User talk:Medeis

This Wikipedian is deceased. Respectful comments of remembrance may be left below.

/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]

+

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 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]

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]

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]

If you're going to collapse discussion, please get rid of the initial worthless response. --Onorem♠Dil 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. --Onorem♠Dil 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. --Onorem♠Dil 17:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is my change 'nonsense'? --Onorem♠Dil 18:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you can cap randomly, so can I. --Onorem♠Dil 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.

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]

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]

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]

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

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

Do you want to nominate Sunil Gangopadhyay? If that gets support by itself, that would be great. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 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]

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]

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)

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

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]

	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]

On 12 November 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Geology of Russia, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that parts of Russia lie on the same tectonic plate as Japan? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Geology of Russia. 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.

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

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

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]

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]

	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]

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]

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]

On 26 October 2012, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Hurricane Sandy, which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

On 24 November 2012, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Larry Hagman, which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

On 24 November 2012, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Héctor Camacho, which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

On 5 December 2012, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Dave Brubeck, which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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