Wikipedia talk:Reference desk

; Archives (dates are close, not exact)
(1) Jan 1-Sep 15 '04	(2) Feb 1-Nov 13 '04
(3) Mar 20 -Aug 17 '05	(4) Aug 19-Aug 30 '05
(5) Sep 4-Sep 18 '05	(6) Sep 25-Dec 3 '05
(7) Dec 10-Jan 9 '06	(8) Jan 9-Jan 19 '06
(9) Jan 19-Mar 27 '06	(10) Apr 2-Aug 2 '06
(11) Aug 9-Sep 20 '06	(12) Sep 21-Oct 22 '06
(13) Oct 21-Nov 1 '06	(14) Nov 1-Nov 11 '06
(15) Nov 9-Dec 4 '06	(16) Dec 5-Dec 11 '06
(17) Dec 11-Dec 13 '06	(18) Dec 13-Dec 16 '06
(19) Dec 15-Dec 19 '06	(20) Dec 19-Dec 31 '06
(21) Jan 01-Jan 09 '07	(22) Jan 09-Jan 18 '07
(23) Jan 18-Jan 31 '07	(24) Jan 31-Feb 13 '07
(25) Feb 13-Feb 28 '07	(26) Mar 01-Mar 13 '07
(27) Mar 13-Mar 31 '07	(28) Apr 01-Apr 10 '07
(29) Apr 10- ? '07	(30) ? - ? '07

Note: This page is over 0 kilobytes long. It may be helpful to move older discussion into an archive subpage. See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page for guidance.

Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/color

This page is for discussion of the Reference Desks only.

Please post general questions on the relevant reference desk.
Please don't post comments here that don't relate to the Reference Desks. Other material may be moved.

Please do not discuss general policy/guideline proposals on this talk page

We are currently drafting a proposal at Wikipedia:Reference desk/guidelines.
Please discuss those issues on its associated talk page, Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/guidelines, or at the Village Pump Off topic discussions may be moved.

Wot Bot?

Has the archiving process stalled again? Clio the Muse 08:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is definitely erratic.

For the Humanities desk, March 29 is missing from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/March 2007.
For Science, March 29–31 are missing from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/March 2007.
For Miscellaneous, March 29–31 are missing from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/March 2007, and April 1 is missing from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/April 2007.
For Entertainment, March 29–31 are missing from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/March 2007, and April 1–4 are missing from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/April 2007.

Only a few of these missing dates have been archived (by hand?). --Lambiam ^Talk 09:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know where the missing dates are? I've had a look for March 29 for Humanities, but with no success. Is there a RD version of the Bermuda Triangle? Clio the Muse 15:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 March 29. Although not listed on the "contents" page for the March archives, in this case the archived page itself is there (archived by hand by eric). Other ones can be found if you go back in the page history to the version just before the section for the date was cut out. I'm afraid these defects will have to be fixed by hand. As to April 9 having been missed out, the bot's owner Martinp23 said he'd rectify that tonight, bringing the bot back up to date. --Lambiam ^Talk 16:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I'm considering leaving the missing archives blank, the amount of effort required to restore them would be prohibitive. I will however create null pages containing only the date headers, if someone wants to look through the page histories and restore the missing days by hand, the date headers will be in place (in a few days anyway). So that way at least navigation templates will be consistent --VectorPotential^Talk 23:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The affected desks seem to be Science, Miscellaneous, and ~~Entertainment~~ only, due to the limited scope of the problem, I may have time to restore all three archives this weekend, totaling 3 missing days per desk, at three desks, 9 archives to restore--VectorPotential^Talk 23:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch - I've had a look at the pages now, and everything is in a worse situation than I expected. The cause was probably a missing date header, leading to spiralling errors - I can't fix the pages tonight, so I'm afraid that today's archive won't be able to take place. It would help me loads if people could put date headers in the appropriate places. I suspect that the missing text *may* be in the archive of an earlier date, though I've not checked this and am simply making it up, based on some of what I've seen the bot doing. Finally, it's easy for me to get the bot to catch up on archives on the main desks, so please don't bother yourself with doing that. From time to time, the manual archiving can cause the bot to screw things up (such as archiving far too much into one archive day) - however, if you want to do it, I have no problem with it, but I'd ask that you start from the *top* of the desk, and leave a transclusion. Thanks, Martinp23 23:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All date headers are now up to date, and I found the missing days on the Entertainment desk, they're still on the desk :lol: VectorPotential^Talk 00:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bot seems to be up to date now - fingers crossed! Thanks everyone for your hard work. Martinp23 23:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RefDeskBot did a number of very strange things tonight, but they've all been corrected, so from this point on, we should be up to date--VectorPotential^Talk 00:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed some of the weirdness! Thanks for all of your efforts. Clio the Muse 00:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The missing pages and indexes for the end of March on the Humanities and Science desks are now all there, and they should be complete. --Lambiam ^Talk 03:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2007 April 7

Seems to have gone missing as well--VectorPotential^Talk 16:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good Burger 2

This question was removed from the Entertainment Desk as "trolling": [1]. I saw absolutely no evidence that it's trolling. It appears to be somebody asking if a sequel to Good Burger is expected and, if so, who will be in it. I therefore reverted the unilateral deletion. StuRat 20:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing it was seen as trolling due to the hoax contents of the repeatedly-deleted former article Good Burger 2 which was deleted yet again just today. Friday (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, if the same I/P was used to create that article as the Ref Desk question. If so, I would have expected that to be mentioned in the deletion edit summary, however. StuRat 21:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you ask the editor who removed the content why he did so? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a good idea. In cases where I think someone might have more information than me, I usually ask for clarification before reverting. Friday (talk) 21:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was also a long spate of questions relating to Good Burger 2 a few months (6 months?) ago. The questioner would ask and re-ask the same questions on almost a daily basis. Dismas|^(talk) 21:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But do we know this is the same person ? StuRat 01:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

archiving

The entertainment desk (11th) has been archived (on the 13th) - is this really necessary to archive so soon - given that "an answer may take up to a week to develope" this is just madness. Surely some mistake?87.102.84.170 16:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I definately doesn't make any sense to me that a topic can be on the current desk AND in the archives - perhaps someone who has worked in a library could explain!87.102.84.170 16:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After one day, pages are moved to transcluded subpages, and are still visible for up to a week afterwards. This is done for bandwidth considerations --VectorPotential^Talk 16:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok - if for the benefit of people on 'dial up' - I knew there must be a reason. thanks.87.102.84.170 17:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that, since there is only one copy, seen in two places (not two copies), any change is immediately seen in both places. StuRat 17:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I myself have an issue with this because a question that I asked on the 10th got only one (non-constructive) answer and has already been archived. What's going on here? - AMP'd 02:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're finally moving toward our goal, which is to archive the future before it happens. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~The 10th hasn't been archived yet, on any of the boards, so people are still free to respond to it~~ Ok, so apparently it has been archived on most of the desks, people are still free to respond on the archive pages, and you can always repost the question--VectorPotential^Talk 12:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as getting an answer, it doesn't much matter if the question is in the archives, so long as remains transcluded on the main Ref Desk. Once the transclusion is dropped, however, further answers are unlikely. StuRat 15:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shampoo

I'm leaving this notice here both because I know it will be read by the individual in question, and as prior justification for future action to those who are concerned by such things. This type of question is barely tolerable at the best of times. It is not acceptable, however, when the OP is a banned user whose obvious presence here, despite their ban, is tolerated only by the good will of the Ref Desk community. If these types of unconstructive contributions [2] [3] continue I will begin to revert every single edit on sight per WP:BAN. Please do not reply, as your comments are likely to be reverted and the IP blocked, instead take note and act accordingly. Thank you. Rockpocket 02:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking about Light current, one possible means of persuading him to cut it out is to hold his current account(s) responsible for edits made anonymously. I have no problem with his attempted useful edits, but if he thinks we must "take the bad with the good", he's much mistaken. Friday (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretentious, pedantic airs

Please drop them. I won't name names. Every time I read a reply written with a lofty, condescending tone it makes me cringe. Thank you. Vranak

I actually find this comment a bit lofty and condescending. --Charlene 20:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Vranak

I didn't see Vranak's post as lofty or condescending. But I do know exactly what he's talking about. JackofOz 22:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't (which makes me wonder if I am among the un-named few). If so, then perhaps it would be better if you were more explicit by what you mean, as how are people expected to drop them if they are unaware they are interepreted in that way? Rockpocket 22:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Think like a wise man but communicate in the language of the people." -- W.B. Yeats Vranak

With all respect, I don't consider that a particularly helpful response to a straitforward question. Yeats is hardly the "language of the people" today. Rockpocket 22:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well then I'll set your mind at rest: I wasn't talking about you. And the problem has already been resolved. Vranak

Thank you. Rockpocket 23:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know what Vranak means, and I can think of several people who qualify. This is essentially use of argument from authority where the poster represents themselves as "the authority". It's also usually accompanied by insulting at least one other responder and/or the OP as being ignorant and thus unworthy of being heard. Note that the person taking the pretentious tone might actually be correct on the issue in dispute, but that still doesn't make the incivility acceptable. StuRat 23:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really what I was thinking of. But as the issue has been resolved I will say no more. Vranak

Religious taunting and trolling

Copied from Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Infallibility_of_the_Church_-Can_it_be_trusted.3F ---Sluzzelin talk 19:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Puerile trolling and religious taunting has been a problem at the reference desk for at least a year, if not from its inception. These divide between the childish tantrum ("You think theres a god your nuts!" vs. "All you ___ are going strate to hel!") and the chip porters (the ones who carry their chips on their shoulders from place to place) ("Isn't it true that Hitler was a Christian?" vs. "Isn't it true that evolution is only a theory and has several unprovable assumptions?"). I'd personally suggest that any enquiry about ultimate reality be forbidden and that we only allow questions about specific and historical or verifiable matters. "Did the Thomists really believe that transubstantiation would mean that the eucharist would literally become flesh" is answerable. "Catholics call themselves Christians, but isn't i true that they're idolators" isn't. Geogre 17:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fair. Vranak

Sounds more than fair. Clio the Muse 20:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds more than more than fair. Vranak

XD V-Man - ^T/_C 04:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me ask my question

I find it very strange that Wikipedia allows editors to remove questions because of their personal opinions. I just want to ask a question; although I admit it was POV when I first asked it, on being informed of this I removed the POV. So please let me ask it. Thank you.

