Miscellaneous desk
< December 11	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 13 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 12[edit]

Bank Charges in the UK[edit]

I have a small problem with my bank, the NatWest. I went overdrawn of a few pence, and they charged me £38 for going overdrawn. Then I got charges for being £38 overdrawn. This has gone on for a while, and I keep getting charged £38 twice each month. Once for being overdrawn, and the other time for the time and effort it takes to tell me I am overdrawn and being charged for this. It is coming close to £1,000 now. Now , is there any way I can get these bank charges cancelled?--KageTora (talk) 07:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about your area, but here people can go to the Office of Fair Trading as a start to sorting things out when a company's complaints department/Bank manager/customer service isn't responding to your complaints. Do you have something similar? Julia Rossi (talk) 08:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an ongoing saga in the UK and the outcome is all in the hands of the courts. There's more information than you could ever wish for here. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 08:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gawd. Julia Rossi (talk) 09:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise you to write to the complaints department of your bank first and formost... Although there is a court case going through as mentionned by Richardrj, some banks will still refund some or all charges as a gesture of goodwill as they want to retain custom where possible... I work for a bank, and although I cannot say which bank I know that we do have discression to refund a certain amount of charges, despite the court case... However take care because some banks will tell you that any refund they give is a one off and no further refunds are allowed. If they do, you will be unlikely to be able to claim any further refunds no matter what the result of the court case... btw I'm staying anonomous as this is not an official bank response...

That last part seems unlikely - if the courts decide the charges are unfair then they are unfair for everyone, having accepted a goodwill refund won't change that. If any bank tries to refuse to comply with the court ruling on those grounds they'll find themselves back before a judge in no time, and I would be very surprised if they left victorious. (IANAL, YMMV, HAND) --Tango (talk) 10:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's the disclaimer we have to give anyway... Yeah I suppose it might change depending on the outcome of the case though...

No more goodwill refunds would be an acceptable disclaimer. Getting people to sign away their rights to legal recourse is probably not acceptable, it may even be illegal. --Tango (talk) 12:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no - until the outcome of this court case no bank HAS to refund any charges, and thus if a bank wants to ONLY offer a goodwill gesture once, they can. The customer would be told this and therefor would not keep asking for refunds constantly. As I said, it could all change depending on the outcome of the court case...

On top of all that, go and talk to the Citizens Advice Bureau; there should be one near you. It would have been better if you'd talked to them earlier, but better late than never. They tend to be good at dealing with debt. 79.66.58.154 (talk) 18:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if it applies to where you are at, but in most countries not doing anything is the worst case scenario. There are lots of rights where if you didn't send a letter to the right place at the right time you're out of luck. So I'd write up the situation for your bank at the earliest, attaching as much detail on all the extra charges as you can and stating that you feel that those are unjustified and you are asking to have them removed. Get a good reason ready for why you didn't complain right-off and had them remove the very first charge. I'd attach the amount of the original overdraft to the letter, to show goodwill. Or at least state that you are quite willing to settle the original overdraft amount. If you are feeling generous you might even let them have the first overdraft fee, because their fees disclosure will probably state that they are entitled to that. (Your legal counsel will know whether that's a good idea or not.) Don't do this by phone or email. Snail mail works best to get their attention for such "small problems" (£1,000 ?!? wow, although I've been in a similar pickle with a tax office). Make sure to follow up on a regular basis. - And get that professional advice. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 22:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The advice above is sound, and I've had good luck with getting a bank to remove charges for going overdrawn accidentally. However I do notice that, by simple calculation from your statements above, you have been letting this debt pile up for around a year. Was that really a wise thing to do? It's a lot easier to persuade a bank to refund £38 right after they've charged it than £1000 a year later. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Australian in Spain[edit]

Proposed National Parks[edit]

I would like to know how many Proposed National Parks there are worldwide and if possible, where they are located. Thankyou —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.72.9.25 (talk) 15:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hereby propose that each square foot of Earth's surface become a National Park. You're welcome. —Tamfang (talk) 01:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eye exercises[edit]

