Jump to content

User talk:Medeis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



This talk page belongs to μηδείς
Λάθε βιῶσας






Human nature is unchanging and remains irrational. Evil is eternal.
Unfortunately, appeasement is often seen by thugs not as magnanimity to be reciprocated but as timidity to be exploited

--Victor Davis Hanson "A Hard Rain is Going to Fall".

I don't tend to assign true/false values to random statements people make, absent any evidence either way.
It's a strange thing to assume that every possible combination of syllables a person utters should be accepted as true without any evidence one way or the other.
--Jayron32 16:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which moment in history you pick as the "dividing line" is unimportant. You make your own decisions (and it is really relevant what criteria you use), instead try to appreciate the breadth and complexity of the situation. Singular and exclusive definitions are far less important than understanding relationships and processes.' Jayron32 5:31 pm, 2 May 2017, last Tuesday (3 days ago) (UTC−4)

That nature exists, it would be absurd to try to prove; for it is obvious that there are many things of this kind, and to prove what is obvious by what is not is the mark of a man who is unable to distinguish what is self-evident from what is not. (This state of mind is clearly possible. A man blind from birth might reason about colours.) Presumably, therefore, such persons must be talking about words without any thought to correspond.
--Aristotle's Physics Book 2, chapter 1

Nothing is so remote from us as the thing which is not old enough to be history and not new enough to be news.
--G. K. Chesterton, The End of the Armistice

I would also clarify that there is a small minority of educated English speakers, mostly linguists, who do not think that "unnatural" rules of correctness should be imposed on a language, and some of these people have commented above. However, this is a very small minority, and if you want to appear to be correct when communicating with English speakers who are not linguists, you should ignore the linguists.
--User:Marco polo, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

One Englishman is a story. Ten Frenchmen is a story. One hundred Germans is a story. One thousand Indians is a story. Nothing ever happens in Chile.
Hold the Press1--John Maxwell Hamilton

The business of life is the acquisition of memories. In the end, that is all there is.
--Carson, Downton Abbey

The only thing new in the world is the history you don't know.
--Harry S. Truman

There is no dispute between me and Richard Dawkins and there never has been, because he’s a journalist, and journalists are people that report what the scientists have found and the arguments I’ve had have actually been with scientists doing research.
--E. O. Wilson quoted in Science 2.0

What do you want liberation from? What is there to be proud of? I don't believe in rights for homosexuals.
--Quentin Crisp

One does not hate that which one honestly regards as ineffectual.
--Ayn Rand "Apollo 11"

EX FALSO QVODLIBET

It doesn't matter what you call stuff. It's still stuff.

--User:JackofOz 22:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Archiving a talk page[edit]

/Archive 1 Help:Archiving a talk page

RlevseTalk 18:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RlevseTalk 00:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Shetani[edit]

BorgQueen (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Miami cannibal attack[edit]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ITN credit[edit]

--Jayron32 03:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
I love your montages. They are very beautiful. I could look at them all day. Thank you! HoopoeBaijiKite 19:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I really appreciate that. I did work hard on trying to get them not only to be biologically broad-based but also attractive. Your encouragement makes me want to create some more. μηδείς (talk) 20:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ITN Credit[edit]

--Ks0stm (TCGE) 23:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring for beginners.[edit]

It takes two, baby. And you revert me every single time I change your image. That is why your image always wins, because I don't edit war. You always win by default because I don't push the rules and you do. So now you accuse me of edit warring? Oh my god that is beautiful! At any rate, please go to your RfC and demonstrate where the consensus you claim comes from. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I invite you to demonstrate how your image is the consensus image here. Given that you repeatedly revert me because you claim that you have consensus I feel you should have to demonstrate that fact rather than simply assert it. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have a bad case of the flu. I 'll respond as soon as I feel up to it. μηδείς (talk) 19:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then rest up and get well. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have nominated Miami Zombie for a DYK listing with you and those editors who have contributed 1000 bytes or more listed as authors. See Template:Did you know nominations/2012 Miami cannibalism incident if you want to make any changes. μηδείς (talk) 02:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's great news! Thanks! Thanks for nominating it ... and also for making me aware of the nomination. So, exactly how do we know if/when it will be approved or accepted to appear in the DYK? Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. This has been a rather pleasant and productive collaboration all around. Look here for comments and updates on the nomination. DYK seems backed up. Nominations used to clear within about a week. You can help the process by reading other nominations and helping with the review process. You can't review a nomination in which you are named, of course. μηδείς (talk) 03:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all of the info. I have never been involved with the DYK process before, so I did not know any of this information. Thank you! Also, thanks for all the work you have been doing on the "Miami Cannibal" article. Great job! Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see that this entry appeared on the "DYK" for today (June 15). Congrats on your efforts to get it posted at DYK! Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If only that gentleman hadn't changed the name of the article in the middle of its posting (and I not messed up changing it back) the number of hits would have been posted and we could easily have nominated it for the number of views. That can still be done, but it will take some hard work. I will follow up on it. μηδείς (talk) 23:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

+

what is the problem here??????????????????????[edit]

Dude, if your comment is "not a response to anyone's", then your use of the outdent template was inept in the extreme, since the purpose of that template is to label a comment as a follow-up to the immediately preceding comment, but at a different indentation level. Whatever your comment is, it's not a response to mine, and I refuse to let it be positioned where it appears to be a response to mine -- under the general privilege that people are allowed to move comments in discussions in order to make threading relationships clear. AnonMoos (talk) 08:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I've made it abundantly clear multiple times that your comment cannot appear after mine unless it is made very obvious that it is not associated with mine (definitely not a reply to it), yet you insist on doing things which will lead to confusion and obscurity on this essential point. I really don't understand what the problem is... AnonMoos (talk) 08:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

images[edit]

By the way, it could be considered poor etiquette to have multiple large images on your user talk page. I'm sure they're very pretty, but they've never finished loading for me, so I haven't seen them... AnonMoos (talk) 08:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments redacted[edit]

Just to let you know, I redacted part of your recount of an episode of a TV series featuring the case of Margaret Crotty. As Looie496 and me mentioned, there is no evidence for the claim of what happened to Margaret Crotty appearing anywhere else which would seem surprising if it had appeared in any popular source, like a TV show. So in the absence of evidence the claims actually appeared in the TV show, I don't think these claims should appear anywhere on wikipedia for WP:BLP reasons. If you disagree, please take this to WP:BLP/N but only link to the changes rather then repeating the claims there. BTW, I did not attempt to modify you comment beyond redacting the problematic parts, so part of it may not make so much sense anymore. Feel free to clarify or modify your comment as necessary without repeating the redacted parts. I felt this was better then me trying to modify your comments more. I am purposely not linking to my redactings here to try and reduce the impact, frankly if it hadn't been so long I probably would have asked for a deletion. Nil Einne (talk) 10:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be a problem, since what I am looking for is the episode. I'll get around to checking the new wording. μηδείς (talk) 16:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NRO Gives NASA Two Hubble-Class Telescopes[edit]

http://nasawatch.com/archives/2012/06/nro-gives-nasa.html

--Stone (talk) 08:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks! μηδείς (talk) 23:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Desk Response[edit]

The question you asked was archived right after I posted with the book name I promised, since I'm not sure if you saw it, here was the answer: "The book I was thinking of is The Structure and Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics by R. I. G. Hughes, if you're feeling a little more mathematically inclined, you might try the first 7 or 8 chapters of Quantum Processes Systems, and Information by Benjamin Schumacher and Michael Westmoreland from Cambridge University Press." Let me know if these aren't what you're looking for and I can see if I can come up with something better- I have around 500-600 textbooks pertaining to quantum stuff, so there's a decent chance one of them will be of use.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 01:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

heh, yes, went to respond there and it had already disappeared into the aether--as you saw at your page I did see it and have read the listing at amazon, thanks. μηδείς (talk) 01:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

O tempora! O Ref Desk![edit]

Hi, Medeis.

Please don’t quibble when someone says they don’t understand what you write. Please accept that state of affairs at face value, and attempt to explain it using different words. Please don’t raise hypotheticals about them playing any sort of games, unless you have clear evidence that sort of thing is going on.

Nobody is so good with language that all of their utterances are inherently comprehensible. We all sometimes have to have another go. If you have a difficulty with that, well, I’m sorry, but life is tough.

Let me explain my confusion. You did indeed say that the word "o’clock" is generally omitted, as "assumed" and as "understood". But the way you said that was problematical, I think you’d have to agree:

  • Half past eight o'clock is standard American usage, although the o'clock is usually omitted as understood.

How do I parse that? That it’s most common to hear people saying “half past eight o’clock”, or just “half past eight”? If the word is usually omitted, how can the full version be standard usage? Maybe I’m a literalist, but when it comes to discussing the precise formulations of exact words, precision in our answers is very desirable. Me, I’m no dummy, but when someone tells me that black is white, or something to that effect, I am confused.

My post stated my opinion that the OP was interested in the use of the word “o’clock” in these expressions of time. You responded by saying it’s “totally normal”. So I figured that was the way to interpret your original remark. That is, if I asked a random American stranger what time it was, I should expect to hear “It’s 20 past 3 o’clock”. This is what I was understanding you to be saying, at this point, despite your earlier statement that the word is usually omitted. In other words, you had clarified your earlier confusing statement.

I alluded to the “totally normal” thing in my post at 3:47. You didn’t respond to it, so I figured that my understanding was now well and truly confirmed.

Then you said “it's rare that you'll ever hear someone say it's half past eight o'clock”. So, I was back to square 1. Hence my request for clarification. I could have gone into all the above on the ref desk itself, but I thought a simple request for clarification would do the trick.