Don't bother asking why. If they did it, they did it for a reason. It's a lot easier to change your own behaviour than someone else's. Vranak

And what if the "reason" they had was that they just don't like you or don't like your opinions? What if there's nothing wrong with your behaviour at all, but rather the behaviour of the deletionist? I have to admit that I find the blind faith that you seem to be displaying concerning the motivation of those who engage in arbitrarily deleting others posts is remarkably naive. To further suggest that the deletion is invariably a clear sign that the poster is doing something wrong and should consider changing his or her behaviour is all the more naive, and an unwarranted indictment of the poster's behaviour, absent a shred of evidence in favour of either party, is, well ... I'm really not sure how to describe it except to note the extraordinary irony I'm feeling right now that you of all people were the one to question my logical sensibilities? Very strange. Lewis 20:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Vranak was being ironic. A.Z. 03:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's hope so. If not, we could also say "if someone reverts your deletions they did it for a reason. It's a lot easier to change your own behavior than someone else's". StuRat 04:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV has nothing to do with it. Question asking for objective information that the asker does not know are usually answered. Some questions are asked for other purposes and can be shot on sight. Like Justice Potter Stewart, we "know it when we see it". alteripse 22:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this was the question (paraphrased) "Why is homosexuality more socially and legally accepted in Western nations than polygamy ?". I support your right to ask this question and will revert any further unilateral removals by User:EricR, who has a history of this type of behavior, unfortunately. StuRat 23:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it referred to the last trolling question about the catholic church or the last shampoo question, neither of which could be construed as requests for information. I actually wrote an answer to the homosexuality/polygamy question but lost it in an edit conflict. That question at least did not seem like obvious trolling to me. The first quote that I was planning to put was the "Kill them all. God will sort them out." quote (in reference to the questions, not people) but decided we should try to be a bit more discriminating than that. Surely you see that some of the questions here are not requests for information, but attempts to provoke disagreement or soapboxing? alteripse 23:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some questions may indeed be attempts to provoke disagreement or soapboxing. Most often I find they can be answered without acceding to the assumed agenda of the OP. I like to think I'm spoiling their day by not rising to the bait. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Y'all should stop feeding obvious trolls.—eric 00:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I'm a bit out of step here. Which question did you shoot on sight? alteripse 01:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we are talking about this unilateral deletion: [4]. StuRat 01:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I shouldn't shoot from the hip when I haven't been paying as much attention around here lately. alteripse 01:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stu, please take a look at 71.185.131.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)'s contributions. Also, i was not the first editor to delete this particular question.—eric 01:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the talk page says all you need to know... Nil Einne 00:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was one of the ones which deleted that. One of the reasons was because this editor quite clearly came here with an agenda as shown by the original variant [5]. While the later versions were better phrased, I personally felt enough was enough, especially with the way that he or she continued to add it without discussing first (and was eventually blocked for) Nil Einne 23:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LEAVE! For the love of God LEAVE!

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I try my best to stay away from this God-forsaken place, but as a human being, I can't resist taking a peak once and again, not unlike a rubber-necking motorist who can't resist but take a look at a tragic car accident.

But this time, I had to speak.

With the exception of the few logical and intelligent, yet stubborn men and women of principle here who remain convinced that some way, some how, by continuing to present their logical arguments to this ridiculous kangaroo court, if they try hard enough they may ultimately be able to convince the remaining vast majority of logically changelled individuals to see the light, well I wish the best of luck upon them. Nonetheless, I can't see their efforts as being any more likely of success than an attempt at teaching calculus to a cockroach.

I tried. In fact to my discredit I tried far too long. Fortunately I finally realized the utter futility of it all.

Don't any of you people realize the utter embarassment this page is to everything that Wikipedia aspires to be?

As such I'll direct this message to the very few logical and intelligent people here who continue to fight this hopeless battle. I won't mention names, but you all know who you are.

LEAVE! Leave while you still have your sanity intact! Without you the logically challenged remaining majority will be left utterly confused, wandering around like chickens with no heads until they finally lose any sense of purpose for their ridiculously illogical arguments.

Perhaps then this page will finally, slowly be able to regain it's original purpose. Until then, for the love of God, LEAVE! Lewis 03:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is whatever Wikipedians think it should be. Some of us believe we are here to educate - to pass on knowledge - to better mankind. Providing direct answers to people who failed to find what they needed to know in the body of the encyclopedia is a noble goal. There are certainly flaws in the way this is done - but the guiding principle is a good one. Many people who come here for answers go away with exactly what they need - often more than they need. That's a 'A Good Thing'. So lets fix whatever problems there are and move on with the task we've been set. SteveBaker 03:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, I find myself agreeing with pretty much everything you said. The RefDesk you seem to be describing is indeed a wonderful thing. Its goals are indeed noble, as is its guiding principle. However I have to disagree with the second half of your statement. Not the arguments, simply your assessment of the current state of the RefDesk. I'd love for the RefDesk to exist as you describe it, unfortunately, it does not. To me, the RefDesk isn't nearly living up to the goals that you and I aspire for it. In fact, I can't help but describe it as terribly dysfunctional. You say that many who come here go away with exactly what they need. Yes, many do. But as well, many who come here go away with exactly what they don't need, that being an answer they believe to be authoritative, accurate and unbiased, when in fact the answer they get is terribly flawed, biased and innacurate. I don't know about you, but that doesn't sit well at all with me. Better no answer than a bad answer I say. Better no truth than a half truth. I completely agree with you that we should "fix whatever problems there are and move on". If that could be done as quickly and as simply as you seem to believe, I'd be all for it. However I've been here for quite a while, and I've tried for a very long time to help out in doing precisely what you're suggesting, only to discover that the problems are far more grave than I had originaly thought, and fixing them far more difficult than I could have possibly ever imagined. That said, though I know little about you, judging by the nature of your comments above, you would appear to be a great asset to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, many others are not. Lewis 13:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis, you've announced that you're "defecting" from the Ref desk. You say "Should the required [Ref desk] issues be dealt with, I'll be more than glad to return, without hesitation". Urging others to leave as you have is hardly the way to allow issues to be dealt with. Please either be true to your word, or come back. You can't have it both ways. JackofOz 04:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, it's only because I see you as a member of the "logical and intelligent" minority here I was speaking of that I'm willing to respond to your comment. You say that "[I] can't have it both ways". How inappropriately logical of you! The very theme of this whole page seems to be based on the illogic inherent in the fact that so many are allowed to "have it both ways". The logically challenged I was speaking of somehow seem to see some sort of perverse logic in the fact that they're allowed to attack others with impunity, while any attacks upon them are utterly unacceptable. Is that not the very essence of "having it both ways"? I must admit, though, Jack, that I'm a bit disappointed in you for not seeming to recognize the glaringly obvious double standards I'm speaking of. I believe you to be an intelligent guy, so I'll just assume that you indeed do see them, yet consciously choose not to comment upon them. However in the unlikely event that you're actually completely oblivious to these double standards, something I can't hardly imagine, then perhaps you're indeed not the astute observer of human behaviour I had always assumed you to be.

It's my honest belief that should the intelligent and logical among us just leave, the remaining logically challenged will be left with no one to pick on. Dazed and confused, and having lost all sense of purpose, they too will leave. Only then can the intelligent and logical return to begin the task of rebuilding this place into what it should be, a talk page dedicated to the improvement of the RefDesk. To be blunt, this page is in desperate need of an enema.

However for the meantime, as they say, "if you can't beat'em, join'em!". With that in mind, I too have decided that here and only here, I'll throw my logic out the window and instead opt for the illogic of "having things both ways". I therefore make the following announcement:

I, Lewis, hereby promise never to return here again, EVER! Except now and then when I feel like it. Lewis 12:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's really nothing in the foregoing that's worthy of any response. JackofOz 12:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How very kind of you to say that, Jack. Good to finally know the truth. Apparently you too don't take any of my grievances seriously. Perhaps you believe that I'm some sort of lunatic who sees this whole thing as one big joke, and that my purported grievances are mere insincere pretexts used to excuse my otherwise purposeless disruptive behaviour. Or even worse, perhaps you do indeed recognize that I've been wronged and hurt and that these issues have indeed caused me great deal of distress, but you just don't give a shit. Thanks. Lewis 14:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diatribes are part of the problem. Practical suggestions for improvement may be part of the solution. Friday (talk) 14:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. I continue to maintain that a) one of the main reasons discourse turns into mutual diatribe of opposing camps here is that b) there is no consensus about what the reference desk IS, and thus c) it is premature to discuss how to improve it. But I also agree that the desk works (slightly) more often than not, and chose instead other than this tiny note to leave the talk page discussion, rather than the desks themselves, until folks are willing to talk on a more fundamental level than "which policies apply", and the ever-too-premature "is this more like an article space or a talk page". That said, I am not prepared to leave the reference desks themselves, as I believe even without consensus about function and purpose, there is still more good than harm in my presence, and further believe there is stil a majority of us here who do more good than harm. Ironically, if those of us who actually listen to each other listened to this urging to leave and DID leave, it would leave a space populated only by those who refuse to listen to others -- a poor volunteer pool, indeed! Also, I'd rather teach than not teach. Jfarber 15:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree with you, J. I just think that you may be misundestanding what I proposed above. I'll explain with a personal example. Two of my brothers were heroine addicts (at different times). At first we had no idea how to react and kept feeding them, caring for them and providing them with a roof over their head, thinking that our love would be their best hope at kicking the habit. Of course this didn't work. So the rest of the family, including myself joined one of those "support groups" for the loved ones of drug abusers. We learned a great deal there. One of the most important things we learned was that in caring and providing for them, we were actually doing more harm than good. We were, what they termed, only further "enabling" them to continue their drug habits. We were told that in the vast majority of cases, those who recovered from addiction only did so after having, as they term it, "hit bottom". Basically, what that meant is that as difficult and heartbreaking as it was, in order to help them, we had to quit enabling them, lock them out of the house, and let them sink to the lowest depths they can tolerate, be it living on the street in a cardboard box, going hungry because they spent all their money on drugs and couldn't afford food, or whatever. Only then, when they finally "hit bottom" and got fed up with their miserable lives could they then finally realize that they absolute MUST quit, and stay quit, as, should they consider returning to their old ways, they'd immediately associate the needle with that image of starving in a filthy cardboard box, and with that miserable image in their minds, they'd make sure to stay as far away from drugs as possible.

