is common or just something that got misunderstood here? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 01:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The photo people submit when applying for a UK passport must not have glare from the glasses, and people aren't supposed to look sideways or smile [5]. This is to simplify facial recognition (comparing a person's face against the version stored in the chip in their passport)[6]. I don't know about Nunavut, but the comparable institution for British Columbia says it uses facial recognition for driving licence photographs [7]. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk01:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the United States, there was the 2005 REAL ID Act that began to standardize the procedures for state driver's licenses and ID cards (this law continues to be controversial because of the privacy issues involved). One of the requirements does have to deal with facial recognition as well. If one does need eyeglasses or contact lenses to drive, a "corrective lens" note is generally printed on the drivers license. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Has there ever been an instance whereas a person or doctor has referenced the term "mechanics finger"?
I'm proposing that a form of mal-alignment of the index fingers of a long time auto mechanic be termed
"mechanics finger" because of the repetive use of the digit thereby twisting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.182.75.67 (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's apparently something called Mechanic's hands. A simple Google search found that. Along with a number of results for Mechanix gloves and, for some reason, Kate Upton. I don't see why twisting things would necessarily have an impact on just one finger though. Who are you proposing this new term idea to? Dismas|(talk)06:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Without some sort of context, all we can do is guess as to what you're talking about. If you are talking about diamonds in rings, then this link may be of help. If not, please give us some more context and we might be able to assist you better. Dismas|(talk)06:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be a method of Stonesetting, in which as much of the diamond is visible as possible, like this (one of many Google results). The term isn't mentioned in our article, but it seems to be the same as "Prong setting" which sounds rather less lyrical. Alansplodge (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jewish Secondary Schools Movement
The Jewish Secondary Schools Movement was established in London in 1929. In 1944, one of its schools, the Hasmonean Grammar was opened. Can a user please let me know whether between 1929 and 1944, there were schools of this Movement in existence, and if so, what were their names? Thank you.Simonschaim (talk) 08:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A History of the County of Middlesex: Volume 8: Islington and Stoke Newington parishes - Education (pp.217-223) shows under "Private schools": "In 1929 the Jewish Secondary School Movement opened a secondary school for boys in Alexandra Villas, Finsbury Park. By 1940 the headquarters of the movement was at no. 86 Amhurst Park and the school, called Avigdor House, was at no.93, both just outside Stoke Newington. The school, evacuated during the war, reopened in 1947 in Stoke Newington." Also under "Public schools": "AVIGDOR HIGH, 65-9 Lordship Rd. Opened 1947 as Jewish grammar sch. for 300 SM. Maintained by L.C.C. from 1950. Controversy 1955 between L.C.C. and orthodox Jewish governors. SG 1960. L.C.C. withdrew support and sch. closed 1961."Alansplodge (talk) 14:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
when Thutmose_IV had a dream dream about the Giza sphinx it said it's name was Harmakhis. Wasn't Harmakhis falcon-headed god and what did it have to with sphinx?
I note, though this is an area where I'm sadly underinformed, that when one searches for Harmakhis (a deleted page) in the search box here, it asks if you mean Harmachis, which redirects to Horus. Perhaps this is the start of a thread someone could unravel to answer this question? I'm assuming that this is an alternative name for some aspect of Horus. 86.129.248.199 (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Good catch; I'm not sure then about if Hamarkhis was Horus there may be something to it. It should be noted that Egyptian mythology covers a LONG time period, and there were often various versions and aspects of the mythos which are not always consistent across the centuries. --Jayron3221:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Harmachis was a manifestation of the god Horus, specific to the Giza pyramids zone, with his cult focused on the Great Sphinx – this royal statue, originally carved to represent King Khafre of the Old Kingdom, having become regarded as an image of Harmachis by the early New Kingdom (Zivie-Coche 1976: 307–8)."
I need to find the name and information of a famous person of Italian nationality who is currently living in Milwaukee, WI for a research paper.15:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.9.71.254 (talk)
Are you looking for an Italian, or will an Italian American do for your paper? - if so, the third ward on the east side is the historical center of the Italian immigrant community, though I don't know if that is still true. With a large Italian American community, there is Italian newspaper called The Italian Times which will probably be a useful resource for you. Also, according to the Milwaukee article, "The largest Italian American festival, Festa Italiana is held in the city". If you can wait until July, you can probably find an Italian at the Festa. Astronaut (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Er, Gus Mercurio came to Melbourne, Australia for the 1956 Olympics, and liked the country so much that he decided to stay. For the rest of his life, which ended in 2010. -- Jack of Oz[Talk]21:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Click on the IP address. Up comes the 'Special:Contributions' page (e.g. here). At the bottom, where it says "This is the contributions page for an IP user", click 'Geolocate', and Robert is very much your father's brother. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 16:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