To prove that I am more than willing to give you the time of day, it is now precisely 10:04:37 a.m. AEST. By my watch. Have a nice day. -- ♬ Jack of Oz[your turn] 00:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But again, I qualified myself each time, saying, for example, it's also rare that one would hear "it's 32 degrees fahrenheit out" rather than "It's 32 out", but that it would in no way sound weird. Having to say the same thing the third time did strike me as odd. In any case, I think keeping this to the relevant ref desk page instead of here is fine. μηδείς (talk) 00:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that something "would in no way sound weird" is definitely not the same thing as saying that that something is "standard usage". Not in my lingo, anyway. The former means something that would raise no eyebrows but you wouldn't hear it every day. The latter means something you would hear every day. In my lingo.
Having this meta-discussion on the ref desk would have been totally inappropriate, which is why I brought it here. -- ♬ Jack of Oz[your turn] 00:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not exactly sure what you want me to say. "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" is a perfectly unobjectionable, grammatically normal sentence that I would never expect to hear. "Half past eight o'clock" is a perfectly unobjectionable sentence that I have heard maybe half a dozen times at most in my life, but at least twice. What more do you want me to say? μηδείς (talk) 01:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing. I just wanted to ask you to respect people's requests for clarification with an acceptance that they're genuinely in need of such clarification. I did that, and followed it up with a detailed explanation of why I was left confused. But you then defended your posts, when my explanation was not an attack on them, merely an explanation of why they didn't work for me. What I would have liked is for you to acknowledge that, no matter what you may have intended in your posts or no matter how well expressed and articulate you may think they were, the inescapable fact is that I was confused by them. No amount of reminding me of what you said in one place or another place changes the fact that the totality of what you had to say did not compute for me. It did not all hang together. That was my experience. Maybe what you can say to round off this little chat, is "Fair enough, Jack, I accept that that was your experience". -- ♬ Jack of Oz[your turn] 04:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How are you?[edit]

I noted your frustration on the ref desk. I've had at you a couple of times, but I mean you no ill will in general so believe me when I say I am concerned for you wiki well-being, I think you've been making a pretty good effort to keep things straight over there, but it looks like you are getting burnt out a bit. Please don't get too worked up, and don't let it sour you too much. For all the disagreements we are all having, I know you are making an honest effort to do what you feel is best. I know I sometimes get frustrated and take it beyond the walls of wikipedia into the real world. Don't let it get to you, and please believe that we are all trying to do what we think is right, even if it doesn't look like it, and even if it is a pain in the ass. Mingmingla (talk) 03:33, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

H-List[edit]

What is H-List? And could you post a link to Campbell's message that you describe as "shouted down"? Just for my curiosity's sake, not because it matters much for the article.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By H-list I meant Histling-l@mailman.rice.edu which you should be able to subscribe to, let me know if you have a problem. You should also be able to access their archives. As for Campbell's call that Greenberg's Amerind forthcoming work should be "shouted down" before it had even been published, see these search results. If you need the exact ref I'll find it. Campbell's call for not posting any historical work that could be associated with Greenberg is in the first or second archive of the Histling list. Nostrtic.net in the English version will have Campbell's criticism. I can also find it exactly for you if necessary. I have studied Greenberg's Amerind and Eurasiatic hypotheses. There are a few flaws in the Eurasiatic hypothesis. Greenberg's notion that Ainu forms a clade with Japanese and Korean is patently absurd, especially given Alexander Vovin's A Reconstruction of Proto-Ainu. Greenberg's Amerind work simply provides good prima facie evidence for Amerind in some sense as a real clade--nowhere near proof, and especially not proof that all' the non-Eskaleut/Na Dene families are Amerind. The problem is that declaring his work has flaws or is incomplete does not amount to a full disproof. My undergraduate work was in biology, and the criticisms of Campbell strike me as the same as Alan Feduccia's attacks on the dinosaur origin of birds theory, back when the Chinese bird pre/proto-bird fossils hadn't yet been found; ad hoc criticisms which start with the premises that the theory is already disproven. I am no expert in an American language, my study except for personally perusing proto-grammars and dictionaries of American languages has been of old-world languages. But I haven't yet come across an "Amerind" language that shows evidence (1) of being more closely related to any family outside the Americas and (2) no evidence whatsoever of at least intimate contact with other than "Amerind" languages. μηδείς (talk) 23:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, for that. Campbell's criticisms are not just a conservative outlook, but a reluctance to jettison the very claim of historical linguistics of being a scientific discipline. Greenberg's classification method is quite simply pseudoscience. Now, pseudoscience sometimes strike on valid conclusions by chance, but it is important not to take that as evidence in support of invalid methodologies and assumptions. I have not found evidence of any "Amerind" language that shows greater affinities with non-"Amerind" languages than with other languages of the Americas. That is in no evidence of genetic relatedness, or even really suggestive of it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Grenberg's and Ruhlen's responses are all available at Nostratic.net, as are Campbell's, which are in no way exhaustive. If you read them they make it clear that The "Amerindianists" view classification as prior to reconstruction, but not as a replacement for it. The point would be something (in my own words) along the line that based on similarities in pronouns and vocabulary, there seems prima facie evidence for a clade that includes Slovene, Slovak, Yiddish, Polish, Russian, Czech, Romanian, Bulgarian, Rusyn and Ukranian, which we lumpers will call Slavic. The Critics' response seems to be that the evidence for including Romanian and Yiddish is week, and many of the other languages have borrowings from Russian and Latin, so the Slavic hypothesis as a whole is forever disproven as pseudoscientific. There is no way that one can say Greenberg, et al, view Amerind as fully demonstrated--only as a strong starting hypothesis with enough evidence to take seriously. (There is also the fact that Greenberg et al take genetic relatedness as the default position, while Campbell et al take borrowing as the default position.) Perhaps that should be better emphasized in the article. If we are going to continue this discussion it should be on the article's talk page. If you want to respond, please copy me and post your response there. μηδείς (talk) 00:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think it is more appropriate to reply here as this is more about our personal opinions than about how to improve the article. I don't buy your Slavic analogy either - it is not the case that there is a core of promising correspondences and that splitters are jettisoning the entire project because of a few languages that don't seem to fit. It is also not the case that there is a need to start by making grand hypotheses which can then be further elaborated by correct methods - there is no dearth of hypotheses, on the contrary. "Splitters" in fact do work actively on showing valid groupings, and reconstructing language families, that is when they have time after they point out the obvious flaws in the dozens of long range or phylum hypotheses made by scholars who have neither the intention or ability to actually make a valid and solid proposal backed with evidence. Taking relatedness as the null hypothesis is of course just bad science. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not something I really want to argue. (I personally know speakers of Nakota and Mixtec. I have, on my own, studied everything from Papago and Algonquian to Tlingit and Eskaleut, to Quecha and Mapudungu, and I know Greenberg's premise is both verifiable in the WP sense and not pseudoscientific.) It would be okay to argue in person, but not here, as it is far too cumbersome. I would recommend you read all the Amerind material at Nostratic,net, including Campbell's original review and Greenberg's response. I do agree that there is no reconstruction of the midlevel families of the purported Amerind sufficient to base a reconstruction of it upon. Nevertheless, Campbell's criticisms are quite weak potshots. A small number of minor flaws and the notion that one might imagine correspondences are due to borrowing or other unspecified "influences" don't amount to actual rebuttals of Greenberg. There's no problem whatsoever giving a fair description of his opposition and pointing out that he does not offer or even have the grounds to offer a reconstruction. There's no reason to deride his position as if it were sheer quackery. μηδείς (talk) 01:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a reason to describe it unkindly: that is the position taken by the main authorities in the field. But now we are back to discussing how to improve the article. I disagree fundamentally with your somewhat glib dismissal of Campebell's (and many other scholars') very strong criticisms of methodological and theoretical flaws.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly not glib or unconsidered. Read Greenberg and the sources at Nostratic.net at your leisure. I am also familiar enough with your edits to know you are not glib or unconsidered. I have read Campbell's and Greenberg's papers, and Campbell's American Indian Languages: The Historical Linguistics of Native America, and Mithun's classification in full, and plenty of independent, including primary sources. Greenberg's work is preliminary at best--it just can't be dismissed off hand. My basic point is that it's possible to give an objective description of Campbell's and the Americanists' reaction toward Greenberg that even Greenberg's supporters would agree is Campbell's viewpoint. μηδείς (talk) 03:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have not found evidence of any "Amerind" language that shows greater affinities with non-"Amerind" languages than with other languages of the Americas.
In fact, Eskimo–Aleut–Wakashan (if true) is precisely such a potential counterexample. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Fortescue's work on Uralo-Siberian shows a rather recent (in the scheme of things) grammatical and lexical connection between Eskimo Aleut and Proto-Uralic, as well as apparently Chukchi-Kamchatkan. Nothing Fortescue writes strictly contradicts Greenberg's Eurasiatic. I am not familiar enough with the 'Amerind' languages of the Pacific NW to have a strong negative opinion, and subjectively it wouldn't surprise me to learn there's some sort of cross-Bering substrate influences going on. But given the obvious connections between EA and PU, I think it's hard to maintain any close and genetic link between EA and anything American. Do you have a link to anything about Eskimo–Aleut–Wakashan I can read on line? μηδείς (talk) 02:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately not; see Eskimo–Aleut languages#Position among the world's language families for more detail. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Our WP articles on deep relationships are uniformly skeptical, to the point of open hostility from editors. I have and have read Fortescue's Eskimo-Aleut dictionary and his Language Relations across the Bering Strait as well as Collinder's three-volume Comparative Uralic work and have the Mouton deGruyter Comparative Chuckotko-Kamchatkan dictionary (I think Fortescue's the oauthor, but don't have time to check.) I am happy to rest on that evidence and am not interested in arguing it here. μηδείς (talk) 23:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for a day[edit]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Franamax (talk) 20:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis, I've warned you several times, quite clearly, not to alter other editor's signed posts in any way. I even specified that included putting stars or anything else on the same line as another editor's comments and signature. I was quite clear, and yet you continue to do this [1] and war to restore it.[2] Accordingly I have removed your editing privileges for 24 hours. You need to understand that this is not your personal wiki to edit to your own wishes, it is a community with standards, in this case WP:TPO. If you will agree to stop all editing of other's comments you can be unblocked. Regards. Franamax (talk) 20:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Medeis (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

Other than the blocking admins personal point of view, which was not consensus when the matter was discussed, there is no damage to the project. He should recuse himself for enforcing his personal opinion on the matter as if it were policy, file a complaint, and let an independent admin judge. I also invite User:Pfly to comment as whether he feels my action vandalised his edit. If so, please let me remain blocked. Until then please unblock me as no danger to the project. μηδείς (talk) 20:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were warned and directed to WP:TPO (a consensus-backed guideline that Franamax didn't write). Your modification of others' talk page messages, regardless of whether their authors deem it vandalism, is disruptive.
If you wish to be unblocked, you need only agree to stop editing others' comments. If you choose to persist, you can expect future blocks to increase in duration. For everyone's sake, please consider posting barnstars on users' talk pages instead. —David Levy 21:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Medeis (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

I am quite happy to take this to RfC and abide by that decision before I act, but I am not prepared to take Franamax's opinion as law without further review. He's said I would be unblocked if I don't use the template again, and I am happy to wait for such a ruling, so please unblock me. μηδείς (talk) 21:36, 8 October 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am quite happy to take this to RfC and abide by that decision before I act,
We needn't conduct an RfC to determine whether the guideline applies to you.
but I am not prepared to take Franamax's opinion as law without further review.
Your unblock request was reviewed by an uninvolved administrator (me). You then initiated another request with the same invalid rationale (the incorrect assertion that Franamax is uniltaterally imposing a standard not backed by consensus). If you do so again (thereby abusing this procedure), your ability to edit this talk page while blocked may be revoked.
He's said I would be unblocked if I don't use the template again,
No, Franamax stated that you can be unblocked if you will agree to stop all editing of others' comments. That offer stands. —David Levy 21:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Medeis (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