Some of you may find the analogy to be a bit of a stretch, but I honestly see one. I "defected" from the RefDesk because I finally felt that in trying and trying and trying to improve things, I was only enabling it to survive in its horribly dysfunctional state. Instead I chose to leave, and urged as many of the best contributors to leave as well, because I felt that the only hope for the RefDesk to recover and return to the amazing place it was just a year ago, was to let it "hit bottom". Call the analogy silly, or melodramatic, or an incredible stretch, whatever. You're probably right anyway. I can only speak for myself.

I've been contacted by many fellow editors, (some of whom I'd never even heard of and had no idea they actually enjoyed reading my posts,) be it on my talk page, or via email, all basically saying the same thing over the past few months: "Loomis! What the hell's happened to you? You used to be such a great contributor! Articulate, intelligent, knowledgeable, passionate, at times a bit cranky and hot-headed, but generaly a real joy to read (despite being overly lengthy at times!). What's happened to you? The quality of your contributions has dropped dramatically, and all you seem to do lately is keep picking fights with Clio for no apparent reason...what the hell's going on?" What happened was that in desperately trying to get it through to people that the RefDesk was in serious trouble for a variety of reasons, and if nothing would be done soon it would eventually go completely to pot. Yet no one seemed to listen, which just got me all the more frustrated, harming the quality of my contributions to the point that they became virtually useless. So that's basically my story. The atmosphere at the RefDesk has become so stifling that I just can't contribute anything of use anymore. Should the atmosphere finally change for the better, I'd love to come back. I just don't see it happening anytime soon.

But I get your point Friday. Quit with the diatribes and replace them with positive suggestions. Fair enough. I strongly suggest that the admins urgently and with all due haste commit themselves to put in every possible effort to enforce WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL as fairly and as equally as is humanly possible among ALL contributors. IMHO, if this simple issue were to be finally adressed and corrected once and for all, a great deal, if not all of the constant bickering, name calling and incivility would cease. It's so plainly obvious that certain members realize that they can be as insulting and incivil as they wish, without any fear of reprimand. Knowing this, they freely insult others, inevitably provoking their targets to insult them back. The whole thing then ultimately descends into a flame war filled with nothing but diatribes and demagoguery. If only the admins would redouble their efforts at enforcing WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL as fairly and equally as possible, mark my words, you wouldn't believe the extent to which the quality of discussion on this page would improve. The answer seems so simple, yet no one seems to be willing to even give it a try. Are you? Lewis 15:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enforce? How do you propose we enforce such a thing? There's no way I know of to MAKE people be civilized- all we can do is complain at them about it afterwards when they're not. I don't see that the problem is as bad as you make out, but maybe I've missed something. Friday (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my choice of the word "enforce" was obviously a poor one. Perhaps I should have used the phrase "issue warnings and threats to block". I must have been issued at least a dozen if not more warnings and threats that if I don't clean my act up, I'll get blocked. Yet looking at the talk pages of those users who so viciously attacked me on so many occasions, I see nothing. Not a single threat to be blocked, not a single warning, and not even one single friendly suggestion such as "Listen, maybe you lost your temper or something, but those things you said about Loomis were pretty nasty. I know you're better than that. As a friendly suggestion, please stop doing it, it's not right." Not even that. Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Lewis 16:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well.. If you're looking for Wikipedia to be "fair", you're in the wrong place. Justice and fairness and similar concepts are not an essential ingredient to making encyclopedia articles, so we don't worry about them much. That said, things ideally should not be gratuitously unfair, either. My only suggestion is to put personal disagreements behind you. Making things personal never helps make the encyclopedia better. Friday (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Lewis. The Admin bias against inclusionist here is quite obvious and severe. Whenever I complain about it, I get no response at all, as here: [6]. StuRat 17:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec, reset indent, responding to Jfarber) I think there have been quite a few discussions "on a more fundamental level", about what the reference desk is or should be and how it can benefit Wikipedia. Unfortunately all those comments are now spread about several talk page archives on various pages (and one, i thought, particularly productive discussion lost in a page move). Some of the editors who were engaged in those discussions, editors who in my opinion were doing a good job of moving things forward, have since left the building (probably for obvious reasons). I think one of the most valuable comments made in all these months of tedious debate was by Steve Summit, that all else aside what we want to see is a "gradual improvement to an imperfect but reasonable reference desk." Despite the occasional downward spirals taken on talk page, i think there is reason to believe that we are seeing improvement on the desks themselves. Whether or not the improvement is happening fast enough for everyone involved, and though there is probably a lot of disagreement as to what's "imperfect but reasonable", i don't think the reference desk is the free-for-all it once was and there's general agreement that that is a good thing. So, i hope you don't go the way of some of the other editors who've contributed here, it's a rare few who can actually make a difference in this debate, the rest of us fired off all our powder a long time back.—eric 17:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You say "Justice and fairness and similar concepts are not an essential ingredient to making encyclopedia articles, so we don't worry about them much." If you're indeed correct, and "Justice and fairness and similar concepts are" indeed "not an essential ingredient to making encyclopedia articles. Why do we even bother with such unnecessary policies as WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL in the first place? I change my suggestion. I say we scrap WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL altogether, as they apparently serve no purpose. Lewis 17:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to make one final point clear. The central issue here is not fairness itself, it's the detrimental effect that unfairness inevitably brings about that I'm driving at. Sure, I'm insulted by being treated unfairly (interestingly, Friday actually seems to openly concede that fact), but it's not any insult to me that matters, it's the damage that this type of unfairness does to the RefDesk that's at stake here. Look around! Look at all the bickering, the hostility, the anger, the diatribes and the demagoguery. It's so simple. Unfairness breeds resentment, resentment breads anger, anger breeds hostility and hostility ultimately leads to diatribes, demagoguery, incivility and personal attacks.

In short, I consider fairness to be EXTREMELY important, but many of you seem to be misunderstanding just why I consider it to be so important. Fairness is not the end that so many of you seem to think I'm searching for, rather it's the means that's necessary to ensure decorum and high quality discussion. Does anybody understand at all what I'm talking about or am I merely wasting my time once again? Lewis 18:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, and agree. StuRat 18:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis, you seem pretty hot under the collar. You want to talk about logic when you're ranting? Vranak

I for one see no relation whatsoever between being logical and being calm. A.Z. 02:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? Pftt. Vranak

Yes, Vranak, really... A.Z. 05:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, does calm and rational work better for you? Calm and reasonable? Calm and sensible? Calm and understandable? Calm and agreeable? Vranak

Vranak's remarks seem to be a great example of yet another logical fallacy. Perhaps Stu would no the more accurate term for it, but it would seem to be a variation, or perhaps a subset of what's commonly known as the ad hominem attack.

Basically, the logical fallacy goes something like this: Since empirically speaking, the more emotionally charged an argument tends to be, the less likely it is to be a logical one; Therefore, emotionally charged arguments are invariably nothing more than illogical rants.

From this fallacious reasoning, if I were to make a completely logical argument, yet in an extremely emotionally charged manner, the argument, which would otherwise be considered a logical one, is deemed to be illogical, based solely on the nature in which it was presented.

For example, if someone were to make the bizarre assertion that those pretty, pink wading birds known as flamingos are in fact not forms of animal life at all, and if I were to respond with an argument such as the one below, phrased in the coldest and most dispassionate of manners, it would clearly be considered a completely logical one, and a rather simple means of refuting the original assertion that flamingos are in fact not forms of animal life:

"Whereas, if it is accepted that: All flamingos are birds;

And Whereas, if it is also accepted that: All birds are animals;

It is therefore logical to conclude that: All flamingos are animals".

Seems like a rather logically airtight argument, wouldn't you say?

Now say I would express this very same logical argument in the most emotionally charged of manners:

"Look, Mr. Doe, your assertion is absurd. Flamingos are indeed animals. I really don't get why you can't seem to understand my glaringly obvious point. Perhaps you're limited mind is simply incapable of understanding the obvious logic of it. Or perhaps you do understand it, but you're too pig-headed and so incredibly insecure and lacking in humility, that no matter how obvious the logic and truth of my point is, you just don't have the strength of character to admit that I may be right about anything. Whatever the case may be, I'll repeat my argument one final time in one final attempt to get through to you: All flamingos are birds, right? Can you at the very least acccept that one? Have you ever heard any flamingo that wasn't a bird? I can't imagine you have, but if somehow you're aware of some flamingo that indeed isn't a bird, please tell me about it, as to the best of my knowledge I've never known of any flamingo that wasn't a bird. However, if you're simply unable to present me with an example of a flamingo not being a bird, would you then finally prepared to agree with me that I'm indeed correct when I assert that all flamingos are birds? Now, all birds are animals, right? And please don't play any semantic games with me concerning any alternate slang definitions for the word bird, (or flamingo, or animal for that matter,) I'm fully aware that the English sometimes use the word "bird" as a slang word to describe an attractive young woman. However in using the terms "flamingo, bird, and animal", I'm referring to them in their most obvious, scientific sense. That being said, would you not agree that all birds are animals? Every bird that I've ever known to exist was an animal. Of course I'm completely aware that many artificial aircraft, such as for example the blackbird spyplane, as well as artificial aircraft in general, are often referred to as "birds". But again, when I say "bird", I mean it in the most literal scientific sense, not in any metaphorical sense as referring to artificial aircraft or young English women. That understood, are you aware of any exceptions? If so, once again, please inform me of any possible exceptions, as I'd be genuinely curious to be made aware of some species of bird that, unlike all the rest, is indeed not considered to be an animal. If you can't think of one, would you be willing to agree with me that the assertion that "all birds are animals" is indeed true? If you are, why is it so damned difficult for you to accept the logic of my assertion that since we both agree that all flamingos are birds, and we both agree that all birds are animals, it therefore logically follows that all flamingos are aimals, and that your assertion that flamingos are in fact not animals is entirely false? But like I said, this is my last attempt at getting through to you, if you still can't understand my argument, well, I give up."