Do eye exercises improve eyesight? sumal (talk) 15:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on what is wrong with your eyesight. Ask an optician. I don't think they are likely to improve eyesight that is already normal or better. --Tango (talk) 16:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Bates method. Some claimed it was beneficial, others derided it. Some studies imply that exercises might improve the ability of nearsighted persons to interpret the blurred images they see without glasses. Bates was difficult to master. Edison (talk) 16:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also See Clearly Method, no longer available after charges for consumer fraud. --LarryMac | Talk 16:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Vision therapy.76.97.245.5 (talk) 18:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See snake oil. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not snake oil. My German-trained eye specialist prescribed eye exercises for me to address my convergence insufficiency, after other people had simply wanted to prescribe glasses. Those exercises were never going to "cure" the problem, just keep it bay for a time, but they strengthened my eye muscles enough to keep me off glasses for 7 years, and they certainly did no harm. Some of those exercises involved bringing a pencil up to my face while focussing both eyes on it. I'd always been told "crossing your eyes makes you go blind", but he explained that that's an old wives' tale, as long as it's done as specific short-term exercises under the watch of a trained professional and not something you do all day long willy-nilly. I was very happy with the outcome. This is not medical advice, just a narration of my own experience. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before you call s.th. snake oil [1] you should at least check out the link. Even the US "what lenses does this one need" eye-care specialists admit that it will help with "convergence insufficiency". As JackofOz indicated in other countries it is successfully applied to a wide range of vision problems. It is no cure all, though. The problem with acceptance here is that our education system separates "eye doctors" into optometrists, whose education focuses around corrective lenses and Ophthalmologists focusing on surgical correction. There is simply no educational avenue to get a large support for anything that doesn't fall into either category. (And "not in my backyard" resistance, too.) Which group would want to fund large studies here? This may change in the long run with the modern trend towards Evidence-based medicine. The fact that the internet makes information from many remote sources more accessible will probably help, too. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the difficulty here is that there are a wide range of things that can go wrong with the human eye. It is, after all, a very precise instrument. Exercising the eye muscles could well help with some kinds of eye problem, but it will do nothing at all for many of the most common complaints, such myopia, hyperopia, and astigmatism, because those defects have nothing whatever to do with muscles or any other material that could benefit from exercise. It would be like claiming a telescope will work better the more you use it. Guys like Bates don't help themselves by claiming that all eye difficulties can be alleviated by their method, which is a standard snake oil sales pitch. Any eye "expert" who claims staring at the sun is good for you is one whose theories I would treat with extreme caution. Matt Deres (talk) 17:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I remember reading a while ago about using a turntable set to very slow and having children do games like noughts and crosses or tracing lines on it with the good eye covered to fix squinting. I don't see anything like it in the article anyone else hear about something like this? Dmcq (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Visit[edit]

Why do my US friends visit WITH their friends while here in the UK we merely visit them? 92.21.74.75 (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because while the British invented the English language, the Americans perfected it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

_{Americans also like to say "tuna fish" to help them distinguish it from all the non-fish tuna they've got there. Matt Deres (talk) 20:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

_{It's to avoid confusing piano tuners, who simply hate being made into sandwiches. --Fullobeans (talk) 08:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