I have promised not to add stars to other people's comment's unless there is an RfC that says I may do so. I have not otherwise "edited other editor's" comments under any definition, and I do promise not to do so, including his definition. What else am I supposed to promise? Please unblock me, you won't see me editing people's comments. μηδείς (talk) 22:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I've unblocked you. Please keep in mind that if you don't honor your promise to refrain from modifying others' talk page messages (except in accordance with WP:TPO), you'll be blocked again. —David Levy 22:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have been eminently clear that I am happy to abide by an actual community decision, rather than Franamax's threats and fiat. I don't accept an admin's privilege to unilaterally enforce a POV in an argument in which he has taken part, especially one that reached no such consensus, and by threats and blocks. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 23:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just for the record in response to sentence two of the unblock request, here is an example of "edited other editor's"-ing. Franamax (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

Hello, Medeis. You have new messages at Anc516's talk page.
Message added 03:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

All or nothing please[edit]

If you're going to collapse discussion, please get rid of the initial worthless response. --OnoremDil 17:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He did both give an external link to the data the OP wanted and did explain why the info was not yet in the article. That has to stand, even though I am very sympathetic with the concern of not inviting editors to do it themselves. Please continue this on the ref desk talk page if you like, I watch there and any discussion belongs there. μηδείς (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Read the question again. --OnoremDil 17:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's a thread at talk now, express your concerns there please. μηδείς (talk) 17:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have. Thank you. --OnoremDil 17:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why is my change 'nonsense'? --OnoremDil 18:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you can cap randomly, so can I. --OnoremDil 18:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Medeis. You have new messages at Talk:Michelle Malkin#Youtube source.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Québécois[edit]

Êtes-vous québécois ? Fête (talk) 00:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mais, non! J'habite les EEUU, et je n'ai pas de sang francais. Je ne parle pas bien francais. Je parle nativement l'anglais et secondairement l'espagnol et un peut des autres langues. Je peux m'exprimer en francais si necessaire. μηδείς (talk) 02:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail![edit]

Hello, Medeis. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 19:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Ankh.Morpork 19:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for confirming my proto-Polish[edit]

I appreciate your pitching in on my Language RD query. I did use Google Translate, but with texts by this well-published author I like to get a native-speaker's input. There are a few Ref Desk Regulars who are familiar with my turf and will probably show up within 24 hours - otherwise I'll hail them individually. (Checking recent activity on their Talk pages is usually a good indication :-) -- Cheers! Deborahjay (talk) 07:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

volume[edit]

I must to ask where to turn up the volume ? Fête (talk) 23:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try here: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk μηδείς (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recent deaths[edit]

Do you want to nominate Sunil Gangopadhyay? If that gets support by itself, that would be great. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 03:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would only be a very weak support, basically because I am ignorant on the subject from every angle (poetry, Hindu, Bangladesh...). So, no, I don't feel comfortable nominating it myself. But given the reader interest and the good state of the article I would vote support were it nominated by someone who has more knowledge on the issue than I. I hate to sound so critical of your noms. I support the spirit, and appreciate your effort. I just want to stay procedurally kosher and avoid giving ammo to the opposes. μηδείς (talk) 03:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hiver[edit]

Do you hear [ivɛːʁ] or [ivaɛ̯ʁ] in the file Media:Fr-hiver-fr CA.ogg ? Fête (talk) 10:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC) User is site banned[reply]

Reply to your message on my talk page[edit]

I have extensive educational background in the subject matter. "Crystalline" and "igneous" do not mean the same thing. I am trying to link to relevant Wikipedia articles that explain the technical terms and concepts, rather than providing "lay" explanations that are misleading or inaccurate. --Orlady (talk) 20:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate your efforts to clarify the terminology in the article, but I don't think it's necessary or even possible to write such an article using only language that will be understood by people with only a rudimentary knowledge of geology. Some technical terminology is needed, supported by wikilinks.
As I see it, the problems with the article are not really "too technical", but rather have included poor writing (some parts are still almost completely incoherent), misuse of technical terms, lack of links to other articles, and sometimes the use of multiple technical terms for what is essentially one concept. Efforts by several contributors are resolving these things, bit by bit. --Orlady (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see it's in flux. The description of the craton in the second paragraph of the lead is helpful. I am not asking for full digressions, All I am suggesting is adding appositives like one would in biology or any other technical science. E.g., "Mammals are 'warm-blooded', or endothermic animals with backbones (i.e., vertebrates) characterized by possessing hair, producing milk, and having three inner ear bones evolved from the reptilian jawbones." This is much better than the equally true: "mammals are trichophorous lactating craniates with a derived incus, malleus and stirrup" which is where the Geology of Russia article had been standing. 23:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Apologies[edit]

Didn't even know my fingers had made that edit - apologies! Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Climate change and Hurricane Sandy[edit]

Why did you remove the climate change section in Hurricane Sandy ([3])? Your edit summary stated "this is undue political commentary by axe grinders with no peer review to back up any specific claim." Ironically, it looks like you removed the only peer reviewed references in this article (Trenberth 2012). Peer review is desirable, but not a requirement for WP:Reliable source. The fact that you left the rest of the article intact and held one section to a different standard makes it seem like you are the "axe grinder" (by the way, it's easier to assume good faith when others do so). Please participate in the discussion on the talk page instead of reverting the article and accusing other editors of axe grinding.--Bkwillwm (talk) 03:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
This page looks good and is a good idea! Once it gets wikified totally, it should be perfect. Rockstonetalk to me! 05:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Geology of Russia[edit]

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing#randomly_changing_fractal_wallpaper[edit]

Hello, Medeis. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing#randomly_changing_fractal_wallpaper.
You can remove this notice at any time.

Kurtsi[edit]

I seem to recall you telling about your xxxxxx origins, but I didn't want to mention that on RDL because you didn't want to reveal that yourself (and it would be ahearsay anyway). May I ask, why such secrecy? If you genuinely want the answer, isn't it better that you provide more hints, not hide them? No such user (talk) 00:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I have is what I have been told without much documentation by elder family; no one closer than my grandparents generation was born in the old country. I have various rhymes, curses, sayings, prayers, jokes, and so forth that I have been taught over the years. I have very few relatives left of that age, and none that remembers living in Europe. So I am hoping to get independent confirmation of the things I have been told. Just coming out and saying "such and such is what I was told is such and such" will be subject to confirmation bias and so forth. The information that "kurtsi" may mean "dick" is not something I would have expected to learn had I just come out and said this rhyme is supposedly from this dialect and I was told it means such and such--and certainly not penis! So, I am actually quite happy with the results so far. I will explain what I have been told in full eventually, but am hoping to hear it "from the horses mouth" so to say before I give my own version. Thanks very much for the interest! μηδείς (talk) 01:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Little temper tantrum over language desk nonsense[edit]

I really don't see why why we need multiple queries about misspelled pointless pottymouth pseudo-proverbs in indeterminate Slavic dialects in multiple sections on the ref. desk. My reason for grouping them was exactly the same as for grouping User:Fête... AnonMoos (talk) 05:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. According to Wikipedia policies, this user talk page does not really "belong" to you, and I've still never seen the slow-loading images at the top of this page... AnonMoos (talk) 05:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for finding a good photo for the Héctor Camacho article! INeverCry 20:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reviewed it on Commons, and added it to the other articles in interwiki. INeverCry 20:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was concerned because I expected a special prompt for flickr images, but didn't find one while uploading--but I see you caught thta. I am curious how you found Ms. Negron's last name? There didn't seem any obvious way to find it, or I'd have added her full name. (I know I have uploaded images before from Flickr without finding the author's full name. I haven't done too many, so you may want to check my previous uploads, if there is a way to do that. μηδείς (talk) 20:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I only did the Flickr review, which I rarely do. This user added the info you refer to. I don't know much about the subject, as I spend the majority of my time with deletions/restorations. INeverCry 21:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I did find full her name when I went back to leave a notification at Flickr thanking her and letting her know we used the image. I am not to worried about the user name issue on the other images, no one has told me they wre subject to deletion and they were all in good faith of course. Thanks, again. μηδείς (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to use this for uploading Flickr images in the future. INeverCry 21:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! μηδείς (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but how can I find an answer to my question[edit]

I don't know if either of those women/actresses have official websites. Plus I'm wondering if you can tell me if the musical play Wicked will come to Seattle in the next few years? Neptunekh94 (talk) 05:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have just as much idea as you about Seattle, and even less personal familiarity with the city. (Only place I've ever been west of the Mississip was Texas and Louisiana.) As for Xena, both she and Gabrielle drive me crazy. But sorry, no personal knowledge here of how to get anyone's signature. μηδείς (talk) 05:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

latin[edit]

Salve Medeis! Ut vales? Sum scriptor in vicipaedia latina (nam non dico latinam meam perfectam esse!) En tibi, vicipaedia (wikipedia latina) est nimius extremus. Quamquam in classica non sunt cogitationes 'identitas', 'antigravity', etc , sunt qua affirmant nos exprimere in 'classica' pura. Quod possim facere? --Jondel (talk) 09:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jondel. I can read it, but my Latin's not that good that I would attempt a long response to you in it. Since Latin was used well into the modern era, many new coinages were necessary. I don't think you should be too concerned if a term didn't exist in the classical era. A word like antigravitatio would seem perfectly acceptable. But I see your comments at the lang ref desk. My response to such an editor would be to ask him if he thinks such articles should be written at all, and if so, what words he would use. You might have to call a firewall a firewall italicized in English in the article and define it in the lead as literally a "parietem ignis", a wall meant to stop the spread of fire [4]. But antigravitatio is so obvious from gravitatio that if it meets resistance you might need to have an RfC followed by an ANI complaint if that doesn't work. If you are going to respond on this topic further I suggest you do so at the lang ref desk, I watch there daily and more people can chime in. μηδείς (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The feeling is antigravitatio would recieve a dubsig like identitas and so many words in similar situations, even if it is obvious these concepts did not exist in Cicero's time. We need to move forward. If the classical word exists in the dictionary, or 'New Latin ' was supplied by the Vatican or some Latinist author then great! However we are forced to coin. The 'identitas' case is not isolated. you say antigravitatio woul seem perfectly acceptable. I (we ) reaaly need support for that point of view, because there are extremists there. Finding the right word for firewall , etc is my(vicipaedia editor's) problem(after all I chose to edit at vicipaedia). I already mentioned this at the lang ref desk. thanks anyway.--Jondel (talk) 00:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will probabaly use your lead for firewall e.g. Firewall(licet parietem ignis) est ...--Jondel (talk) 01:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Given I don't edit vicipedia, I an not sure technically what a dugsig is technically. And is there some sort of policy that requires fossilized latin only? Sounds unlikely. Could you both link me to the dugsig policy itself and to one of the problematic uses of it? I would certainly be opposed to a strict anti-neologism policy, given the use of such terms as entity and gravitation. μηδείς (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

uhh, I'd rather speak to someone outside the vicipaedia. I dubsig looks like this {{dubsig}} . The particular incident, representative of so many similar incident is this.

The reason there is a 'cultic' movement to use fossilized latin is because good latin is assumed to be classical. But it is taken to the extreme now, to the point that a lot of times when they see medieval or new latin, the article gets undermined or rated with a -3 , and I'm supposed to be happy with a -2. Typically, to get this perfect ratings, a lot of core ideas are amputated. It seems the guys who are good in latin tend to use medieval, while those who aren't are the ones who do the policing/censoring.