Well sure, unlike the first version, by contrast the second version was extremely emotionally charged, harsh, angry, filled with irritation, frustration, incivility, personal attacks, etc. To be short, it was quite the rant. But was its central argument, that being that all flamingos are birds, any less logical? Not at all. The logic of it is just as airtight as it was in the first version.

Vranack observed: "Lewis, you seem pretty hot under the collar. You want to talk about logic when you're ranting?" To that I'd suggest that Vranack may be watching a bit too much Star Trek. Strong emotion is not the enemy of logic, as both Mr. Spock and apparently Vranack would seem to believe. Losing one's temper is not equivalent to losing one's mind, or one's sense of rationality and logic. In fact, I actually believe that there are even some times when excessive calmness can indeed be an obtacle to logic.

So in answer to Vranack's question, sure, I don't have the slightest problem with talking about logic when I'm ranting. Though my emotions may negatively affect my sensibilities, my tone and my civility, they never distort my logic. My mind is far too logically centred for that.

There seems to be a rather annoying pattern going on. I make an emotionally charged, yet logically airtight argument, and it's dismissed as an emotionally charged rant. And since it's a rant, it can't possibly make any logical sense, according to the logical fallacy I referred to above. But this is no more than an obvious cop-out. If you believe my argument to be illogical, rather than take the easy way out and dismiss it as an emotionally-charged-and-therefore-illogical rant, how about for God's sake actually reading the thing?

For example, how about rereading my last three previous posts of April 10th above, beginning with the words "You say "Justice and fairness..." and ending with "Does anybody understand at all what I'm talking about or am I merely wasting my time once again?". Only this time, rather than dismiss it as yet another "emotionally-charged-and-therefore-illogical-rant", how about taking the bold step of actually reading it and pointing out to me exactly where my logic is flawed. If the logic of it is flawed, it's flawed. I'd still like to have some idea of exactly where and how it's flawed, rather than have the whole thing dismissed as a "rant", and not even worth reading in the first place.

Then again, I suppose what I've just written here, as completely logical as it is, rather than be taken seriously, can once again be casually dismissed as "rant", saving anyone from actually bothering to look for any actual specific logical flaws within it. Nah ... just take the easy way out, dismiss the whole thing as yet another rant and move on. Lewis 19:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are boring. Vranak

Lewis, you seem to enjoy writing. While I have a lot of trouble putting my thoughts into words, you manage to do that just fine. I would like to add to what you said that another very dangerous consequence of this fallacy happens when people believe that someone is right only based on the calmness and emotional control and beautiful well-chosen words of this person, not even bothering to look for any true argument and logic behind all that endless rethoric. A.Z. 23:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance you could provide an abridged version of that ~~rant~~ tutorial in logical reasoning? Rockpocket 00:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you talking to? (and you seem to be proving Lewis's point precisely, as if he had talked you into doing this as to give a perfect example of "dismissing it as 'rant', saving anyone from actually bothering to look for any actual specific logical flaws within it.")A.Z. 01:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. Here's the Cliff's notes version:

I originally made the following arguments, which I'll reproduce for convenience:

"You say "Justice and fairness and similar concepts are not an essential ingredient to making encyclopedia articles, so we don't worry about them much." If you're indeed correct, and "Justice and fairness and similar concepts are" indeed "not an essential ingredient to making encyclopedia articles. Why do we even bother with such unnecessary policies as WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL in the first place? I change my suggestion. I say we scrap WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL altogether, as they apparently serve no purpose. Lewis 17:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)"

"I'd just like to make one final point clear. The central issue here is not fairness itself, it's the detrimental effect that unfairness inevitably brings about that I'm driving at. Sure, I'm insulted by being treated unfairly (interestingly, Friday actually seems to openly concede that fact), but it's not any insult to me that matters, it's the damage that this type of unfairness does to the RefDesk that's at stake here. Look around! Look at all the bickering, the hostility, the anger, the diatribes and the demagoguery. It's so simple. Unfairness breeds resentment, resentment breads anger, anger breeds hostility and hostility ultimately leads to diatribes, demagoguery, incivility and personal attacks."

"In short, I consider fairness to be EXTREMELY important, but many of you seem to be misunderstanding just why I consider it to be so important. Fairness is not the end that so many of you seem to think I'm searching for, rather it's the means that's necessary to ensure decorum and high quality discussion. Does anybody understand at all what I'm talking about or am I merely wasting my time once again? Lewis 18:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)"

To that, Vranak responded: "Lewis, you seem pretty hot under the collar. You want to talk about logic when you're ranting?" Vranak

The problem I see is that when certain individuals challenge the logic of certain of my statements, rather than be straightforward and explain to me what, if anything, is indeed illogical about what I said, instead they claim that my arguments can't possibly be logical, simply because I appeared angry when I wrote them.

If my arguments are indeed illogical, please address them, and use your own logic to disprove them. On the other hand, if you disagree with me, yet you're completely incapable of providing a logical counterargument, then by all means, feel free to once again take the easy way out, and once again pretend that there's no point in providing a logical counter-argument, (read: I'm incapable of providing a logical counter-argument but won't dare admit it,) since the angry, frustrated tone of my argument is proof enough that it has no basis in logic.

Short enough? And only in two short paragraphs! I'm interested in seeing how two short paragraphs can be dismissed once more as a "rant". Lewis 01:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of a few ways people may respond to you here. The first one is to be quiet. The other one is to say that what you're saying is ABSURD once again not giving any logical support for that opinion:

"Make any assumptions you like - and you're dead wrong about the ones you made about me, by the way - but to describe support for an established policy as "harmful" or "acting in bad faith" is absurd."(JackofOz)

You're entitled to disagree with an established policy, in which case you're entitled to do what you can to change it, within the established procedures for policy evolution. And I'm equally entitled to agree with a policy, without being subjected to the kind of criticism that you dished out. It's not your right to dictate to others how they might contribute to a debate - including your insistence on support being what you call "logical" - as long as they don't breach any agreed Wikipedia guidelines or policies. WP has many examples of a position being arrived at by a vote; many users explain why they vote the way they did, but many simply add their names to the "Support" or "Do Not Support" lists without any explanation. Do you deny their right to make such posts? (And if your answer is "yes", then my response is "tough!". And if you think that doesn't meet your standards of logical argument, I still say "tough!") -- JackofOz 03:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm equally entitled to agree with a policy, without being subjected to the kind of criticism that you dished out". How come? You had the right to state your position! And I don't have the right to state my position, i.e., that I disagree with you? And don't I have the right to say why I disagree with you, even if it's based on non-provable assumptions? I mean, I at least gave a full explanation of my position to other people! They can judge for themselves, including you, whether it makes sense or not. Why to censor my opinion? I completely agree that you CAN and SHOULD come here and say whether you agree or not with Rockpocket. I am the one defending your right to do that, to say what you think WITHOUT PROVING IT! And it is not irrational to say: I believe this and I can't explain why. It is perfectly rational. And it is acceptable. As is you saying "I agree" and I saying "I think you're wrong because I think you are trying to marginalise my opinion and take me out of the discussion, instead of arguing with me, but I can't prove it". A.Z. 03:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly have a right to state an opposing position, but you certainly don't have the right to accuse someone of acting in bad faith, without any kind of evidence. Now, you agree and defend my right to state my support for an existing policy without having to give my reasons, but before, you described that very statement as "harmful" and "acting in bad faith". It seems you've done a complete turn-around - but thankfully you're now facing in a more reasonable and civil direction. I acknowledge this, and thank you. (For the record: I commented on Rockpocket's post with my short sentence (6 words, I believe) without any further explanation, because he said it better than I could have. I was almost going to reply with "I couldn't have put it better myself, Rockpocket" but I chose a conciser way of saying the same thing, and one which eliminated any unintended nuance of competition, with him or anyone else. There was absolutely no intention to marginalise your opinion or take you out of the discussion - that would be virtually impossible. You're entitled to think that was my intention, but, with respect, I think that says more about you than it does about me. It was a shame that that effort on my part to be non-confontational was met with such an aggressive response. But that's all behind us now, I hope.) JackofOz 04:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry I have been so aggressive, JackofOz. I did not think that statement of yours was bad. I think an appeal to majority is unspeakably harmful, but I care about what you think and I was back then trying to defend your right to say that. I don't know whether you were trying to harm Wikipedia or not, but if you were I would like to help you. And if you were just saying your opinion so we all could know what you think, I would like to talk to you about you and your opinion as well. I just thought that you had just given you personal opinion, an opinion that agreed that you were forbidden to give your personal opinion. I tried to explain why saying that you had agreed with Rockpocket's policy of "comment on the contributions, not on the contributors", but I wanted to comment on your contribution and your contribution was only about you, it was not about the content of his post! You were just talking about Jack, not about the merits or dismerits of what Rockpocket had said. You just said your opinion. You had just brought a person into the discussion, and Rockpocket was trying to send people out of the discussion and leave only the arguments so the arguments would debate with one another, as if we were not all people with feelings that actually matter. I am sorry for not being clear then and for not being clear now. I have a lot of trouble both speaking this language and understanding clearly what it is that I would like to say. But I do have something to say. A.Z. 05:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, "comment on the contributions, not on the contributors" is not my policy. It is "an official policy on the English Wikipedia. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow". Please desist from personalising my request that you adhere to our core principles. Thank you. Rockpocket 06:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether you were trying to harm Wikipedia or not - where for the love of God did that come from? Me harm Wikipedia? The only possible explanation as to how such a thought could ever have entered your mind is your admitted trouble with clearly understanding English.
... an opinion that agreed that you were forbidden to give your personal opinion" - again, Huh?? Rockpocket was talking about commenting on contributions, not on the contributors themselves, which is what I agreed with. Comments on contributions will almost always include personal opinions. Time for a short English lesson: "Personal opinion" does not mean an opinion about a person, it means an opinion held by a person about something. That something, in this case, refers to contributions from other users. Granted, opinions are always personal, so the expression "personal opinion" is a bit of a tautology. But it's a commonly used idiom and you're going to have to learn to live with it. I think this linguistic problem may be where you've come unstuck. You obviously have a high regard for logic, but English isn't always logical.
You were just talking about Jack, not about the merits or dismerits of what Rockpocket had said - true, I did not discuss the merits or dismerits of what he said; but to say I was just talking about myself is not correct. That charge could be laid against anyone who starts a sentence with "I think that ...". Yes, it is their personal opinion that they are stating, but the subject of the opinion is not themself.
I understand that your fluency with English is not as high as you would like it to be, which is a strong argument for being particularly careful about making potentially inflammatory statements, especially those that impute bad motives to others. This cuts both ways - not only are you less able to express yourself accurately compared with a native speaker, but also you are less able to fully understand what others are saying. So, the risk of misunderstanding them is greater in your case than it might be in mine, for example. Therefore you have to temper your desire to respond on the basis of what you think someone has said, with the knowledge that it may not be accurate. If you're offended by something, it's far better to ask them what they meant, or "did you mean X?", than simply accuse them of committing some error. That approach will get you into hot water around here, guaranteed. You do indeed have something to say, and I welcome your continued involvement, if you bear the above in mind. Some of what you have said on these pages has been described by others as "disruptive" - I don't necessarily share that view, but I can certainly see why they might come to that conclusion. If there's anything you'd like to discuss further, I think it's best to come to my talk page and let the others get on with the topic at hand. Best wishes. JackofOz 06:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People may also admit that they care more about how many people agree with you than about whether you're right or not:

"The more people that agree with rockpocket the more marginalised your own opinon becomes." (David D.)