Was that a response you prepared with earlier?92.21.74.75 (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Americans are just as likely to use "visit (with)" over "visit" as they are to use phrases such as "hang out (with)" or "chillin' (with)". It's a small distinction, and one I don't really notice in casual conversation. Coreycubed (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Americans LOVE to end sentences with prepositions, as in "Excuse me, but could you tell me out where the library's at?" "Young man, around here, we do not end sentences with prepositions!" "Sorry about that. Could you tell me where the library's at, a$$hole?" Edison (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Beat on" is another one that annoys me every time I hear it - it's just "beat"! --Tango (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is to distinguish it from "Beating off" ;-). Back to a serious note, every time I have heard the phrase "visit with" used, it was an idiomatic expression meaning "talk with". That is, if you "visit" someone, you go over to their place and meet them. If you "visit with" someone, you are having a conversation with them. Now, normally meeting someone implies that you're going to talk to them, but (at least in my experience) there is a slight difference in connotation between the two phrases. -- 128.104.112.113 (talk) 19:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Talk with" is also an Americanism, in Britain we "talk to" each other. DuncanHill (talk) 19:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We "talk to" each other, but we "have a talk with" each other. Perhaps that's where the American usage comes from? --Tango (talk) 20:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see (hear, actually) both occurring in Australia. "Talk to" is the neutral expression, meaning "engage in conversation with", and it's used even if the other party initiated the conversation. It's also used in contexts such as the frustrated mother demanding her husband "talk to" their recalcitrant son to chastise him for his misdeeds and set him on the right path. He'd be given "a good talking to", not "a good talking with". But when a more sympathetic approach is called for, it's more likely to be "Just talk with him, spend some time with him, take him to Maccas, and see if you can find out what's really going on". -- JackofOz (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would definitely use "visit with" for a bigger affair than just "dropping by". As in "we visited with his family for Thanksgiving." I wouldn't use "with" if we weren't the party doing the visiting. (e.g. "they visited us", not "they visited with us". Well, actually: "we had them visiting us".) Interestingly enough the northern German Platdütsch knows a tradition know as "Visiten" (wee-see-t'n) that is also a bigger occasion than just going over to visit your neighbors. They have a group that gets together with a rotation of hosts. They serve tons of cake and coffee and gossip. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you visit with someone, doesn't that mean you went somewhere with them? At least that's what it seems to imply to me Nil Einne (talk) 00:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I visited X with Y" would mean "Y and I visited X", is that what you mean? The X may be unnecessary from context, so you just have "I visited with Y". -Tango (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would not be very natural in American English. If someone asked "Did you visit Paris as part of your trip to Europe?", and you wanted to say that, yes, you visited Paris with Susanne, the natural thing to say would not be "Yes, I visited with Susanne". That might suggest that you didn't understand the question, that you thought the question was something like "Did you visit with anyone as part of your trip to Europe?". The natural answer in this case to "Did you visit Paris as part of your trip to Europe?" would be "Yes, I visited it with Susanne".

I think that 76.97 captured the distinction in American English between "to visit [somebody]" and "to visit with [somebody]". The form without the preposition suggests the act of stopping or staying temporarily with someone. By contrast "visit with" emphasizes the interaction with that person while visiting. It definitely does not mean that you went anywhere with that person. (It also does not exclude the possibility that the two of you went somewhere together while you were visiting with each other.) "I visited my aunt" could mean that you dropped by or that you stayed with her for a week, and it is consistent with not much significant interaction taking place between you. By contrast, "I visited with my aunt" means that the two of you spent time together, had at least one conversation, and enjoyed each other's company. Americanisms that are opaque to speakers of other versions of English often carry subtle nuances of meaning.

Incidentally, in American English, you cannot "visit with" a place; you can only "visit with" a person. For example, you can only "visit Paris", you cannot "visit with Paris". (If someone were to say "I visited with Paris", it would only make sense if you knew that the person was passionate about Paris and felt that spending time there was like spending time with a good friend.) Marco polo (talk) 01:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit tricky to make generalizations about American English, since there are so many variations between regions and populations. I (an American) recognize the meaning of "visit with," but have never used it. I'm not entirely sure I've even used the word "visit" in conversation, since it sounds awkwardly formal when spoken. I would "talk to" someone casually, but "have a talk with" someone who I had a serious problem with. And I stand in line, not on line, when queuing for things. "Could you tell me out where the library's at," depending on where you are and who you're talking to, is either standard, slang, or completely bizarre. There's really no national standard. Half the fun of being an American college student is being exposed to colloquialisms from other parts of the country, and making fun of them mercilessly. --Fullobeans (talk) 08:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Going back to Jayron32's comment. I can't find the book just now, so I'm stuck with this, but I do know that in some cases, and I have no idea if this is one, that current American English usage is actually older than current British English usage. Over a period of time the pronunciation of words and phrases changed in the UK but America kept the older versions. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 16:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - Americans are behind the times! (Whatever way you look at it, Americans are still wrong. ;)) --Tango (talk) 19:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its part of being American is being discriminated against wherever you are. Its assumed that we are always wrong, always rude, always less educated, always stupid. Its a cross we have to bear for being American... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It feels like the phrases don't have exactly the same meaning. "Visit" just refers to going to the same place as who you're visiting. "Visit with" means to actually spend time with the person. For instance, if someone stopped me while I was traveling to my parent's house and asked me what I was doing, I would tell them that I was "visiting my parents". I would not say that I was "visiting with my parents" because that clearly hasn't happened yet. Though, actually, I would personally just use "visit" in both cases. No one I know regularly uses the phrase "visit with" except possibly for some sort of special emphasis. APL (talk) 03:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron - you forgot "Always patronising and always arrogant". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.252.31 (talk) 11:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