The dubsigs link to this.--Jondel (talk) 01:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at the dugsig page it does seem likely that tag might be abused. The problem is no matter who rational your explanation, you have to deal with editor and admins who may have numbers and time on their side. I don't know of any remedy for this. μηδείς (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that for somebody who participates in discussions a lot, you appear to know remarkably little about Wikipedia talk page conventions? In the "dual articles" thread, the horizontal line and lack of indentation indicates that I'm starting afresh, and not replying in any way to User:Snow_Rise and User:Shakescene's comments (which to be frank didn't address what was asked too directly), and am instead going back to the original question. In contrast, your comment of "16:57, 2 December 2012" was a direct reply to my comment of "10:43, 2 December 2012", and my comment "17:35, 2 December 2012" is a direct reply to your reply. A horizontal line can appear before and/or after the whole "10:43, 2 December 2012" - "16:57, 2 December 2012" - "17:35, 2 December 2012" sequence, but not in the middle of it (as should be rather blatantly obvious). AnonMoos (talk) 05:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mahna Mahna. μηδείς (talk) 22:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Sandy[edit]

Larry Hagman[edit]

Héctor Camacho[edit]

Dave Brubeck[edit]

New jersey question rephrased[edit]

Is there any "safe area" parts of Irvington? I know that city/township has a high crime rate bu does it have any safe areas like parks, beaches, or neighborhoods or schools? Venustar84 (talk)`


==Pardon me for asking, but does the Bronx or Manhattan have to do with Irvington?== New York City is not even the sate of New Jersey so what do with the question I'm asking about? Also I heard that Springfield Avenue that main street is safe enough to walk through out the day. Is that true? I'm only asking because I have a friend from that city who is living in a different city right now. Would alot of the population of that town be in crime? Also do you know anything about the crime rate in Abbotsford,_British_Columbia or Dawson_Creek? Thanks! Venustar84 (talk) 03:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should ask these questions in the mainspace, if anywhere. Please don't post more questions here. I do not want to, but will ask for you to be blocked if I find it necessary. μηδείς (talk) 03:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thank you for your encouraging comment. As a result, I may perhaps not wait the usual 6 or 7 days before making another proposal. But only this time. Esoglou (talk) 21:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Encouragement, when deserved, is a far greater moral imperative than criticism. μηδείς (talk) 22:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

avunculus[edit]

Hello, Medeis. You have new messages at KTC's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting[edit]

When removing references please also remove the definition in the reflist if it is the last usage of said reference otherwise you cause the large red Cite errors. Werieth (talk) 01:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry. μηδείς (talk) 01:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Jalsha Movies[edit]

Thanks, I'll do it. --Tito Dutta (talk) 23:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! I have to find a nice hook first. Finding a hook has been a very difficult task for me. I have multiple articles ready at this at this moment, for example see much much better and bigger Bibliography of Swami Vivekananda, but without any hook.

With a DYK hook like– Did you know... in 2009 Kenyan car company Xomba Tomba Bazumba Hiri Giri Miri Giri celebrated 75 years of their establishment?, I generally respond– No, I did not know and do not want to know too! Yesterday, I first went to DYK zone and posted 2 noms. If you have any pending DYK, you can tell me. I promise, I'll read even if it is on Xomba Tomba..'s success--Tito Dutta (talk) 23:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well, I have worked as a professional hooker. Just do the nomination, link me to it here, and I will do the hard parts. μηδείς (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated it --Tito Dutta (talk) 00:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the copyedit.
  • They put 400 horadings like this all over the city. I can see one in my nearest main road too!
  • For the citation needed tag, please press Ctrl+F and type Mahendra" here, you'll get the quote, since I put 2 direct quotes already, I wrote this one in indirect speech.
  • If you have any pending DYK nom, you can tell me! --Tito Dutta (talk) 03:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Business Standard is a newspaper, Capmaign India too. It is covered in Hindu Business Line, Press_Trust_of_India,(link not opening) Yahoo News etc too. "Hoarding" seems to be a British English, see here, the image link I gave above, see the title bar, they are also using the word "Horading". I am not sure if we should write the American English in bracket! --Tito Dutta (talk) 04:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's very interesting. Americans will think it is a typo or be totally confused, so I will add it in parentheses. As for the sources, I will rely on your judgment, I just wanted you to be aware of the possibility of it being an issue. I don't have any DYK noms now, but thanks for the offer. Given I have editted the article a good bit I cannot do an official review now, but I will put my opinion on the nomination. I will also think about a catchier hook. μηδείς (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK TB[edit]

I'm not sure if you are watching that page so:

Hello, Medeis. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Lair of King Tongmyong's Unicorn.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

LadyofShalott 01:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

forts[edit]

Children Building Forts[edit]

Cubby-hole treehouse. [ da:hule http://mads.gemal.dk/blog/221/hulemand hobbit after the Old English Hol-bytla cubby or cubby-house was used as well as fort in Australia, but the materials of choice were rocks, branches, grass and galvanized iron if available, and it sandcastles Children's den Sons of Daniel Boone actually formalized the concept: boys were organized into forts (analogous to a Scout troop) who would build forts in the woods.xkcd strip 219: Blanket Fort calls them blanket forts, which I think you haven't linked yet. Wendy house

full discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Children Building Forts[edit]

In my experience as a child, and interacting with other children now that I am older, the idea of using furniture, cushions and blankets to build a makeshift shelter, called a 'fort', seems universal. We don't seem to have an article mentioning the phenomenon. Is it indeed universal? Are such things called forts in other countries and regions? Is there historical mention of the activity, e.g., "As a child, the future Mad King Ludwig was fond of building forts"? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 01:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cubby-hole isn't much in itself, but it might have some useful links. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 02:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly did it largely out of furniture, but when I got older it included local construction debris nearby my house. Unfortunately I never had a treehouse. Shadowjams (talk) 02:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is "cubby hole" what you call a "fort" when constructed by a child in Australia, Jack? The article certainly mentions the phenomenon, but doesn't mention the term "fort". In my part of the US, however, a cubby hole is a nook where one places one's jacket, back-pack, and perhaps shoes in the pre-school and kindergarten years, not something you construct or hide in. As for a tree house, we did build forts down the woods of various kinds with scrap lumber. But the idea of a tree house didn't really appeal to me or my friends after one of the Ward boys drove his Big Wheel out of theirs and broke half a dozen bones, missing an entire summer. μηδείς (talk) 02:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same def of cubby-hole here in Detroit as Medeis. As for the tendency for kids to build forts, I'd list "building shelter" as traditionally among one of lifes most important skills, so it's no wonder children want to practice at it. In the current world, our ability to build shelter is less important, but still might save your life if you find yourself lost in the woods some day. StuRat (talk) 02:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Danish children don't build forts but caves (da:hule). See for example http://mads.gemal.dk/blog/221/hulemand which shows an example and says "Alle børn elsker at bygge huler" (All children love to build caves). PrimeHunter (talk) 04:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OH, what a darling link. If you want to see the spitting image of my sister and her sons (although the boys are a little more dolichocephalic given their Russian roots, and now have a sister) do check out this link to exactly what I am thinking about. Perhaps this is all just a matter of the psychology of scale. See the etymology of hobbit, also mentioned below. Perhaps we are all hobbits. μηδείς (talk) 05:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note that while the name may be different, the result is the same. StuRat (talk) 04:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Damn! I've long harboured the belief that Danish kids construct miniature Elsinores and stand on the battlements proclaiming, "At være, eller ikke være, det er spørgsmålet ....".  :) -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 05:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Elsinore is actually the city (went to high school there and lives nearby). The castle is Kronborg but Shakespeare called it Elsinore. Hamlet#Plot handles his mess with a piped link. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my own OR suspicion is that this is nesting behavior, which is pre-human, and oxytocin-mediated. The two things that most interest me are, is "fort" building as I would call it universal in form among humans, or do some use sheets while other use pillows (or whatever) and what terms are used where for the activity? Do the brits call them forts? Do Californians? Do Enzeders call them lean-tos and build them with bedsheets? Or how about the French? How about tribes inhabiting tropical areas? As for the Danes, I wonder if Tolkien knew about the habbit when he named the hobbit after the Old English Hol-bytla. μηδείς (talk) 05:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

cubby or cubby-house was used as well as fort in Australia, but the materials of choice were rocks, branches, grass and galvanized iron if available, and it would not be built inside a house but in nearby bushland. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Brit here: not forts although we do a good line in sandcastles. Cubbyholes, in the days when houses had cupboards under the stairs that's where we kept everything from coats to old toys. (We used to call it a glory hole but I understand that that's got an entirely different meaning these days!) Back to the original, I think I used to call it a "hidey-hole". --TammyMoet (talk) 09:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another Brit here - for me growing up it was either a fort or a den, depending on what the game was that was being player. Fort if under attack from friend or sister, den if playing house or something similar... gazhiley 09:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Much of my childhood free time was spent in Epping Forest building "dens" (as in lion's den). Sadly, children here rarely have the freedom for that these days. Alansplodge (talk) 12:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WHAAOE: see Children's den. Alansplodge (talk) 12:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we call them dens here in the north of England, too, though it's quite a while since I've built one. <fspan style="font-family:verdana">Dbfirs 17:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Sons of Daniel Boone actually formalized the concept: boys were organized into forts (analogous to a Scout troop) who would build forts in the woods. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 18:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I doff my coon-skin cap to them. StuRat (talk) 18:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]
I grew up (and still live) in Australia, and our backyard had a "cubby house" (a small, shop bought wooden house on stilts with a ladder to reach it, and approx 2 x 3 x 3m in size) and a "tree house" (a few pieces of wood for sitting in a medium size tree, I think there might have also been some rope involved). Inside the house my brother and I occasionally built forts/bases (we called them both to my memory) out of furniture, sheets, cushions, etc. I'm guessing that depending on the housing densities in wherever people grew up the names might have different meanings (as we've seen to be the case with different countries) HandsomeNick (TALK) (EDITS) 01:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
xkcd strip 219: Blanket Fort calls them blanket forts, which I think you haven't linked yet. – b_jonas 14:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A pre-made house is a Wendy house. Boys are allowed in if they play nicely Itsmejudith (talk) 09:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. Wendy houses are for cissies. We never allowed girls in the treehouse, as they have damp hands and don't keep secrets. Wickwack 121.215.132.106 (talk) 16:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If Wendy houses are for cissies, does that mean forts are for transies? μηδείς (talk) 17:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore the text you removed without explanation[edit]

([5]) Thank you. --Dweller (talk) 08:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you see that sort of glitch in the future, feel free also to fix it yourself, thanks. μηδείς (talk) 16:00, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - Dumelow (talk) 09:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! μηδείς (talk) 14:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Prestigious" is never an appropriate term- it merely attempts to give status without giving any specifics. In addition, it is completely inappropriate in the Popo case as the status of the victims schooling had absolutely zero relevance to the victims only notability: being attacked by a crazed man. Eugene certainly did not say "hey, i think i am going to eat his face because he went to a prestigious high school". We are not here to create hagiographies of victims. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hard break[edit]

Hard


Break

--I hope I didn't cause you to edit-conflict too much (if at all :P). SpencerT♦C 19:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hilarious, I actually remarked to myself, "I can't believe I am not getting any edit conflicts!" μηδείς (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't have any either. Maybe the software's smart enough that if you're working with different text or different sections it won't conflict? I thought it was curious too. SpencerT♦C 19:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you will not get edit conflicts if you are editting under sections with separate headings, which is one reason they should be added as soon as logically justified, and why you should edit by section and not the page as a whole when possible. Even then it was unusual not to have any conflicts but to see your changes each time I submitted mine. μηδείς (talk) 19:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will refrain for asking useless questions in the future. Please forgive my intuition and embarrassment. By the way, I'm female. I think good faith is a good idea. 06:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venustar84 (talkcontribs)

100% correct[edit]

Hi, Medeis. I edit conflicted with your closure of that silly thread about sanctions on the US over gun control. Great minds still sometimes think alike. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 06:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still reading Jourdain's book on music. Brilliant, which I don't say lightly. Gave my brother Cox's The Elements: Their Origin, Abundance, and Distribution instead. He'll get Jourdain for his birthday. μηδείς (talk) 06:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shore nowiki ho[edit]

I like to keep all discussions about ref desk content on the ref desk or its talk page, is why I asked there.