They may also admit they know nothing, they don't have a clue whether they are wrong or right to act the way you are saying is the wrong way to act, and yet they have to do SOMETHING and so they won't stop doing it:

"I honestly don't know what else to say, A.Z. You may think you have the right to say what you want, but you don't. If you say "I think Rockpocket is a bad faith editor and is purposely trying to wreck the project" enough times you will eventually be sanctioned, because you don't have the right to say whatever you want, even if it is your honest opinion. I don't know if that is a good thing not, or whether it is ultimately helpful or a hinderance to the project, but that is what would happen. All I can do it interpret our policies, try to stick to them myself and ensure others to stick to them also."(Rockpocket)

A.Z. 02:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My response is: the logical merits of your position notwithstanding, the entire critique based upon the suggestion that "we scrap WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL altogether, as they apparently serve no purpose" is not relevent to this talkpage. As I told A.Z. if you wish to change such well established, Wikipedia-wide core principles, then propose a policy to do so. Soapboxing in protest here is completely pointless. Also, please don't misrepresent my position, A.Z. I have my opinion of the merits of policies I uphold, but whether I think they are right or wrong does not effect my choice to adhere to them. I've made my feelings about policies known in the appropriate place and then I accepted the consensus, irrespective of whether I agree with it or not. This is how Wikipedia works. Either you can accept that or try and change it through the appropriate channels, but of you simply choose to agitate here in protest, you will eventually find yourself sanctioned by the community for being disruptive. Rockpocket 03:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's always good to remind what we're discussing in the first place: whether people can criticize other people on this talk page or not, because of Lewis's post.

I don't think the policy is wrong, I think the policy is nothing. And therefore you may stick to the policy or not; it makes no difference. I'm readind WP:CIVIL right now and it contains a bunch of vague statements that people can interpret as they wish. And, guess what, I don't think that saying someone is acting in bad faith is a personal attack at all! I mean, it only depends on how I define personal attack and how I define bad faith and good faith. The policy is unstickable to. I wish I could explain it better: it actually says that you should forgive other people! Come on, Friday doesn't even believe we are people, how is he or she possibly gonna stick to that?

This post was not supposed to prove to you that the policy is nothing, I'm just telling you on what wrong premise you've based your response above.

I hope now you understand why my argument is relevant to this talk page: because you are saying people can't criticize other people based on the fact that you think that criticizing other people somehow conflicts with some policies. And I can say in my opinion it does not, because I don't think criticizing other people is, for instance, a personal attack. And then you will say "I disagree" and I'll say "based on what" and you'll say "based on my feelings" and you'll have to make me feel like you do to make me agree with you. A.Z. 03:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This position depends on the assumption that your interpretation is the correct one ("I think...", "how I define...") There happens to be a broad consensus among the community about what WP:CIV does and does not mean and that consensus is that assuming bad faith is a bad thing. That is very easily stickable too. There are also experienced editors, administrators, who are asked to enforce these policies when the encyclopdaedia is being disrupted. If you are having trouble following how the community interprets these polices, then ask a few other admins. That I what I am trying to tell you here: I'm not stating my opinion, but my understanding of the consensus of opinion. So there is little point arguing with me over what is right or wrong. Rockpocket 03:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are appealing to the majority (or the qualified majority, whatever) and I'm having a déjà vu. A.Z. 03:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to ask a few other admins how should I interpret the policies, though I think the opinion of someone is not worth more just because the person is an administrator... A.Z. 04:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My position is entirely based upon an appeal to the (super)majority opinion, since you get no consensus without taking into account some level of numerical support. And you are correct that the opinion of an admin is worth no more than any other editor, so ask widely and do let us know what they tell you. Rockpocket 06:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the above rants, the fact remains that my post was attacked as illogical, yet the attacker failed to identify for me just what he considered illiogical about it. It's fine to just disagree with an opinion without being required to provide a logical counterargument. I never insisted on all counterarguments being based on logic. However, once once dismisses another's argument as illogical, maybe it's just me, but it would seem that some sort of duty falls upon them to explain just what they found to be illogical about it, rather than to basically state: "Your statements are illogical, but I see no purpose in showing you why". Seems to me to be a rather hollow criticism. Lewis 13:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am archiving this section now, as its existance is doing now one any good. I invite those involved to create a new section to resolve any remaining issues, but this section has become a shouting match, and is degenerating into various levels of personal attack. I ask not to be reverted in my action here, unless prior discussion has taken place and deemed such a reversion to be neccessary. Lewis' first comment was somewhat questionable in civility, but as the discussion has continued, comments from all sides have gone across the boundry seperating "questionable" from "tangible", and it is clear that this discussion is going nowhere, with any tiny point being argued over. Thanks, Martinp23 16:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal opinion

... an opinion that agreed that you were forbidden to give your personal opinion" - again, Huh?? Rockpocket was talking about commenting on contributions, not on the contributors themselves, which is what I agreed with. Comments on contributions will almost always include personal opinions. Time for a short English lesson: "Personal opinion" does not mean an opinion about a person, it means an opinion held by a person about something. That something, in this case, refers to contributions from other users. Granted, opinions are always personal, so the expression "personal opinion" is a bit of a tautology. But it's a commonly used idiom and you're going to have to learn to live with it. I think this linguistic problem may be where you've come unstuck. You obviously have a high regard for logic, but English isn't always logical. (JackofOz)

I know that "personal opinion" means an opinion held by a person. Do you think that saying "opinion X about subject Y is held by person Z" is a comment on subject Y? I don't think so.

Then, what is it a comment on? Well, if you think that the fact that "person Z holds opinion X about subject Y" brings to the discussion any kind of truth as to subject Y, then you must think that the opinion of person Z somehow either expresses the truth about Y or causes Y to be something that it would not have been otherwise.

So, when you say that "opinion X about subject Y is held by person Z" and you also say that this fact has any impact on any truth related to subject Y (for instance, whether subject Y is good or bad, right or wrong), then you are expressing your opinion that what person Z thinks about subject Y is a fact of importance in the process of discovering the truth about subject Y. Therefore, your opinion is about a person, it is about person Z. Your opinion about person Z is that the opinion of that person is an important fact in itself. And it's obviously a personal opinion as well, but not on any issue we were discussing, rather on yourself: you made a comment on the contributor. A.Z. 22:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A.Z., see Martinp23's comments above where he closed down this thread. Frankly, little or nothing in your contributions here has any bearing on the operation of the reference desk. Please take this elsewhere.—eric 23:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Emilstooge.jpg

Moe of the same.

Moe of the same. David D. (Talk) 23:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of giggles! Clio the Muse 00:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archival

An editor had archived the section above. I hope whoever this editor is, he or she either apologises or give a proper explanation for having been the person who for the first time in the history of this page has archived a section that had been here for less than 20 hours. A.Z. 01:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I presumed the archiving was a bold attempt to cut through all the crap that was being spoken, diffuse the Ref Desk bickering and start on a new page, literally. Anyone can move a section back to the active page if they wished to add to the discussion, and the fact that no-one did seemed like a vindication of the archiving, in my eyes. There were plenty of other active sections that were archived at the same time, not just the one above. Was there a reason you re-activated that one, because you don't appear to have contributed to the discussion further? Rockpocket 02:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was extremely mad when I realized that I didn't even get the chance to KNOW there had been such a thread only because I had not been here on the tenth of April. I think the original poster was trying to speak to the editors who come to this page maybe during a week or so, or a reasonable amount of time, and I think his post was not aimed to people who by chance happened to be here over a period of less than 20 hours.

I think, however, that the archival of this specific thread is really bad given that the original poster is actually criticizing people here. If it were a post about some silly thing, I would not think it would be that bad for someone to think it's OK to archive something so early, but archiving this specific thread just after it started looks like a bold attempt to make me stop assuming good faith. A.Z. 02:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I can see why you might think that. For the record, it was User:VectorP who archived. [7] He/she does great work in the technical aspects of the desk, but has rarely commented in any of the ref desk philosphy type discussions, so I think we should assume this was done in good faith. Also, and despite the fact that seems to be the norm recently, this is not the place to criticize people or soapbox. So I think Vector was doing as all a favour in archiving a whole load of sections that had degenerated into personal bickering. Rockpocket 02:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the person who did it didn't even realize what he or she was doing, then that is a proper explanation for what happened.

I have to disagree that this is not the place to criticize people and to soapbox and I think it is not anything like a favor what VectorP did for me and for everyone here. This is exactly the place to criticize people that are harming Wikipedia and the reference desk. Deleting stuff that you don't like just makes this talk page look like (from my point of view) it has been taken over by a conspiracy of deletionists and makes people want to either vanish from here or never even come here in the first place, because what they say may be gone within twenty hours. A.Z. 02:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't agree with this archival, I suspect it was just an honest mistake on VectorP's part. He does a lot of archiving for the Ref Desk and probably just got the date wrong. (He's generally a decent person.) StuRat 04:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages are most certainly not the place to criticise people who you believe to be "harming Wikipedia and the reference desk". Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines:

~~"Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views."~~ struck for the very obvious reason noted by StuRat below, however, let me replace it with "Comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people" Rockpocket 04:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The very next line is "However, when there are disagreements about content, referring to other editors is not always a personal attack". StuRat 16:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Assume good faith and treat the other person in the discussion as a fellow editor, who is a thinking, feeling person, trying to contribute positively to Wikipedia, just like you."

