User talk:Medeis: Difference between revisions

If I left you a message on your talk page, please respond there; I am watching your talk page. However, be aware that I prefer to discuss issues regarding an article at its talk page, and request that you only address matters specifically of interest to me or regarding my own personal actions here.

/Archive 1

Help:Archiving a talk page

On July 17, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dzungarian Gate, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On May 30, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Shetani, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

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

On 15 June 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Miami cannibal attack, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the family of Miami Zombie victim Ronald Poppo, a graduate of Manhattan's Stuyvesant High School, believed he had died 30 years ago? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

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

On 24 August 2011, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article 2011 Virginia earthquake, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

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

	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]

On 19 September 2012, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Charlie Hebdo, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

--Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Thank you for your support. 173.28.244.122 (talk) 03:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed there was a discussion on the renaming of the article on poison ivy on Talk:Toxicodendron radicans. I was thinking if I could rename Poison sumac as Toxicodendron vernix. Should I do that? And there should be a proposal to rename all organism articles to their scientific name? Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 21:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would personally oppose it as violating WP:COMMONNAME. If your purpose is to make a point, see WP:POINTY. I wouldn't do it unless you argue for it in good faith and get consensus for it on the talk page. μηδείς (talk) 21:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept my apology for taking so long to respond at User talk: Peter M. Brown#reptiles. I somehow failed to notice your addition there. I have now responded. Incidentally, your recent reversion to the Mammal article was most welcome. Peter M. Brown (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks. I found the situation on mammals most annoying. The edits were obviously good faith. The IP geolocated to Brazil. Perhaps there was a language issue. μηδείς (talk) 15:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Incidents of zombie-like behavior in 2012, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced the {{merge}} tag you removed from this article, as no consensus has been reached in the discussion. Feel free to continue to contribute to the debate, but please do not remove the tag until a community decision has been made and acted upon. Thanks. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, that was inadvertent. μηδείς (talk) 12:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; I did wonder if it was a mistake. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that 70.179.170.114 reposted his question to the miscellaneous desk with the BLP stuff supposedly removed. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 03:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

Can you combined or merge my 3 user pages which are User_talk:Buffyfan84, User:Narwhalgal84 and User:Bulkbot84? That would help me alot. Bulkbot84 (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a request for help for you here on the Help Desk. I am sure it can be done, but an administrator there would be likely to know how; I don't. μηδείς (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to restore what still looks suspiciously like a plug to me, could you at least re-format the "reference" to something of utility? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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]

It's nothing personal Medeis, and I would much rather be NOT checking your edits. But please, I warned you before about unannounced editing of other people's signed posts, so once again, don't change other people's signed posts. Please do stop now, whether it's a template or your opinion or anything else. You can expect a block in future if you continue. You of course can go to ANI any time you want to ask for review of my actions as an administrator or editor. The policy/guidelines I am basing this on would be WP:TPO and WP:DE. Franamax (talk) 06:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be sure, you understand that this comment of yours in no way refutes or avoids my final warning to you about changing other peoples posts, right? Don't change anything about the lines where the other editor post is, does that make it clearer? Oh, and the other bit where you mentioned using hidden HTML comments - no, that also is you changing another's post, so, same applies. Franamax (talk) 23:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous, is considered bad practice, even if you meant it well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Roger (talk) 07:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Please stop moving my post. If you properly fix your indentation, I will voluntarily move it on request, but I request that you stop moving it yourself given how you've failed two times already to move my post without causing no ends of confusion. As it stands, you not only continued to caused confusion for my post by moving my post (my post was an EC with all posts below including your one you moved which my comment made clear before you moved but not after you moved) but cause further confusion for Someguy1221's post by changing you identation without I think notifying Someguy1221 despite the fact it sounded like they were replying to you and idented their post in reply to you which was no longer clear after you modified your post after they replied. Nil Einne (talk)

What are you talking about? μηδείς (talk) 18:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry someone moved my post again and changed the indentation level of your post on the RD/H U.S. and serial killers thread. I presumed it was you again, but I guess from your reply it was not. Sorry for any confusion and for my mistaken assumption. Nil Einne (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps my original assumption was correct. Either way, I've fixed the problem. I also notified Someguy1221 since you did not. Nil Einne (talk) 18:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did to Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Lihaas (talk) 03:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please be specific, with a diff, because, although I am quite happy to take you in good faith, I have no idea what you are taling about. μηδείς (talk)

Good news! You are approved for access to 350 high quality reference resources through Credo Reference.