I thought I sort of had the gist of your initial post, but I wasn't sure/shore. The 'ho' next to the 'nowiki' threw me, and I had no reason to associate 'ho' with 'shore', or to know that 'shore' meant anything like 'show'. I actually thought you were being mischievous and deliberately mispelling 'sure', but the sense didn't fit. Let's face it, you sometimes make what can only be described as extremely weird posts, one only yesterday. I don't have a problem with weirdness; I'm one of its greatest advocates. But I do like to understand what others are saying.

I ignore all that stuff about not being paid. Nobody's paid here. But nobody's forced to participate either. I don't hold with any approach that's even a 3rd cousin of "I'm not getting paid for this so I don't have to care about the quality of my contributions, and it's the job of my readers to work out what the hell I'm on about". Not saying that's your attitude, but you seem to be hovering around its edges. Bottom line: You may have known what was in your head, but it's folly to assume others are with you, particularly when what proceeds from your pen is somewhat unorthodox use of the language.

Have a nice day. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 11:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Had I caught that I would certainly have fixed it--There's no point in my posting gibberish, unless gibberish is called for. Like I said, neither word was challenged by the spell checker. And I was in no way miffed by your wanting clarification. My point about working for free referred to my deliberate choice in occasional circumstances (unlike that one) not to correct single unimportant misspellings like "unintrested" immediately after I notice them after a post because it won't affect anyone's understanding. (This instance, on the other hand, was just a rather big error I didn't notice.) The comment about working for free was was not meant to say that you as readers were not worth fixing things for, but that I'd rather actually contribute to something else more significant like a translation or to lend you my eyes on the Quiroga article than reopen the same edit box three more times to obsessively polish minor errors as I see them. It was really a side comment on how to understand my editing priorities if you see a minor missppelling on a talk page. Then, Later, if I do come back to that thread and open it to edit again for some other reason, I will usually then fix the error. Kind of like packing the car for a trip, turning the key in the ignition, realizing you left the toilet seat up, but leaving it til you return to go back in and close it.
As for the Alex Kingston free-association riff, that was just for fun, not me having a stroke, and totally unrelated to spelling errors. It's full of meaning but maybe not literally. If you reread the thread with the idea "full circle" in your head you may realise what I was saying.
PS, My use of "mister" in my response was meant to indicate I was being jocular and wasn't really miffed. μηδείς (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then. Fair enough. We all make mistakes we don't notice till later. (I've only just realised I misquoted you, so I fixed it now.)
But please, when someone asks for a clarification, it would be good if you could just tell them straight out, rather than being defensive about it, let alone going the extra mile and making it their responsibility to understand rather than your responsibility to be clear.
Whether you were miffed or not never concerned me.
Nice weather we're having. I'm glad you're enjoying Music, the Brain and Ecstasy. I must get my copy back from my ex-boyfriend and re-read it. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 20:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, don't tell me you weren't also having your own little joke with that "what language is this?" quip, which is what prompted my "look mister". I am on the "enjoyment" chapter of Ecstasy. The book is very dense, and to be frank I have been using it as bathroom reading, so I have only been getting through a page a day since the summer. It's definitely one of the best non-fiction books I've read. I intend to buy it for my brother-in-law for his birthday. My suggestion is (unless you don't like him having it, or don't think he'll get more out of it--or my favorite don't think going to ask for it would make a good pretext for a quick rekindling) that you let him keep it and buy yourself another copy. I am looking forward to getting the same author's other books out of the library. μηδείς (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, no chance of a rekindling. We've both moved on. I've moved on twice, from memory. Or three times, depending on how one counts these things. But we're still great buddies and see each other when we can (geographically, we're mutually relatively inaccessible now). -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 22:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

large quasar group[edit]

hi, i noticed your contributions to the article, i was curious as to what you might make out of it. Due to its large size it doesn't seem to fit any pre-thought pattern in cosmology,,,?.thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't studied astronomy in university, my interest is a a lay-reader. If you start a thread here asking for info about published information and theories on the topic I am sure you will get a lot of interesting speculation because several astronomers answer questions there. μηδείς (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


thanks,,--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just because someone is evil doesn't mean we have to accuse him of everey crime imaginable[edit]

I find it hard to believe that you cannot understand the difference between a political scandal like Abscam or the Iran-Contra affair and a sex scandal involving a politician. But rather than respond to your taunts with my opinion of you, I will simply remind you to remain objective and civil. I happen to think that Weiner has long been exactly what he has recently been shown to be. But that doesn't require me to use language non-objectively to attack him as if proving his evility was more important than using concepts properly. As I said, you are quite free to add any referenced material you like about how the matter is becoming politically scandalous. In the meantime, enough with the name calling already. μηδείς (talk) 03:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Thanks – albeit, belated – for your input and suggestions. Thank you. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What?

Link?

Point?

This has got to be the most unhelpful edit ever, especially with me apparently having asked someone somewhere to be objective and civil. Please, don't answer me directly if this is serious. Take it to an ANI and let me answer there. Reawakened two-year old comments here will be unwelcome and taken as attacks.... 00:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The Antichrist[edit]

The usage of The Antichrist is under discussion, see Talk:The Antichrist (book) -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 01:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Medeis. You have new messages at Vacation9's talk page.
Message added 02:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Vacation9 02:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whould this better pictures of the creature help you to tell what it reminds you of[edit]

http://stardusting.nekomaki.com/?page_id=664 http://sailormoon.wikia.com/wiki/Thetis?file=CS012-383.jpg Venustar84 (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I have no clue. μηδείς (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--SpencerT♦C 23:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

lmfao[edit]

I wanted to let you know I got a good laugh out of your comment: "All entertainment at wikipedia such as that above" here. :) Shadowjams (talk) 17:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"One can easily imagine a US tourist wishing that Scotsmen would 'speak English'"[edit]

A few years back here in Milwaukee we held a joint congress of the Canadian Esperanto Association and the main U.S. Esperanto group, then called the Esperanto League for North America. Two of the people in attendance were a mother-daughter pair from New Zealand, doing a world tour with a concentration on attending Esperantist events. Their hometown was a village somewhere in the New Zealand Alps whose settlers were apparently almost all Scots. The consensus among the Yanks at the congress was that, pleasant folks though they were, it was far easier to understand the ladies' Esperanto than it was their English! --Orange Mike | Talk 19:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I could imagine. I had the embarrassing experience on a trip with the high school German club to the German parts of Switzerland that it was much easier for me to talk with the locals if we both used ... French. μηδείς (talk) 20:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In "Der Deutsch-Athen" everybody knows that Deutsch comes in a lot of flavors. We don't have a lot of Schweizerdeutsch around here, though; they are more likely to be found around New Glarus, Wisconsin. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is fair to state that no traditional Swiss German dialect is inherently mutually intelligible with modern Standard German. In other words, Standard German speakers cannot understand Swiss German any more that they can understand Dutch, or that Londoners can understand Shetland Scots; in fact, many Germans even mistake Swiss-German-accented Standard German (which is absolutely intelligible) for Swiss German dialect. While Upper/Central German certainly used to be a classical dialect continuum from the Old High German period until some more recent period, which is, however, difficult to determine (a German Wikipedian knowledgeable on Low German dialectology has emphatically rejected the traditional view of transitional dialects connecting Low German with Central German and other forms of West Germanic still in the 19th century, pointing out that no such transitional forms are actually attested and the language boundary is quite sharp), by the modern period the divergence between the various regional forms of West Germanic spoken in Central Europe has grown so large that it seems more appropriate to speak of a language family (partly) united by a Standard German Dachsprache. Moreover, within West Germanic, the Upper–Central–Lower (or even Upper–Central) German block does not appear to form a unitary branch, so from an objective linguistic (or at least not sociolinguistic) point of view the folk concept of a "German language" comprising all Upper and Central (and, for many, even Low) German dialects, which lies at the basis of the idea that "Swiss German" is "simply a German dialect", is untenable. Swiss German in any of its forms is not even functionally a mere "dialect of German".
We see the same political bias and historical-ideological baggage at work here that drives the concept of English (including Scots), Greek, Arabic or Chinese as a unitary language rather than a language family, or such (revealing) extreme cases as the occasional claim that English is but a "corrupted" (presumably by French) German (or sometimes Scandinavian) dialect (which would be an illogical concept even if Germany or some Scandinavian country had conquered some or all English-speaking regions of the world and outlawed the use of Standard English) or even Kurdish a "Mountain Turkish" dialect. (If a speech form is so "corrupted" that you cannot make heads nor tails of it, the logical conclusion is that it is simply not the same language as yours.) Nor can a language suddenly become a dialect virtually overnight, or vice versa, due to purely political or social forces and changes (compare the cases of Occitan, Dutch and Low German, for example; Upper German too used to possess at least an emerging written standard before that one was ousted in favour of Standard German), without anything changing in the language itself: that's plain absurd. Just because a language is not an Ausbausprache that does not mean that it is not a "real language".
So, in any realistic sense, Swiss German is a completely different language from the language taught as "German" at schools and universities. No wonder you understand nothing! And same for Scots. If you cannot even understand Scottish English well (I know I can't), or whatever these people were really speaking, who are you to engage in linguistic imperialism and deny the deep differences between Scots and (Standard) English?
Of course, you can reject the artificial and arbitary language–dialect distinction utterly and completely, but in practice this is less easy than in theory: even well-established linguistic concepts such as language family or language isolate make little sense without it, and "genetic unit" is a bit too technical-sounding for general use. Viewing the distinction as merely sociolinguistic isn't a real solution, either, since it results in absurdities such as Faroese having been a Danish dialect before a written language was created (and worse). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2013[edit]

Greek name[edit]

Is your name modern Greek, classical Greek, or koine Greek? What does it mean? Personally, I love Greek names, because they seem to be given with intention and meaning rather than "something that sounds good to the ear". The names from the Illiad and Odyssey and of the Ancient Greek philosophers are, in my opinion, quite lengthy but very beautiful (e.g. Aristophanes, Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Xenophon, Telemachus, Eurymachus, Eurylochus, Lysistrata, Lysistratus, etc.). Are you fluent in koine Greek as well as modern Greek the same way a Chinese person may be fluent in traditional Chinese as well as simplified Chinese? Do you know how to read the New Testament of the Christian Bible in koine Greek? 140.254.226.240 (talk) 16:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The name comes from Classical Greek, which I can make out with a dictionary and Grammar on hand. I took two semesters as an undergrad, and my prof wanted me to switch majors. Originally I want to use Ουτις, which means "nobody" from the story of the Cyclops whom Odysseus had told his name was "Ουτις", so that when the later blinded the former the Cyclops cried out "nobody has blinded me, no one has stolen my sheep" so that his companions did not come to his aid. But Ουτις was taken. so I picked μηδεὶς, which means the same thing, and sounds prettier.