Also archiving, even if done in undue haste, is not deleting. Rockpocket 04:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an article talk page, so the first bullet doesn't apply at all. And the second bullet does not preclude criticisms of the actions of others. It is also quite possible that someone "trying to contribute positively to Wikipedia" is, in reality, causing it harm. StuRat 04:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like for instance mad people and ignorant people and genocide dictators! A.Z. 04:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only positive thing people like Idi Amin did was to benefit themselves. To pick such an example seems to miss the whole point of assume good faith in the context of ref desk. David D. (Talk) 05:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rocpocket, how can you possibly improve the reference desk without criticizing the people who are harming it? And those policies there make no sense at all. Of course every time you say something at a talk page, you are revealing a bit of your opinion. And this "assuming good faith" thing again! It makes no sense, don't you realize? Hitler was trying really hard to contribute positively to Germany ~~etc etc...~~ A.Z. 04:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, please read Godwin's Law, ah bah whatever mumble grumble huffle puffle, good night. Sluzzelin talk 04:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I can't say how sorry I am for the mumble grumble, but my appeal to Hitler was not fallacious. A.Z. 04:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~He shoots, he scores!~~ (damn your nimble fingers, Sluzzelin) I'm sorry you think they make no sense, but thems the rules. Rockpocket 04:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Hitler annoys you two so much, I'll choose different words: telling people to assume that other editors are trying to contribute positively is the same thing that telling people to assume that other editors are trying to contribute. This is true because you haven't defined "positive" and it is a very defensible opinion the one that everything one does he does thinking it is a positive thing. A.Z. 04:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should go back to your Hitler analogy. Or are you trying to confuse us, in the above sentences you appear to contradict yourself? With respect to Hitler, do megalomaniacs really think in positive or negatives terms with respect to their specific country? David D. (Talk) 04:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am positive that I did not contradict myself. If you explain why you think that, I'll clarify to you what I meant. A.Z. 05:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: "telling people to assume that other editors are trying to contribute positively is the same thing that telling people to assume that other editors are trying to contribute. This is true because you haven't defined "positive"". OK, I understand to this point. You then go on to say "and it is a very defensible opinion the one that everything one does he does thinking it is a positive thing." Here you seem to agree with rockpockets view of AGF, but I thought you were arguing against it? Regardless, I'm more interested in why you think Hitler thought he was doing something positive for Germany. Is this the general view of his actions? (this is not a trick question, I have no clue) David D. (Talk) 05:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said "it is a very defensible opinion the one that everything one does he does thinking it is a positive thing". I was just trying to say that people could argue that anything is positive. If there were a rigorous definition of what "positive" means, there would be no such problem. And I used the example of Hitler because people could argue he was just doing what he thought was the best thing for him to do. And they could go further and argue that anything we do is precisely what we think is the best of all things to do at any given moment, and we just do wrong things because we don't have some information, but our intentions are the best always. Here is a text in Portuguese that I hope someone here translates (as I am a bad translator). This text talks about all the great things that Hitler did for Germany:

"Este homem pegou uma nação destruída, recuperou sua economia e devolveu o orgulho ao seu povo. Em seus quatro primeiros anos de governo, o número de desempregados caiu de 6 milhões para 900 mil. Este homem fez o produto interno bruto crescer 102% e a renda per capita dobrar. Aumentou os lucros das empresas de 175 milhões para 5 bilhões de marcos e reduziu uma hiperinflação a no máximo 25% ao ano. Este homem adorava música e pintura, e quando jovem imaginava seguir a carreira artística".

Translation by Babelfish and StuRat:

"This man took a destroyed nation, reinvigorated it's economy and returned pride to it's people. In his first 4 years of government, the number of unemployed fell by 6 million to 900 thousand. This man made the gross domestic product grow by 102% and doubled per capita income. He increased the profits of industry by 175 million to 5 billion Deutschmarks and reduced hyperinflation to a maximum rate of 25% per year. This man adored music and painting, and when young he envisioned following an artistic career." StuRat 06:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could say based on the assume good faith policy: "Hey, don't declare war with Hitler! (don't say it out loud that user X is harming Wikipedia) He is just doing what he thinks is the best thing for Germany! (he is just doing what he thinks is the best for the Reference Desk) Try and talk to him instead! No personal attacks! No bombs!"

Here is something I wrote as a response to a question on the Humanities reference desk adressing this same issue:

You can say everyone wants to maximize total happiness, from anarchists to human rights proponents to communists to capitalists to terrorists to nazists to skinheads to proponents of slavery. They just see differently their way of doing it. Obviously every one of them thinks they´re improving total happiness. Maybe some of them are solipsists and think that total happiness is their own happiness. Maybe some of them think that total happiness is their own happiness but they discover that they can only be happy if their family is happy. So they care about the happiness of their family as well. All political positions can be said to derive from the goal of improving total happiness, which only means it´s a loaded term, it has no meaning in itself whatsoever.

A.Z. 05:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And of course Neville Chamberlain did AGF. Clearly he was wrong in retrospect, but note that assume good faith does not have to be limitless and hence WII. This whole conversation comes about because you are defending the right to criticise other users rather than their actions. So to continue the anaology, did Churchill criticise Hitler or his policies? And which would be more effective at getting allies? I assume he went after the policies. David D. (Talk) 05:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about effectiveness here, I'm talking about the right that Lewis has to say what he thinks of the people here, no matter whether it is effective or not at getting whatever it is that he wishes to get. I'm also talking about the right that we have to not assume good faith and to act as if the other person was NOT trying to contribute positively to Wikipedia. By the way, in my humble opinion, the fact that someone is doing damage and harming Wikipedia on purpose does not mean I have any intention of offending this person. I just want to be able to say "I assume you are acting in bad faith and I'll act according to this belief." A.Z. 05:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And i don't think many would disagree with this philosophy in most cases. But you will find it harder to find supporters of such a view if said person is following implementing guidlelines in a manner than is not atypical. Whether one has the right or not to criticise other users, one thing that is plainly clear is that if this is the way one prefers to behave on wikipedia an implosion is more likely than a productive editing experience. And loomis is not the only example of this phenomena. So there are other good reasons not to pursue that style of criticism other than is it right or not. David D. (Talk) 06:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your premises, but the way I see it they lead to a different conclusion than the one that Rockpocket is defending. I agree that there are good reasons not to persue that style of criticism, but I do not agree that this implies that the right thing to do is to forbid Lewis or anyone else to persue it. Instead, use reason and logic to explain to the person why your opinion is that what he is doing is not the best option he has to improve the reference desk. And, if he still disagrees, yet again do not tell him that the reason why he shouldn't do that is that it is forbidden. Argue with him instead. A.Z. 06:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a democracy, so we don't have a right to say anything, especially when it is non-constructive. Perhaps the best response to your to your interest in defending the right to assume bad faith is addressed in WP:AGF:

It is never necessary that we attribute an editor's actions to bad faith, even if bad faith seems obvious, as all our countermeasures (i.e. reverting, blocking) can be performed on the basis of behavior rather than intent.

My interpretation of this is that there is nothing to be gained in doing so, but a lot to be lost, so don't do it. Rockpocket 06:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we have the right to say things. I wouldn't be here if I didn't think I have the right to say things.

By non-constructive you mean your opinion of what is non-constructive.

Blocking people doesn't solve anything. People may need to be warned that another editor is acting in bad faith, when not all editors can realize that by themselves. A.Z. 06:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't know what else to say, A.Z. You may think you have the right to say what you want, but you don't. If you say "I think Rockpocket is a bad faith editor and is purposely trying to wreck the project" enough times you will eventually be sanctioned, because you don't have the right to say whatever you want, even if it is your honest opinion. I don't know if that is a good thing not, or whether it is ultimately helpful or a hinderance to the project, but that is what would happen. All I can do it interpret our policies, try to stick to them myself and ensure others to stick to them also. Rockpocket 06:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place for a debate on the merits of our policies. I'll simply say that I may disagree with a number of your edits and I may think they are harmful to the project. As StuRat says, I may criticise your contributions because of that. But I should ultimately try to WP:AGF that your motives are the same as mine and therefore I shouldn't be criticising you for harming the project. Comment on contributions, not contributors. Rockpocket 04:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the time when someone, like you did, appeal to the policies like they had inherent merit, this page became the place where we were discussing the merit of the policies. You started it! Appealing to them implies that you think they have merits, so I had the right and the duty to continue the debate, as I perceived you to be acting based on the most wrong of assumptions: that those fallacious policies have merits.

