instruction:
Generate the answer for a given question. The question requires common knowledge of English. Make sure that the answer is in detail, long, consistent with the context, and requires general knowledge of English. To be less repetitive, please vary your language for each question. Give a proper explanation to answer, and if necessary, provide the definition of various terms. And conclude your answer if it's long. If you have used other resources (e.g., Merriam Webster's.) to answer the question, include citations in your answer. You don't need to paraphrase the context of your resources, but make sure that your answer is consistent and complete.
question:
In Russian we have the term ''. I would translate it as 'asshands' which literally means that your hands grow out of your behind and you can't do anything right (or do anything at all). Example: Dad: 'Hey son, can you hang up this picture on the wall?' Son: 'No dad, my hands grow out of my behind, I'll probably end up hanging it upside down' (Or 'I am a _____' - i.e. the term I'm looking for.) Is there anything similar in English? Is the term 'screw up' the one? Or are there any other ones? I want slang specifically, preferably American.
answer:
'All thumbs', according to Wiktionary 'clumsy, awkward, not dextrous.' 'Klutz', according to Wiktionary 'a clumsy or stupid person.'

question:
What is the mark of punctuation called that sometimes separates sections of a chapter with a glyph placed in the middle between the margins? It's hard to explain, but here's a picture. Does this have a name? (Yes, I know this is a asterisk. Sometimes it's three of them, sometimes it's a stylized graphic. I'm looking for the general name of the...methodology/practice (?) of doing this.).
answer:
As explained by this page on Wikipedia, it's called a section break. I point you to the text of the annotation on the right side of the page where it pairs this term with the same kind of glyph you posted: Open pages of the book Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, showing an ornate section break on the lower left page created from asterisks. It is used to signal a pause for the reader and a transition in the narrative. And also the section on flourished section breaks: Space between paragraphs in a section break is sometimes accompanied by an asterism (either proper or manual * * *), a horizontal rule, fleurons, or other ornamental symbols. An ornamental symbol used as section break does not have a generally accepted name. Such a typographic device can be specifically referred to as dinkus, space break symbol, paragraph separator, paragraph divider, horizontal divider, thought break, or as an instance of filigree or flourish. Ornamental section breaks can be created using glyphs, rows of lozenges, dingbats, or other miscellaneous symbols. Fonts such as Webdings and Wingdings include many such glyphs. In HTML, horizontal rules can be generated using the hr tag, which generates a paragraph-level thematic break. For more ornate presentation, CSS can be used to replace the line with an image. As you've rightly acknowledged, the form a section break takes is entirely up to the person creating the publication.

question:
If a proper noun includes the word 'the' and we want to refer to it using the definite article, should 'the' appear twice in succession? For example: 'Can you pass me The Who CD?' vs. 'can you pass me the The Who CD?' 'The US Government passed The Hague Act' vs. 'The US Government passed the The Hague Act?'. (this example inspired by a comment to this answer). To me the first versions seem incorrect, but the second versions sound very awkward.
answer:
I provided a long answer to the question 'Capitalisation in texts where the title is also a concept that is referred to within the text?' a while ago. Part of my answer to that question is directly relevant to this one. In the following quotation, The Boss is a nickname commonly used for the singer Bruce Springsteen. Sometimes what sounds natural can supersede what is technically correct from a syntactical point of view. For example: ✔️ Those are the Gucci shoes I was talking about. Here, we have a proper noun acting to modify a common noun. But while the next sentence follows the same syntactical rule, it doesn't look right: ? That is the The Boss ticket I was talking about. Even though the second article is not actually an article per se (it's part of a name), it's not possible to look at the duplication and think it's appropriate. If something is technically correct, but is still incredibly awkward, it's better to rephrase it. In this case, we could omit one or the other word (knowing the meaning would be understood anyway) or we could actually restructure the sentence so it's not awkward to start with: ✔️ That is the ticket to The Boss I was talking about. ✔️ That is the The Boss ticket I was talking about. ✔️ That is the The Boss ticket I was talking about. In the last two sentences, we know perfectly well which words should be capitalizedit's just that we're choosing to omit one or the other for the sake of comprehension. (And which we omit would be a matter of style or personal choice.)