Mark 11:14 And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard it. καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν αὐτῇ· μηκέτι εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ἐκ σοῦ μηδεὶς καρπὸν φάγοι. καὶ ἤκουον οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ

μηδείς (talk) 17:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I thought you were a Greek Orthodox person on the site, frequenting the reference desks. 140.254.226.187 (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I was baptized in the Byzantine rite, but not in Greek, and that was not the reason for me choosing that name. I do find Greek eloquent and elegant. In the real world most of my relatives do actually have Greek-derived names. But I am not Greek and cannot speak it. μηδείς (talk) 22:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note[edit]

Just a quick note to say that I commented on the warning that you left at User_talk:Sneazy ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 18:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my habit to obsess over such things, I am sure the user won't repeat his action--although I am surprised his English was good enough to want to change my spellings but not good enough to read the tags he removed. μηδείς (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see the previous changes to your comment as naturally I was just looking for the username, not an ip. In regards to their English, selective reading maybe, sometimes that's just the way it is :/ ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 22:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I did expect you had missed the two prior IP edits. μηδείς (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Left a note at Addshore's user talk that I think you should reply to. John F. Lewis (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Citation Barnstar
Mad props for Zhuang Zedong. Jayron32 05:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look. --PlanetEditor (talk) 07:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar For You![edit]

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For helping out a lot on the Wikipedia Reference Desk. Futurist110 (talk) 04:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I apologize for asking, but I'm just curious--are you male or female? Futurist110 (talk) 04:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your comments on my talk page. Please check out my response whenever you'll have the time. Futurist110 (talk) 06:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Whitman article[edit]

Medeis, you stated "(that's a judgment call--the point for us is that this is a comprehensive encyclopedia, the fact is notable and referenced whatever our opinion of the ruling)", in regards to the blanking of the opinion of the Coroner who described Gumby's death as a homocide. I fail to see where comprehension should include questionable logic, just because it is sourced by a printed article where the writer is not an expert in the field, and the coroner may have been the proverbial "diagnoser looking for a source". If I recall, a Psychologist got his face on a few programs and in print because he diagnosed that Whitman, was suffering from Hypergraphia, possibly due to the tumor.

My point is it is inconceivable (therefore - not comprehensible), that Gumby (already a victim of the tragedy), gets an update over 35 years after the "facts", and he got to decide when he became a murder victim, by not continuing on a treatment program at his request, via a coroner looking to get his name in the histoy books, for a very controversial issue. At best it is a sidebar issue for discussion, not a matter of fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6007:27:29E8:7C13:746:17E3 (talk) 02:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The proper place to discuss this is the article's talk page, not here. I am leaving this note as a courtesy--I usually just delete comments about articles on my talk page. Post there and I will discuss it. μηδείς (talk) 02:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images - technical questions[edit]

Hi, a new editor has asked me some technical questions about adding / changing images in articles but my technical knowledge is minimal. Can you help or do you know who I can refer them to? Thanks in advance. Denisarona (talk) 05:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Their question:

Template:Tucker Smith Revision Hi Denisarona. I'm quite new to this so please forgive my fumblings. I tried to add a photo of Tucker Smith to his page and the thumbnail image was (and is) coming up as a negative image. If I click on the photo, the larger view is fine but the thumbnail looks, well, odd. I took the image down, not knowing what to do next and you've put it back up and yet, it's still a negative image. I've tried to make changes under my old username but my password is not recognized and when I request a new password, no email is sent to the email address I've given here. I'd love for the photo issue to be resolved, he's my uncle and it would be nice if his photo can be posted. If not, it's okay. Thank you. ~rickkilroy~
Denisarona (talk) 05:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK? nomination review request[edit]

Hey Medeis, Could you please review this DYK? nomination of mine -- Template:Did you know nominations/Race and ethnic history of New York City. If not, that's okay, but please let me know what your decision on this is. Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 00:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but could you give a better link? (I'll find it eventually, but I am as lazy as the next person). μηδείς (talk) 02:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Link is at Template:Did you know nominations/Race and ethnic history of New York City. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the flawed link, and thank you Guy Macon for giving Medeis a better link. Medeis, I have already fixed everything that you pointed out in this DYK? nomination of mine. I likewise chose to keep your previous edits in regards to fixing some of the minor things in this article. Please see my latest comments for this DYK? nomination and respond to them whenever you'll have the time to do it. Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 03:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have now responded to you again, Medeis. Futurist110 (talk) 01:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have now responded to you again. Futurist110 (talk) 03:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have now responded to you yet again. Also, if there's any DYK? nomination of yours that you want me to review, I'd be willing to try reviewing it to the best of my abilities. Futurist110 (talk) 04:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have responded to you again, Medeis. Futurist110 (talk) 21:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Composite image[edit]

Hi! Would you care to share your opinion about the composite/single infobox image issue here? I would really appreciate it. Thanks! --Life is like a box of chocolates (talk) 01:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Medeis. To clarify, the "Career" section comprises three distinct subsections: "Medical career", "U.S. Surgeon General", and "Later career". "Koop Report" is not a subsection of Career, but rather a sub-subsection; in other words, it's a subsection of the subsection "U.S. Surgeon General". ;) Regarding the content you hid, I agree with you that it doesn't belong, so I just removed it. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Russian meteor event:[edit]

What do you think the meteor was? Angry birds? The Space Station? A UFO? It has been established it was an asteroid belonging to the Apollo group of asteroids. You know this, so stop being an asshole reverting this extremely well sourced fact. Have a nice day, BatteryIncluded (talk) 05:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WTF are you smoking? Go bitch at user 212.139.104.161 - located in UK. I am in USA. Take your meds. BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, I take it that means you agree with my edit? Mea maxima culpa. μηδείς (talk) 04:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dude! It was me who wrote "superbolide meteor" in order to please you, but someone deleted it because of the redundancy, as explained here [6]. Again: go fight with the right person. Really. -BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dudes!, sources!, meteor!, hey? μηδείς (talk) 04:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, go bitch at that anomymous IP user. As far as I am concerned, the correct use of "asteroid" in the first sentence is all I wanted and achieved, dude. BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the discussion here. I think it will be better to to move the article under "2013 Shahbag protests" title. Thank you. --Freemesm (talk) 14:35, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

User talk:David Levy#User:Medeis --Guy Macon (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis. Thanks for your comment on the Talk page on the Chelb. meteor. I'm not quite clear on one thing from your comment. Are you okay with "it quickly became a brilliant superbolide meteor" as I suggested?

The reason I ask is that you first said you like the way it is ("I have no problem with the current text."), which does not say superbolide meteor. Then, later, you include the text "...it quickly became a brilliant superbolide meteor" as if you approve of that particular wording.

Anyway, just asking for you to clarify. Cheers. N2e (talk) 00:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--Thanks additionally for the message on my talk page. SpencerT♦C 00:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is User:Medeis reported by User:Guy Macon (Result: ). Thank you. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--Sorry about that! SpencerT♦C 01:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis:
The above message's intended purpose is to inform editors that their work paid off, thereby encouraging further contributions. You obviously were aware that the ITN update occurred (and therefore didn't need to be informed), but you requested this "credit" at Spencer's talk page, which seems to suggest that you perceive it as a trophy bestowed upon editors by administrators. This isn't so. Anyone, including you, can post the message. If it's important to you, feel free to leave it for yourself. —David Levy 02:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought these were like barnstars, not just talk backs. μηδείς (talk) 02:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They're primarily informative in nature. Of course, there's nothing wrong with taking pride in the accomplishment, and if you wish to use the messages as a means of informing others that you helped to update the articles, you're more than welcome to. But if one is missing, you needn't request it from an administrator (who possesses no special authority to post it); you can simply add it yourself. And if you happen to notice that another updater didn't receive a notice, feel free to leave one for him/her. —David Levy 03:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give me a link or the fids for the credit template? Perhaps I can make myself the credit faery. μηδείς (talk) 04:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just moved it to Template:ITN notice. (It previously was moved from Template:UpdatedITN to Template:ITN credit, which probably contributed to the aforementioned misconception.) —David Levy 04:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 19:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 2013[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Hugo Chávez. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Bbb23 (talk) 01:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • See also report here. The block was partly based on the nature of the edits to an article currently featured on the main page.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Medeis (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

The technical charges are a fair cop, but I ask that this block be reduced to 24 hours as unnecessary to protect the project. I see that the four last edits each in effect restored the material added in my first edit, and hence will admit to the basic charge. But the reason was due to cut and pasting material that was being moved and deleted during edit conflicts while I was trying to expand the death section to meet the ITN criteria--note that each new edit was adding new material and references--not because of any desire to establish some sort of preferred text. I'll gladly lay of the article for a week or however long if that's at issue. Thanks

Accept reason:

Looks like you "get it"; so prevention has succeeded. --jpgordon::==( o ) 06:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm glad you acknowledge the edit-warring and I'm also glad that you are willing not to edit the article for a week. I don't see your point about the "new material"; from my vantage point you were mostly trying to get in the same material over and over again. Sometimes, it was worded slightly differently, and sometimes you were also adding other material, but the whole thing about inflation, socialist rule, and murder rate was repeated I forget how many times. For that reason, I'm not inclined to reduce the length of your block. However, I'm going off-wiki and any uninvolved admin may do whatever they deem best without consulting with me.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. My point was that I really had no desire to restore the specific material (which is from the AP source quoted) in my first edit per se or against consensus. What you (BBb23) call worded differently was new material added towards meeting the five sentence criterion of ITN listings--the requirement is five new referenced sentences of prose. I didn't even realize my first sentence had been deleted, and notice only now on looking at the edit history that well over 50 edits were made during the same period, and that user Kennvido, for example, reverted the article five times. (In other words, if he hadn't done that, my editions of new material would have simply been that, additions of new material about VP Maduro and the other information I added. But I am not complaining against him or his edits which I assume were in good faith.) I guess my point is that just as technically, one need not violate 3RR in order to be edit warring, one need not be edit warring in order to violate 3RR--especially given this was an In The News nomination by another editor which I was trying to make suitable for listing on the front page after it had been deleted as not updated. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 03:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclined to unblock completely or reduce...the block was rightly made; there's no fault with that. However, this block has already satisfied WP:PREVENTATIVE, and so unless any others object I would say that it can be lifted. Ks0stm (TCGE) 06:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the person who reported Medeis (and who has been on the receiving end of multiple accusations that I am somehow persecuting her for asking her to not edit war or change other people's comments) I have no objection to the block being lifted; Medeis has always been good about keeping short-term promises made during requests to have blocks lifted, and I am sure that this will be the case this time as well.
I do have a concern about whether this unblock will encourage more problematic behavior in the future. For example, on 22:59, 8 October 2012 admin David Levy unblocked Medeis[7][8] in response to the comment "Please unblock me, you won't see me editing people's comments", and indeed for the short term there were no problems, but six months later on 02:25, 2 March 2013, Medeis was back at it, editing another person's comments.[9]
That being said, the above concerns really need to be addressed at WP:RFC/U, not here, and I am glad that the block accomplished its purpose and could be lifted. As I have said several times, blocks are not the goal. Medeis not edit warring and not editing other people's comments is the goal. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Sorry, I meant to post this before and forgot. I noticed that you asked how to raise an SPI for one of the users I blocked? A sock of User:Timothyhere?