As both I and StuRat already said, the fact that my motives are exactly the same as yours doesn't tell anything about whether any of us has any idea of what these motives look like (what they really are) or of which way is the best one to achieve them. A.Z. 04:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What Rockpocket just said is exactly, precisely my view. JackofOz 05:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What he said is that we should not give a damn to what your personal opinion on what he just said is. If you do that and we argue about you and your opinion, we will be doing exactly what he told us not to do, i.e., to comment on the contributors. This particular contribution of yours contains nothing more than the personal opinion of one person and is not a comment of merit on the merits of any argument here. A.Z. 05:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be missing the point. One example, the first i saw, of Loomis criticising people is this: "Yet looking at the talk pages of those users who so viciously attacked me on so many occasions, I see nothing." Is this what you trying to defend here A.Z.? David D. (Talk) 05:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is expressing a most legitimate concern of his! I surely defend his right to say that here! A.Z. 06:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then why didn't you defend my right to agree with Rockpocket when he was supporting a Wikipedia policy, AGF? I strongly disagree with your paraphrase of what he said. Where was there any suggestion that we "argue about [me] and [my] opinion"? And since when was "the personal opinion of one person" worthy of such apparent contempt? You don't seem to be lacking in the personal opinion department, so why should others refrain from expressing theirs? JackofOz 06:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you had said anything new either in favor or against our arguments, then we could debate about this new argument that you'd have brought into the discussion. But you only stated "I agree" and I think that to just come here and say "I agree" is ridiculous and makes no sense. Now, why do I think that? Because it adds absolutely nothing to the discussion! But you didn't just say a nonsense thing that does not harm and no good. You actually did harm. What is my argument to support my opinion that what you said is harmful? I assume that you think your personal opinion is of inherent importance. I assume you are just coming here to "vote" and so you are saying "not only Rocpocket is saying that, there is one more person that agrees with him and I think this adds importance to his opinion." This is a fallacious appeal to majority. According to the philosophy of "Comment on contributions, not contributors", I would simply not be able to express my concerns about your comment, since they´re based on assumptions I have about you that are not explicit in your behavior, as someone could argue you were just talking nonsense and you didn't really intend to act in bad faith and appeal to the majority. (I'm going to sleep now, as I need to wake up in a couple of hours) A.Z. 06:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The more people that agree with rockpocket the more marginalised your own opinon becomes. Hence voicing agreement with an opinion alone is warranted and nthing more needs to be said. David D. (Talk) 07:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A.Z., what I did was support an existing Wikipedia policy, because it is one that is often ignored. Your remarks above come close to doing just that. Make any assumptions you like - and you're dead wrong about the ones you made about me, by the way - but to describe support for an established policy as "harmful" or "acting in bad faith" is absurd. Enjoy your sleep; it sounds like you really need it. JackofOz 09:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. The general societal principal against murder is also a good one indeed. And if for the time being, we only have the resources to apply them to Black people, well at least that's a start! Lewis 11:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow your argument, but I appealled to our policies and guidelines because, as an administrator, I am "expected to respect and be familiar with Wikipedia policy" whether I agree with it or not. Some policies I agree with, some I disagree with; but the place for that discussion is at the appropriate talk page. What I said is that they exist, and we should to stick to them even if we personally think they lack merit. Also, don't shoot the messenger because you don't like the message. If you think a policy is fallacious then don't just ignore it or refuse to accept it, but work to change it. Rockpocket 05:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's typically nothing wrong with the policies, they just are improperly applied to the Ref Desk, as you just tried to improperly apply a policy clearly written for article talk pages to this talk page. It is therefore, a red herring for you to tell someone complaining about your misapplication of a Wikipedia policy to head off to that policy page to complain. StuRat 05:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'll work to change it, Rockpocket... As soon as I have the time. A.Z. 05:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear it. If you need any help in making a proposal, just ask. Rockpocket 05:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An idea

Where do most of the clueless questioneers come from? If we could maybe stop some sites from redirecting questions to us we could probably stop really stupid questions from appearing. - AMP'd 02:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that other sites redirect people to us. But that's a good thing, imo. It shows we have achieved a good standing and reputation. We're always going to get dumb questions. We have to learn how to deal with them. JackofOz 05:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we give boring answers, some folks will decide that trying to stir up trouble on the ref desk isn't much fun, so maybe they'll go away. Friday (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, you mean boring but useful, I assume. David D. (Talk) 14:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Friday (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can be very good at being boring. At least some of my students tell me this is so. ;) David D. (Talk) 14:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a good day I can put not only students, but myself to sleep with pedantry. Edison 07:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Purple??

Proposal for guidelines

We are currently drafting a proposal for guidelines at Wikipedia:Reference desk/guidelines.
Get involved! Discuss the proposed guidelines, propose your own and help us reach consensus on the associated talk page, Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/guidelines.

Does it have to be purple? --VectorPotential^Talk 15:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that is bright! Certainly no one will miss that one. One probelm with this colour is that the contrast on the link words is poor. Especially when the link is highlight by the browser history in a similar purple. David D. (Talk) 15:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've lightened the purple to #F0C0F0 from #F090F0. Is that better? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is better on my monitor. David D. (Talk) 16:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me ! StuRat 16:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like purple but maybe that's because I am a girl! --Lets Be Friends 21:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For comparision:

Background is #F090F0 with link to compare contrast

Background is #F0C0F0 with link to compare contrast

How about a nice orange ? :

Background is #FFDD00 with link to compare contrast

StuRat 17:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind the building, what color are we going to paint the bikeshed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.111.70.68 (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Indeed. --Sn0wflake 21:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the bikeshed is done. So quit smoking or snogging back there, pick your poison, and start lifting some weight. David D. (Talk) 21:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about a nicer mauve ? :

Background is #F0C0FF with link to compare contrast

They were all ugly[8].—eric 18:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the ref desk

hi guys, i've only recently found wikipedia and have spent the past few months exploring it. One of its best qualties is the Ref Desk, yes people ask stupid questions ( and i happily count myself as one of those), some answers can been deemed condesending, but i don't see that as such a bad thing (i work within a regional council and condesendance[?] is part of the job desciption) and people will troll, argue and sometimes come away with the wrong answer, but thats part of the experience surely? i come to the ref desk daily, sometimes just to read the entries (for amusement, education and for that rare little jem of a question/link that takes me off and occupied for hours), sometimes to help answer where i can and of course to watch in awe as clio answers yet another question with ease, authority and humour. The ref desk should never take it's self too seriously, it helps countless people and is a highlight of my day. Stay Golden Perry-mankster 10:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome! Enjoy. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<trolling from banned user removed> Rockpocket 16:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks anon, the user name was purposely spoonerised so that people wouldn't auto me as a wide ass, the name came about cause ken, jack, neal et al, read at a early and stoned age. thought admin were alright, not prone to dropping things on us little guys? or i am being naive? wot does BTW mean? can i ask anymore questions? (yup) Perry-mankster 15:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC) p.s. keep running i will draw of the thought police[reply]

Welcome indeed, Perry-mankster. The anonymous comment was by a banned editor who is not permitted to contribute here, hence the diatribe aginst administrators. By the way, "BTW" means "by the way". Rockpocket 16:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perry, you are threatening the sobriety of the Reference Desk with your unqualified praise. I have recommended to several admins that you be banned for a period of three (3) months. This page is only for discussion of problems at the Desk, not for anything that's going right. If you cannot find a serious problem to discuss, make one yourself. End sarcasm.Vranak

I can only speak for myself here, but I can't recall a single time I've edited the ref desk (or the talk page) while sober. Such an act would be against my personal code of ethics. Friday (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well that would explain a lot. In fact it makes me wonder, just how many of you guys are drunk? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loomis51 (talk • contribs)

</sarcasm> V-Man - ^T/_C 01:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The best aid to Wikipedia editing that I have discovered lately is a brand of beer called "Edison Light" with a picture of an antique lightbulb on each bottle. Six of them and I felt light headed enough to contribute here. Edison 07:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous & and the end of March

(Miscellaneous/2007 March 29)

(Miscellaneous/2007 March 30)

(Miscellaneous/2007 March 31)

(Miscellaneous/2007 April 1)

As of today, the only desk still not archived from the end of March is the Miscellaneous desk, if someone could go through and restore the missing days, I'll go through and add the missing navigation templates--VectorPotential^Talk 14:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, all done--VectorPotential^Talk 14:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By you? I think you do amazing work here, VP, and I for one really appreciate you. Clio the Muse 14:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Barnstar in the oven. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's the "in the oven" barnstar, given out to pregnant Wikipedians: "Congrats, you finally managed to get yourself knocked up !". :-) StuRat 03:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal opinion

... an opinion that agreed that you were forbidden to give your personal opinion" - again, Huh?? Rockpocket was talking about commenting on contributions, not on the contributors themselves, which is what I agreed with. Comments on contributions will almost always include personal opinions. Time for a short English lesson: "Personal opinion" does not mean an opinion about a person, it means an opinion held by a person about something. That something, in this case, refers to contributions from other users. Granted, opinions are always personal, so the expression "personal opinion" is a bit of a tautology. But it's a commonly used idiom and you're going to have to learn to live with it. I think this linguistic problem may be where you've come unstuck. You obviously have a high regard for logic, but English isn't always logical. (JackofOz)

I know that "personal opinion" means an opinion held by a person. Do you think that saying "opinion X about subject Y is held by person Z" is a comment on subject Y? I don't think so.

Then, what is it a comment on? Well, if you think that the fact that "person Z holds opinion X about subject Y" brings to the discussion any kind of truth as to subject Y, then you must think that the opinion of person Z somehow either expresses the truth about Y or causes Y to be something that it would not have been otherwise.

So, when you say that "opinion X about subject Y is held by person Z" and you also say that this fact has any impact on any truth related to subject Y (for instance, whether subject Y is good or bad, right or wrong), then you are expressing your opinion that what person Z thinks about subject Y is a fact of importance in the process of discovering the truth about subject Y. Therefore, your opinion is about a person, it is about person Z. Your opinion about person Z is that the opinion of that person is an important fact in itself. And it's obviously a personal opinion as well, but not on any issue we were discussing, rather on yourself: you made a comment on the contributor. A.Z. 22:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A.Z., see Martinp23's comments above where he closed down this thread. Frankly, little or nothing in your contributions here has any bearing on the operation of the reference desk. Please take this elsewhere.—eric 23:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My contributions are all about the reference desk and this talk page. And Martinp23 invited us to create new sections to solve the remaining issues. I'm really sad you did not even pay attention to my post, because if you had you would realize that we are discussing what is allowed or not on this talk page, and people are interested in learning this, myself included. A.Z. 23:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A.Z., according to your own argument, everything you've said above is a statement about yourself, and therefore irrelevant because you are not the topic here. JackofOz 00:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, I am the one defending that comments on the contributors should be allowed... I have no problem saying that all of this is about me. It's OK. You and Rockpocket were the ones who said we should not comment on the contributors. I have no problem commenting on myself. I'm only saying: if you can do it, let me do it as well. A.Z. 00:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this entire thread should be removed, as it's a transparent attempt by A.Z. to improve the quality of the RefDesk. Yet this is the RefDesk talkpage, and as such any suggestions regarding how to improve the RefDesk do not belong here, and should be taken elsewhere. Lewis 02:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

exdenting: I'm having difficulty understanding what this discussion is all about. Could someone please provide a concise summary for the uninformed? Thanks. ~ hydnjo talk  06:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its a discussion on a discussion, on a discussion. I have no idea what the debate is actually about now, though from the amount my name is mentioned, I'm guessing that my request that WP:NPA be adhered to - and who agrees or not - appears to be an issue of contention. It appears to have moved to various talkpages now, so you can follow it more there. Rockpocket 06:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, thanks Rp (I think). ;-) ~ hydnjo talk  09:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hydnjo, see the Archived discussion above for the background to this. -- JackofOz 11:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who removed the guidelines templates ?