“My sister’s in hospital” is clearly Brit-speak, as an American would say "in the hospital". However, I do take exception with the “talk to” and “talk with.” When I give a speech, I “talk to” the audience; when I’m with a group of people, we “talk with” each other, even if there are only two of us. A matter of manners, I suppose (as opposed to those who would classify all Americans as “behind The Times.DOR (HK) (talk) 06:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

material on a website is cited as being in the "public domain"[edit]

Hi there

Material - images to be specific - are cited on a website as being believed to be in the public domain as the website owner has not knowledge of the origins thereof and many are from out of print books.

When visiting his site some years back I commended him on his images and asked if I may make use of them for educational books that I write and provide for free from my website. He granted such permission.

Since then in the last 2 years I have established there are Creative Commons, Public Domain, Educational FAir Use and other copyright references and I am extremely cautious not to infringe on anything that may be copyrighted - so I usually use and cite public domain material.

In this case a public domain image search through Google came up to this chap's site www.arthursclipart.org and I downloaded somoe images believing them to be public domain. I have recently started publishing books commercially and used some of these images.

My question is this, does he have the authority or the legal right to dictate how to use public domain material, or material where he does not even know the origin? Can he be prescriptive in who uses what and how this "public domain" material is used?

According to the information I have on public domain material it is not copyrighted and is available at no cost for anyone to make use of. Out of courtesy I notified this man of how I used his images in my FREE ebooks and sent him copies.

He is now requiring that I remove the public domain images from my work as they belong to him although he does not know who actually owns them. He has not purchased or licensed them, he is not the artist - he has merely sourced them. Some of the images are available on other sites also under a "public domain image" search.

Before I rewrite close on 100 books and remove images that no one knows who owns and are believed to be in the public domain and copyright free, I would like to know where I stand.

Can anyone help?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donnetted (talk • contribs) 19:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A lawyer can help. We cannot. It appears that the other person has made a legal request of you to enforce his claim of intellectual property. Regardless of our views on the legitimacy of the demand, we cannot provide legal advice. Contact a lawyer or do your own legal research. Edison (talk) 19:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But we can explain some of the legal concepts, which both the OP and the guy making the claim seem completely in the dark about. This is a pretty straightforward case as he describes it and as the original website describes the provenance of these images. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does depend quite how you mean "public domain" - it can mean either information available to the public, or works without any copyright restrictions. If the latter, then he has no rights at all in this matter - it doesn't matter where you source a PD work from, it's still PD. Works generally fall into the public domain because sufficient time has passed since they were published or their creator's death (70 yrs iirc). -mattbuck (Talk) 19:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the original artist/photographer puts his work up as "public domain" (explicitly waiving their intellectual property rights) would be another case where the works would be PD, but rather more recent than the "expired" stuff. There are sites that offer legal advice and lots of associations and "lower income" support organizations offer free, pro bono or low fee legal advice/assistance. (That guy might just have gone on a crap shoot when you contacted him or might have set up that site to intentionally lure people into a "let's settle out of court" scam or he might get a good lawyer and sue you and coming generations out of any possible proceeds from your books, plus damages. Better to be safe than sorry.) - Go google and lots of luck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.245.5 (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a look at the cite and there was no claim the work was public domain, only that it was free for non-commercial work. I don't know what it said in the past but you certainly can't take anything from there now as public domain without a lot more checking. Dmcq (talk) 12:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This seems pretty straightforward to me, unless I'm missing something.

If it is really "public domain" then he cannot force you to use it one way or another. That's what public domain means—nobody owns it, nobody can set restrictions on it (outside of a few special cases that clearly don't apply here).

He is doing two things with his site that are problematic, from my quick glance at it. First, he's asserting the clipart is "free" because it comes from out-of-print books and/or he doesn't know the author. That does NOT indicate it is out of copyright. Just because a book is 20 years old does not mean anything about its copyright status without further investigation (see this chart for how duration of copyright is determined in the United States). Second, he is asserting that you have to use it in "non-commercial" uses only. But in any case, he is NOT the author of the works (which may or may not be in copyright), and cannot apply licensing restrictions (which is what insisting on "non-commercial" use is) to them.