• Fill out the survey with your username and an email address where your sign-up information can be sent.
• If you need assistance, ask User:Ocaasi.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Credo article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Credo pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Credo accounts/Citations.
• Credo would love to hear feedback at WP:Credo accounts/Experiences
• Show off your Credo access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Credo_userbox}} on your userpage
• If you decide you no longer can or want to make use of your account, donate it back by adding your name here

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 17:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If so, I'm baffled as to why. StuRat (talk) 04:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheese and effing crackers, how did that happen? I have restored them with my last intended addition. μηδείς (talk) 04:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider replacing your signature with your username in the Latin (English) alphabet, or simply adding that to your existing signature. I'm illiterate in the alphabet you're using (not even sure what it is), as I'm sure are most other editors. If I can't pronounce your name, I can't re-type it from memory or really remember it, the latter of which is a point suggested by Wikipedia:SIG#Non-Latin_usernames, the guideline on point. Thank you.--Chaser (talk) 03:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My user name is in Latin letters, which represent the Greek letters you see in my signature. Only the second letter, eta, is not the same as the Latin. You see Medeis when you edit. Feel free to refer to me by that name in Latin spelling. The name is well-enough established that I do not, respectfully, intend to change it. μηδείς (talk) 03:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes wrongly indented answers make it difficult to parse the thread. OsmanRF34 (talk) 12:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't provide a diff I have no idea what you are talking about. If I did not indent at all, then I was not responding to any of the other responses, which is proper, and what I am guessing you might be referring to--but I am not psychic. μηδείς (talk) 15:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email wikiocaasi@yahoo.com your Wikipedia username.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
• If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 15:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll just ask if we can get along, and that I do sincerely apologies. --Τασουλα (talk) 00:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. μηδείς (talk) 00:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*hugs*. --Τασουλα (talk) 00:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Understood ^_^ --Τασουλα (talk) 00:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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]

I was too responding to Wnt. Tell you what, we can all be above the break, OK?  Card Zero  (talk) 21:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see that, I won't argue against it. The best solution if you strongly object would be to remove the break. It simply seemed that your "here's a thought" was starting a new...'thought. μηδείς (talk) 22:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The break would look nice above Wnt's last post, I think, moving our conversation above the break. Wnt can complain about this later.  Card Zero  (talk) 22:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All editors who were approved for a Credo account and filled out the survey giving their username and email address were emailed Credo account access information. Please check your email.

• If you didn't receive an email, or didn't fill out the survey, please email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com
• If you tried out Credo and no longer want access, email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com

If you have any other questions, feel free to contact me. I hope you enjoy your account! User:Ocaasi 15:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

The correct answer to the thread would have been something along the lines of:

No one has publicized a way to view the film, and several journalists have stated their doubts that the film even exists. See [[our article]] as well as [this], [this] and [that] news items that discuss the issue.