The best thing I can suggest is that you read WP:SPI which should explain everything to you. Basically the initial account, is a sockpuppeteer, any other accounts created after the initial account is blocked are called sockpuppets.

If you wish to open an SPI, then you can do this by visiting the SPI link I gave you above and by clicking where it says "Submitting an SPI case" and then follow the instructions it gives you. You can also do it by going to the user contributions page of the user you wish to report, on that you should see a link that says "arv", if you click on that and follow the instructions you should be able to report it that way.

In some instances when submitting a report to the SPI team, you may wish to request CheckUser. CheckUser is a MediaWiki extension which consists of a small group of trusted Wikipedia users who check things like IP address information. However CheckUser has very strict policies and procedures to follow, generally CheckUser will only agree to check a user if there is clear evidence of likely sock abuse and a good reason why CheckUser is needed to resolve the matter. Some good examples of where CheckUser requests have been successful can be found under the sockpuppet investigation page for Trueman31.

You don't need to do anything further for User:FMicronesian though as someone else has already reported them.

Any questions don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page :)--5 albert square (talk) 22:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WISE 1049-5319 ‎[edit]

Hi μηδείς, the section has been deleted by another user. Another paragraph has also been added which lengthens the article again so I think it is still ready for posting. Perhaps the admins don't want to post something else so soon after the Pope. Nestrs (talk) 03:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ref desk[edit]

In regards to the Timothy troll... I asked Nil to keep an eye open here. It is worth watching to make sure it's legitimate. Shadowjams (talk) 13:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The response at the ref desk talk seems familiar. There was at least another new account that was banned without much fanfare, and not referenced in the SPI, but shares some similarities. The editing times are distinctive, but they vary after a few months. I haven't looked at the new ones, but I think the checkusers know enough more to identify these. It might be worth letting them internally discuss if a wider block or edit filter is appropriate. Shadowjams (talk) 19:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note[edit]

I think we might have some more "Timothy" socks running around the ref desk. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well golllllllee! Suhprise, suhprise! lol. μηδείς (talk) 02:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Shazam! Well, I've asked a checkuser to look into this latest character or characters. We'll jut see what happens. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
sounds like a plan. let me knwo if you catch the troll.--There goes the internet (talk) 05:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KO, I'll lte you knwo. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Troll[edit]

Link your evidence or stop hatting legitimate enough questions. What's wrong with what this IP is asking? --OnoremDil 03:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll assume this is sufficient evidence. μηδείς (talk) 18:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WT:ITN - abolish minimum update[edit]

Medeis,

I know we don't always agree, but I'm urging you please do not reply to "The Rambling Man". He has repeatedly demonstrated derisive, sarcastic, insulting troll like behaviour. He will not concede your point, will try and twist your words against you, will infer a meaning to your words then claim ignorance to that inference, and derail a thread with his constant "one-ups-manship". I know you've experienced this before, so have I, and so has 331dot. We can debate the validity of my proposal at WT:ITN, but from one Wikipedian to another, I strongly urge you not to take TRM's troll bait.

Cheers, --IP98 (talk) 19:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

unsolicited comment addressed to third party
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


I'm a "troll"? I'm "derisive"? I'm "sarcastic"? Have you ever read WP:NPA? A triple breach. Troubling. (Even 331dot would agree, I'm sure! And I'm sure Medeis can take care of Medeis and doesn't need your advice....) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
archive for when this goes to ANI
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

By the way, you have many unanswered comments at ITN where you appear to have either misunderstood things or made editing mistakes. Probably worthwhile you returning there to set the record straight. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK? nomination review request[edit]

Hello Medeis,

Could you please take a look at this DYK? nomination of mine if you are able to? -- Template:Did you know nominations/Urbanization in the United States. All you need to do is to approve the hook that I and BlueMoonset agreed upon and to check that I fixed everything that BlueMoonset last asked me to. Please let me know if you are able to do this. It should only take you several minutes, since BlueMoonset already did the checking for DYK? qualifications and whatnot. Thank you very much. Take care. Futurist110 (talk) 02:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK:

Here's the link for MA: http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/cph-2-23.pdf

Here's the link for RI: http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/cph-2-41.pdf

Here are the numbers for searching inside these reports:

4,808,339 for MA, 226,618 for RI

It says "Rhode Island 1" or "1 Rhode Island" on the bottom of the page. This is the page number, and it is the same for Massachusetts. It is Table 1 for both of them, so simply scroll down to the end of near the end, and if it says Table 10 or Table 20 or something, then simply go back until you reach Table 1 (the tables are in order, from 1, to 2, to 3, to 4, and so forth). I seriously hope that this helps. Futurist110 (talk) 19:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I support any changes that you made to this article of mine and I also fixed the pictures right now. Hopefully everything is good with this DYK? nomination of mine right now. Futurist110 (talk) 08:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I responded to you and BlueMoonset again right now. Futurist110 (talk) 01:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I responded to you again on my talk page. Futurist110 (talk) 01:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've now proposed your ALT HOOK 9. Anyway, please comment and say (if it is okay with you) that you would approve of either ALT HOOK 6, ALT HOOK 8, or ALT HOOK 9. I'm fine with any of these hooks as well. Futurist110 (talk) 02:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've responded to you again on my talk page. Futurist110 (talk) 02:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkbaclk[edit]

Further info on my talk page on something you wanted looked into. --Jayron32 01:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:EBERT listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:EBERT. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:EBERT redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). --Bongwarrior (talk) 13:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EBERT essay[edit]

Hi Medeis,

This is a reminder to create the Wikipedia:Ebert Precedent essay. On a personal note, I understand your frustration at the blurb for Ebert. I agree that it was a mistake, but it was only a mistake. It happens. The way to "fix" this is to finally get some documented guidelines for RD up at WP:ITN/DC. I would be willing to try again at WT:ITN, but I got shouted down pretty brutally last time. --IP98 (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you![edit]

Thanks

Nottruelosa (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

THanks. I cannot hold you resonsible for not knowing I am deadly allergic to kittlings, and only enjoy them cooked as General Tsao's Chicken. But it is certainly a cute, good faith picture. μηδείς (talk) 04:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note[edit]

We might have yet another TimothyHere sock in Horatio Three Musketeers, or whatever his name is. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am fairly certain that's why I suggested someone with a name similar to that might want to request a check-user on himself, given the nature of his concern. Suggest you talk to shadowjams or nil einne. μηδείς (talk) 13:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice this one btw. I've been trying to watch for timothy clones but this one I missed. The MO is different, but given the history a CU seems reasonable (especially if you make clear that there's a very specific geo region to these socks that should make a CU check very accurate). Shadowjams (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Song from South Africa[edit]

Hi Medeis,

I seem to remember that you mentioned somewhere that you speak some language from South Africa. I have an earworm (triggered by some song on a cd of one of my children) of a folk song from South Africa that I learned about thirty years ago in a church group. I remember the lyrics as starting with something like: "Svamand nkosi". It was sung very slowly and if I remember correctly as a canon. Does that ring any bell with you? All my efforts to find that song on youtube or to google anything meaningful have failed. A search with "nkosi" usually only brings up South Africa's national anthem. I'd appreciate your help - if at all possible.--Zoppp (talk) 22:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ref desk response[edit]

Regarding this edit, I didn't read Jayron's explanation in the same "You dummy" sort of tone that you seem to have. I saw it as him just adding a bit of explanatory info about the building and its significance. Just my two cents... Dismas|(talk) 02:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Qapla' in Rocky Horror[edit]

I figured I'd reply here instead of the Ref desk since time has gotten away from me in my reply to you. I was referring to the voice-over audio commentary track, which features Richard O'Brien and (an increasingly drunk) Patricia Quinn. Helene O'Troy - Et In Arcadia Ego Sum (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha! Yes, thanks, I would not have noticed at this point had you answered there. If you are a fan and buy Blu Rays this transfer is quite excellent. μηδείς (talk) 22:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite a fan and I've been performing in RHPS shadow casts for many years. We haven't bought the Blu-Ray yet, mostly because we already have so many other versions (like the laser disc, which aren't even able to play!). Helene O'Troy - Et In Arcadia Ego Sum (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just purchased a Blu-Ray playing computer. When the formatting is done right it is incredible. The Hobbit and Rocky Horror are truly beautiful. Unfortunately a lot of movies seem to be identical to the DVD version, like Helen Mirren in The Tempest (2010 film), or even VHS, as with Donnie Darko. My brother-in-law and I used to go weekly with friends. He knew people who did the floor show. I'll have to dragoon him to attend next time he's in town, or maybe after his kids come of age. μηδείς (talk) 18:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Medeis (a wonderful username) I am glad this thread is here. After taking part in the discussion that you started I took the opportunity to replace my lost DVD with the bluray of RHPS. In a fun coincidence it arrived today which is also Tim Curry's 67th birthday! So, of course, I had to put aside what I was going to do and pop it in the player. As Heleneotroy (another great username) says the mention is in the commentary track. O'Brien mentions that US audiences never understood the word hoopla. They then go to discuss the various meanings of the word and, at one point, they talk about its coming from the world of traveling carnivals. I was interested to find that the bluray contains the UK version as well as the US one. I don't know if there are any noticeable differences but I look forward to finding out. Well my reply here may be too late since you might have already listened to the commentary. But I feel that the whole thing is a delightful bit of serendipity as it might have been years til I replaced my DVD but for your question so I had to stop by and say thanks. With Dr Frank-n-Furter being 67 do you suppose he now wears support hose instead of fishnet stockings? OK a groaner I know but I couldn't resist. Cheers and have a great weekend. MarnetteD | Talk 04:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:James Holmes, cropped.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:James Holmes, cropped.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excalibur[edit]

Hi

Your revert reintroduced peacocking [10].