So either way he has no legal standing—no ability to set the terms on the use of the material, no ability to make legal threats against you for using it. The material, however, may not be "free" at all. In any case he is not the author, and has no legal authority to dictate how it can be used. Merely scanning something does not give you ownership over it in the United States (see Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.).

In order to get you to take it down, he has to be able to assert that the material is copyrighted and that he is the copyright owner. He can assert neither. The guy seems nice enough, but he has no grasp of the basic principles of copyright law. None of what I wrote above is specialized knowledge that requires a legal degree to understand, any more than implementing the Wikipedia copyright policy does. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that the poster appears to be from South Africa. Whether the same principles that apply to Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. would apply in the UK for example is unclear (and apparently untested) as noted in the article (although according to Commons:Commons:When to use the PD-scan tag some originality would be needed although it may be small), and SA could be the same. For example while the 'sweat of brow' argument has been rejected by US courts, not so with some other courts as noted in Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service. It's possible then that in some countries even though the images may be in the public domain, depending on what the website owner has done to get them, they could be legally copyrighted. The second thing which I will point out is although I agree this guy doesn't seem to quite know what he's talking about, that's no cause for comfort. If he's randomly claiming images are in the public domain (which he doesn't seem to be at the current time indeed he says "Most of the clip art has been scanned from old books (20 years plus) so it is not known if any copyright exists or not") and has little understanding of copyright law and no idea where the images came from, there's no telling where they came from and whether they are legally in the public domain. If they are not as they easily could be, you are opening yourself to a challenge by whoever does own the copyrights to the images. The images definitely are unlikely to be all old enough to automatically be in the public domain. Generally speaking, using images you don't know the true source of particularly in a commercial work is a bad idea Nil Einne (talk) 06:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a version of Midsommer Night's Dream, copyrighted by the University of Chicago for the 1933 World's Fair. They had shortened it by deleting some of the text. This constituted, in their view enough of an improvement to claim it could not be performed, as cut, without their permission. Many music publishers take a PD work by someone from the 18th century, add "editorial improvements" by adding dynamic markings and tempo, and claim a copyright on it. If I take the oldest PD image and fix it up with some Photoshopping, or take an 1890 cylinder recording and improve the sound by removing clicks and noise and balancing the frequency, I should be able to claim a copyright. It is not as simple as some might think it. Legal advice should come from a lawyer. Edison (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

aggression amongst prostitutes[edit]

I remember a story my High School English teacher told me about his mother, who was a Korean prostitute before she married his father, that she was almost killed and fled for her life from other prostitutes. My question is have there ever been stories of prostitutes murdering or being violent with one another, or is this a rare case? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.254.37.42 (talk) 22:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um I'm sure there are a lot of prostitutes who are violent with each other depending on the circumstances. For example, many prostitutes are on drugs and many people do dumb stuff when on certain drugs. Also many prostitutes are not extremely well off so if they suspect another prostitute is stealing money from them they may respond violently. Similarly prostitutes may get into fights over territory or clients. And in countries where's it's prosecuted, if one prostitute suspects another is cooperating with the police in some way which is going to harm them. There are probably other things too. I can imagine if one gets a STD and gives it to a client who gives it to another prostitute, the second one might be pissed off. Of course it's also going to depend on how much involvement there is of pimps who may maintain control and be the ones doing any 'enforcing'. Without knowing the precise circumstances of why your teacher's mother was nearly killed we can't even begin to say if it was a rare case. Nil Einne (talk) 00:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would prostitutes be somehow exempt from violence and murder? Nobody else is. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of a number of situations that would cause violence amongst prostitutes (and have seen examples in fiction). Prostitutes who work on the street will have their own turf where they advertise their wares. Infringing on another person's turf is not only rude, but would be considered very aggressive. Furthermore a newer, prettier and/or more adventurous prostitute will likely be a source of resentment among older, uglier and/or less agreeable prostitutes who might lose business to them. If prostitutes work in a brothel, there would be competitiveness for favour of richer clients, for the favour of the brothel madam/pimp and to avoid the less welcome clients. If they live in close proximity, you end up with the same disagreements and vindictiveness that arises whenever humans of any sort are in involuntary close proximity for a long time. Steewi (talk) 00:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]