I rolled my eyes when I saw the response thread, I really did. It's my reaction to about half of threads to which Stu contributes, actually. But I can't agree with hatting the question. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I haven't hatted it recently, lol. μηδείς (talk) 02:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As someone may argue that the following is “legal advice” though it is nothing more than my personal view, I am putting it here, rather than on the Ref Desk. (Of course, by the time I finish typing this, the whole matter may be but a tattered explosion of words, and this too late even for the most fervent interest.) Here's how “fair use” in general is apparently determined, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation:

“There are no clear-cut rules for deciding what's fair use and there are no "automatic" classes of fair uses. Fair use is decided by a judge, on a case by case basis, after balancing the four factors listed in section 107 of the Copyright statute. The factors to be considered include:

a. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes -- Courts are more likely to find fair use where the use is for noncommercial purposes.

b. The nature of the copyrighted work -- A particular use is more likely to be fair where the copied work is factual rather than creative.

c. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole -- A court will balance this factor toward a finding of fair use where the amount taken is small or insignificant in proportion to the overall work.

d. The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work -- If the court finds the newly created work is not a substitute product for the copyrighted work, it will be more likely to weigh this factor in favor of fair use.”

In respect of lyrics hosting cites, I suspect (but do not know) not being a lawyer of any sort or even a self-selected “expert” on the matter, the following:

(a1) Websites are seldom set up as non-commercial ventures. The goal is usually to sell advertising space. Lyrics may be educational, but the site's purpose is to generate hits for advertising revenue (FAIL)

(b1) As far as I know, song lyrics are always creative, even when describing factual matters (FAIL)

(c1) The whole of a lyric is the whole of a lyric (FAIL)

(d1) If you don't have to buy the product to get the lyrics then it is a substitute for a creative work (FAIL)

I don't think one could argue that sites web-hosting lyrics are fair use, but YMMV. The sites stay up because each copyright holder would have to identify and prove a copyright violation and then apply on an individual basis for specific material to be taken down. It would take much deeper pockets than most artists possess to have any appreciable effect. Bielle (talk) 00:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am not looking to argue the matter. I do agree fair use requires at least minimal commentary or "use", so a site that only provided previously published lyrics and ads with no additional editorial content would indeed be suspect. The fact that the websites are commercial in selling advertising does not per se mean they are harming the copyright owner. Yet the whole of the lyric is not the whole of the work, and user guesses at unpublished lyrics do amount to commentary on the work. In any case, your comments are useful--you should have posted them on the thread and collapsed them but left them there for the curious, linking to our policy. μηδείς (talk) 00:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You did say that you thought "a case could be made" for "fair use". I only wrote this up because I don't think that is so. Whether you actually wanted to make that case, or not, I am uncomfortable letting the suggestion just hang there. The whole issue is tangential to the question being asked, and responses may be considered to be legal advice: those are two, good reasons for keeping this off the Ref Desk page. I would rather see your comment come off than my remarks here go on, but that is your choice.

The fact that the site is a commercial one is, in and of itself, a negative factor in determining "fair use"; that's point (a). If the presence of the lyric on the site is also costing the copyright owner, which is point (d), that's just another separate consideration in determining "fair use". Bielle (talk) 00:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, again, I suggest you post you first comment here and my first response as a collapsed addition to the proper thread. Arguing about the application of policy is not legal advice--that would only apply if there were some actual court or legal case. (BTW, I don't know how the thread got erased when I tried to submit this comment before--this is the third time that's happened recently on my talk page. In any case, I don't want to discuss it further here. μηδείς (talk) 00:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

1. Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
2. Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
3. Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
4. You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).

If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).

• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
• Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
• Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Thanks for deleting the section I was trying to convert into sense! I agree that it was dubious, but loan words aren't completely off-topic in a language article. The small number of them provided probably says a lot in itself.

I'll insert my edits into the latest revision and then you can delete it again if you like. ;) ☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 06:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I will take a look at it again. Those edits were part of a larger trend of inserting dubious material from a source notable for its POV rather than its scholarship. μηδείς (talk) 16:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you deleted this section: [1] by mistake ? I restored it. StuRat (talk) 17:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added a remark and when I saved it I got a database error message. I think the history actually shows that I sucessfully restored it. μηδείς (talk) 17:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I tried to restore it, but you must have beaten me to it. StuRat (talk) 17:56, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 [2] and war to restore it.[3] 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 log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (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 log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (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 log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (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]