I can see from the history of that article that there has been previous discussion on various issues, I am a neutral editor interested in ensuring POV remains neutral.

  • one of the best-preserved surviving Norman castles
  • a well-preserved Norman castles

The first statement, your reversion, says that there are some surviving Norman castles and out of those, this castle is one of the best-preserved.

The second statement, my change, says that it is a Norman castle that is well-preserved.

  • The second statement makes no judgement as to the ranking of preservation compared to any other, the first states that it is in the "top 10" (for want of a better expression) of Norman castles.
  • The first statement contains redundancy; it cannot be preserved if it does not survive. Therefore survive is redundant.
  • If a challenge were to be made, it would be far easier to show is is well preserved, than trying to prove it's ranking amongst those that are still surviving.
  • The first statement is peacocking as it implies it is "one of the best", but provides no evidence of this. It may well be one of the top 3 in Ireland, but perhaps not so high compared to the whole of Europe.

Hope this clarifies why I undid your revert. I realise that you may well think that there are other issues once you have read the changes I made after you reverted (I had already started before you reverted the previous one, and only saved it and found your reversion upon saving.

Hopefully we can discuss any issues on the talk page there. At present the plot is 1,100+ and I cannot really see how much could be removed to get it down to 900ish, let alone the 700 recommended, so would rather leave as is. Consensus between a few of us should be enough as per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Plot

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 04:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to revert you so that this shows up on my live sheet, then go to sleep.  I will then either revert my own revert, or give my reason again, and withdraw.
I understand that, but you reverted all my edits, not just that one unfortunately. Chaosdruid (talk) 03:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

Please, I was wondering if you can delete the entire section I post on the reference desk. Reply at my talk page please. Thanks Miss Bono (zootalk) 18:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eurasiatic languages[edit]

Thanks for your helpful edits to Eurasiatic languages. Making/keeping that article neutral is a real chore and I appreciate any help I can get. (For the record, I find the existing critiques of Pagel to be rather lame and hope to replace them if/when real (peer reviewed) critiques come out. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. If you are interested in the topic and haven't read Michael Fortescue's Language Relations Across Bering Straight you should. I don't endorse it (or Greenberg), but it's the most in-depth and rigorous study of the topic of which I am aware. As for the article, I am a little concerned at the over-criticism of Greenberg. Most of his critics insist on a strict reconstruction, which he does not provide, but does not pretend to provide, either. Few of his critics claim his general hypothesis is actually false, which one might assume if he's not not aware of the subtleties. μηδείς (talk) 02:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am new to the topic, so I will certainly check out the book you recommend. I don't doubt that many linguists accept the plausibility of Eurasiatic (and other superfamilies); the tricky part is nailing down some actual evidence. I certainly plan to include those who support Greenberg's conclusion as I expand the article (slowly over time). --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course Eurasiatic is plausible on the face of it. (But then, so are some competing proposals.) Even Proto-Human is plausible a priori. We'd all love if someone managed to prove it (as in "making it really highly credible", at least). Every historical linguist constantly curses factors such as chance similarities, contact (not only Wanderwörter), analogical changes, Lallwörter (elementary similarities and coincidences of the "mama/papa" type), poor/wrong data, taboo word replacement, and many more problems I forget, which throw various wrenches into our attempts to reconstruct back more than a few millennia (and even that is damn difficult – I still marvel at the sheer daringness of the Austronesian–Ongan proposal, but even more at how intriguing the evidence is). Chance alone means you need more than a few dozens of convincing cognates to make any long-range proposal believable. It's not that we're "haters" – it's not that we don't want to believe. We're all on the same side. Every historical linguist idly dreams of a time machine. We hate being so sceptical, we really do; but we've got excellent, maddeningly compelling reasons for it.
Perhaps an analogy is in order. There's this starry-eyed kid who tries to build a faster-than-light spaceship, but there is a problem which is obvious to every expert. It's not about whether FTL space travel is possible in principle, but the concrete way this kid has gone about to construct their vessel. The kid knows too little about physics and chemistry and engineering and statics, and experts can tell that by the laws of physics, not only is this concrete design not going to work, worse: it's going to kill the person (most likely the kid themselves) entering the vessel at take-off because it will explode instead. So experts who warn the kid are just overly sceptical killjoys and spoilsports and should instead encourage and praise the kid for its visionary invention?
Linguistics is of course different because there is usually no risk of harm associated with believing in false or insufficiently supported hypotheses as such. However, the methodical principles that make natural scientists reject hypotheses and engineers reject designs are similar, and ultimately based on the same logical principles and scholarly ethics. Just because the real-world consequences are less serious (there can also be more subtle consequences, I just chose a drastic example to illustrate the principle) does not mean you should throw all these methodological rules and rules of academic conduct out of the window and praise any slightly plausible conjecture just for the sake of not appearing as hyper-sceptical. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joyce Brothers[edit]

Hi Medeis,

First, thanks for all the work you put into that article. I'm admittedly not very good at that, and fail to add coherent updates to my own noms. I'll also say that I've not read the large discussion at ITN/C (TL:DR). I know that sometimes it feels like you're being deliberately antagonized. My last user is buried at the gates of Jerusalem, so I know how heated discussions can get. It's really best to just take a break, and live to fight another day.

Cheers,

--IP98 (talk) 21:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have I added something inappropriate somewhere? You will notice there is no emotional language anywhere in my edits. Or if there is, please let me know? μηδείς (talk) 21:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, you're good. I'm just giving you some food for thought, that maybe it isn't that big of a deal. I'm totally uninvolved in this one. --IP98 (talk) 21:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather you state elsewhere that I have done no wrong than here. μηδείς (talk) 22:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joyce Brothers Closure[edit]

Hi Medeis. As you were someone with interest in the Joyce Brothers RD nomination, I wanted to let you know that I have closed the Joyce Brothers nomination as 'no consensus to post'; you can see my rationale at the nomination closing statement. Nonetheless, I'd like to thank you for the work you put into improving the article. Best, SpencerT♦C 04:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Michael Raymond-James, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Black Snake Moan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 23:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

continuing[edit]

Having been hatted by an admin here, after this discussion, he follows me to criticize this page where he was not active. μηδείς (talk) 22:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note2[edit]

Monteithh (talk · contribs) Looks like yet another sock of Timothyhere (talk · contribs). The usual fascination with Jeffrey Dahmer and the like. I reported him to AIV, but it's probably going to need another SPI. Ugh. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. Other socks? Who knows? We'll darn 'em when they make themselves obvious. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suspected this when I saw it ended in eith with repeated letters. Not very creative. μηδείς (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or deliberately leaving that clue to see who was paying attention. Trolls will do that sometimes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ref desk2[edit]

The ref desk nannies are looking for scapegoats now. (Although Jayron, as usual, is the voice of reason.) And they've not considered this point: if they ban us from the ref desk, they'll have to find somebody else to yell at. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Medeis, I guess the above notification shows that you are already aware of the discussion. Please do drop by and add balance by giving your side. 184.147.118.213 (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citation tags[edit]

While I appreciate your dedication to proper sourcing, I think your approach to scattering {{cn}} tags to nearly every sentence in Henry Morgentaler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is unproductive and verges on disruptive tag-bombing. I'm trying, thus far unsuccessully, to come up with a good-faith rationale for this. Are you questioning whether he was born in Lodz? Or what his parents' names were? Both items are supported by the New York Times obituary, cited one sentence on. Did you read that source and fail to see that it supports the content? Help me out here, because I'm getting frustrated. MastCell Talk 19:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is very simple. New claims when they are mentioned, like Lodz, need referencing. If the NYT covers this, then addd teh ref name "NYT" or whatever it is named tag. This article is nominated for the front page. It has to be fully referenced. (IT has to be fully referenced in any case.) And the only solution is adding the cites. μηδείς (talk) 19:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we agree on that. So please help add the cites, rather than just flagging the work for other people to do. How about this: before you tag something, spend 30 seconds checking to see if the fact is referenced in the New York Times obit or the CBC obit. If yes, add a link to the source. If no, then tag away to your heart's content. Does that sound reasonable? Because it would head off about 50% of the tags you've been placing and probably improve the editing environment as well. MastCell Talk 19:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now this is just purely counterproductive and disruptive. We don't need a citation after every single sentence. No article on Wikipedia is written that way. No featured article is written that way. One citation can cover a few sentences' worth of info, particularly uncontroversial info like birthplace and parental names. I'm going to ask that you revert yourself there, or else I'm going to ask for input from WP:AN/I, because I'm getting frustrated and having a really hard time understanding how you believe that what you're doing is productive or helpful. MastCell Talk 19:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback message from Tito Dutta[edit]

Hello, Medeis. You have new messages at Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#.5BReady_for_RD.5D_Rituparno_Ghosh.
Message added 03:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tito Dutta (contact) 03:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback message from Tito Dutta[edit]

Hello, Medeis. You have new messages at Titodutta's talk page.
Message added 03:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Tito Dutta (contact) 03:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some much deserved recognition[edit]

The Barnstar of Diligence
You have strong opinions about what is right and what is not, and you take a lot of crap for your opinions. Although I often disagree with you, I admire you for sticking to your convictions in the face of criticism. That said, you are also fair and willing to reconsider when presented with good evidence. For all these reasons, I hereby give you this barnstar ThaddeusB (talk) 03:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. You tear (rhymes with beer) me up. I am from years of abuse a huge bitch; yet still always a bitch in good faith. The occasional recognition is greatly appreciated. μηδείς (talk) 03:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Good faith[edit]

Hello, Medeis. You have new messages at Spencer's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SpencerT♦C 03:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ref desk[edit]

Hi, I already commented earlier on Steve Baker's talkpage regarding the why some references would be a plus. It helps prevent inadequate answers that can result in too much debate. If you want others to do better, it would help to walk the talk and set an example [by providing a reference with answers such as this [11]]. I removed my pointless metatalk[12] and I would hope you would replace your "this is desks at "its worse" [13] with more constructive remark(s). Thanks and cheers, I do enjoy reading many of your posts. --Modocc (talk) 02:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your restoration at RD/S[edit]

I see that you restored your personal attack, i.e. "a one-purpose ref desk spammer", which I consider unwise and disruptive. I won't edit war with you, so I will leave it at that. -- Scray (talk) 23:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you asked why I would say this was a personal attack, here's the second sentence of the lead paragraph in the WP:NPA policy: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Clearly, name-calling is to be avoided. So, you should delete the clause beginning, "...showing he's a ...". -- Scray (talk) 00:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I edited it but left the fact he's a one-purpose account. μηδείς (talk) 00:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

huh[edit]

idk w u sayin!?Harmonywriter (talk) 03:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[