Who removed the guidelines templates from the top of the Ref Desk pages, and why ? StuRat 06:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a rhetorical question? In case not you can use the history function to see all recent edits. And why? This may help you. David D. (Talk) 20:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody has given a reason why the invitation was rescinded for Ref Desk users to participate in writing the Ref Desk guidelines, I have restored the offer. StuRat 21:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the banner was removed because the page was changed from a proposal to a guideline proper. I don't care either way but I guess at some point, when the guidelines are stable enough, the banner should be removed again. Rockpocket 21:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What ?!? When did this happen ? I didn't see any discussion or agreement that the guidelines had been finalized, or even notice for that matter. I was still discussing issues on the talk page, for God's sake, and many issues were still "open". StuRat 23:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to David D's helpful advice above. That History tab hides all sorts of goodies. Rockpocket 01:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who chose green for the restored templates' background color? Though I personally like green a lot, and think it gets neglected far too often at Wikipedia, this shade wasn't selected by consensus. As a matter of principle, the green should be reverted back to fuchsia. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to find a color that showed the black text, blue link, dark blue previously selected link, and red border all clearly. I think it does. If you don't like it, feel free to change it, though. StuRat 03:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

K, nuff faux-naïveté Stu. Sorry, I was poking fun at your ratty incisors and pulling your rodent leg. Psychologically, green was a good choice. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that depends on if green means "go" to you or just means the bread has gone moldy. :-) StuRat 07:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope no one minds, but I've changed them back to

their original maroon and white color scheme

--VectorPotential^Talk 21:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The color change was for a reason, to grab the attention of Ref Desk readers and hopefully get them to participate in the Ref Desk guidelines discussion. Without that color, it just blends in with all the permanent stuff at the top of each page. So, I'm going to put the color back in. StuRat 05:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russian interwiki

A request posted in February: Could an administrator add the Russian interwiki-link to WP:RD (protected). The link to be added is:(ru:Википедия:Форум/Справочное бюро). Thanks in advance. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Rockpocket 02:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

!! ---Sluzzelin talk 11:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"jaja" and "xD" in answers

Whats the deal with "jaja" (sometimes "jajaja" or "jajajaja") or "xD" included in answers? I can see nothing relevant in jaja or xD ; User:jaja doesn't exist User:xD was created around 1 year ago, but has no contributions.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with these words (if they are that) being included, just curious. Davidprior 21:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that "jaja" and its cousin "jeje" are mistaken transliterations of "haha" and "hehe" by people who speak English as a secondary language. XD is, according to my sources, an emoticon of sorts. --LarryMac 23:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe jajaja is the Dutch version of hahaha. Vranak

jajajajaja is what Spanish-language chess players I play on Yahoo say to me after they beat me but before they realise the game was unrated. :D Anchoress 09:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I encountered 'jajaja' when I was in a Netherlands-based clan in Age of Empires III. Vranak

Sounds like a remarkably agreeable German. Edison 04:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

jajaja/jejeje are more or less memes now. They may have started as a mistranslation, but I know native English speakers who use them to be sarcastic/funny instead of using "lol" for example. xD/XD are emoticons, similar to :D gorffy 23:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conjugal Visits

The following remarks are not actual attempts to answer the question: [9], so have been moved here:

Incorrect. That is ONE way of approaching the answer, and it is YOUR preferred way. But focusing on the function of prisons is neither inherent in the question, nor -- as the evidence shows -- necessarily the way regulation of conjugality approaches the question. One more response, and I'm moving this whole thing to the talk pages, by the way. Jfarber 15:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you and Vranak hold the same opinion doesn't make this a question which requires an opinion, StuRat. (In fact, your answer at WikiU offers several conjectures, which is not the same as "an opinion".) Though many questions about motive are indeed unanswerable except with conjecture and opinion, this question is not one of those. Questions about why certain rights are/are not afforded to a certain class of government-protected persons will be answerable via reference to legal documents and case law which establishes or changes those rights. Jfarber 12:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those interested in discussing the ramifications of claiming something is an opinion-based question when it clearly is not are welcome to join me on the talk page...

This question is about "why" certain laws exist. Any question like that gets to the motivations of the politicians and the electorate, in general. Those motivations are never known precisely, but we can come up with reasonable conjecture as to what those motivations are. Simply asking a politician what their motivation is for something (and believing the response) is not an accurate way to determine their true motivation, either. Also, don't start a discussion about something here, then tell us to go elsewhere to respond. StuRat 13:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everything submitted to Wikipedia is a mere opinion, unless you wish to suggest that objective metaphysical reality, an obvious oxymoron, exists. Vranak

Given the inconsistency of the above with the entirety of our basic policies about legitimacy, citation, and attribution, I can offer little more than the below, with a caveat that I am identifying behavior, not labeling the individual:

The key element under attack by a troll is the forum or group's recognized and agreed upon power structure. To this extent, a troll does not necessarily have to make malicious or incorrect comments. For example, a person with political point of view A who approaches a forum frequented by people with political point of view B, may be considered a troll, even if no lies or attacks are made.

Jfarber 22:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's just the bandwagon fallacy, saying anyone who disagrees with the majority is to be considered a troll. StuRat 13:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might be, if that were what the quote from our article on Troll said. But the quote says nothing about agreement with the majority. Instead, what makes something trolling by that definition is when someone holds views which are anathema to the very foundation of the group itself, and then chooses to post about those views on that forum or in that space -- such as Wikipedia, where it is impossible to reconcile the concept of a 'pedia with the idea that "everything is opinion". The issue isn't what the MAJORITY believes -- it's what the "recognized and agreed upon power structure" is, which in this case is the basic assumption that NPOV is fundamentally possible, that Vranak denies. As such, his post is "trolling" and deserves neither defense nor further response. Jfarber 14:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The quote above about "a person with political point of view A who approaches a forum frequented by people with political point of view B" most definitely means that the majority of people on the forum hold political POV B, which makes this the bandwagon fallacy. You are just misinterpreting it to match your views. StuRat 20:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, anyone bringing out the 'troll' hammer is themselves a troll. Vranak

Interesting viewpoint, Vranak. Does that mean, for example, that if A claims that B has made a personal attack, and asks B to withdraw it, A is also making a personal attack? JackofOz 00:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. The only way to get away from a cycle of retribution is to accept slights without a word. Vranak

Politely pointing out where another has been offensive or attacking, and politely asking them to acknowledge it by way of apology or withdrawal, is not the least bit retributive, imho. You yourself recently withdrew a couple of words that stopped me in my tracks - and they weren't even a personal attack, just a general description of those who did not concur with your view on that topic. The cycle, in that case, ended there, point blank, end of story. That mini-process worked beautifully. JackofOz 01:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The RD editors connection (refactored) (again)

It seems that I have been jumbled up with the deletionist faction here at WP. I'll make no change of conduct and will continue to edit as I think correct.

I really dislike (OK, hate) the labeling that goes on around here in order to make a faction where none previously existed. It seems that in defending one's self-rightness, there is a complementary requisite to make dissent, even where none may have existed.

I'm pulling (hiding) the "The RD editors connection" section that I started because of the disruption that it may cause as told to me by private email. This action on my part doesn't change my feelings whatsoever but does preserve my editorial privileges.

I guess that there really is a hierarchy that rules our verbal conduct and I'm submitting to that rule so as to continue editing here. I had no prior intent to violate that rule nor do I wish to do so. :-( ~ hydnjo talk  05:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rest assured that there are some here, lacking administrative authority no less, who refuse to lump contributors into factions. In fact, I claim a majority does not fall for this faulty generalization. If you count edits, you might get a different impression, if you count contributors, my claim stands. Humor will continue to be recognized as such. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't take it as a personal attack, although your link on "StudRat" was perhaps pushing the limits. Other than that, I took it as humor and responded in kind. StuRat 06:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Stu, it makes me feel much better hearing (reading) what you just said. I really didn't think that you'd be offended with my joking around but it seems that some proxy (saying they said, on your behalf) thought otherwise. If I thought that my posts might be offensive (rather than pulling your finger) I wouldn't have posted. We've both been around long enough to know that much about each other.

Anyway, pull up some of the (history) links, they may give you a chuckle as they did for me. I didn't realize that I was pushing the limits, you give me too much credit, I'm not that clever. Anyway, we're having a pleasant weekend and wishing the same for you. ~ hydnjo talk  06:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I did, although not everyone would enjoy what I did (checked out a collection of Chinese corpses): [10]. StuRat 17:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are clearly two types of RD editors: those who divide people into factions, and those who don't. Edison 16:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then there are those who file RFCs against those who identify existing factions. StuRat 17:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then there are those who invent strawman factions to pick a fight and polarize the community, rather than acknowledging that there exists a continuum of views, that most of us hold reasonable and nuanced positions, that we really aren't all that far apart, and that things would be better if a few people didn't keep bringing up old disputes. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone is welcome to join my faction (except StuRat) Rockpocket 17:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd take Edison's post a step further: There are 2 kinds of people in the world - those who divide the world into 2 kinds of people, and those who don't. (Which, btw, doesn't place me in the first category except in a self-referential sense). :) JackofOz 00:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, is it a guideline?

I'm asking for broad input—it is safe to call Wikipedia:Reference desk/guidelines a bona fide Wikipedia guideline?

I would appreciate it if people could indicate whether or not they can support the guideline as written, and share with the community any concerns or tweaks, as well as any sticking points that they consider deal-breakers with the proposal as written. Have your say at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/guidelines#So, what is it then....

I think it's silly to have edit warring over the {{guideline}} template, and it's time to get a sense of what people think. I request and strongly encourage participants to give the process sufficient time to allow people to present and hash out their concerns, and by no means to close the discussion before at least seven days have passed.

Many thanks for your contributions, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a good guidline for the answerers - and seems to fit well within other official wiki guidlines - suggest you put it forward for rubber stamping.

On the downside there's no (?) help for dealing with trolls and sillys - eg "can young girl get baby from me suck tittys" etc - that was popular a few months ago. Specifically is apparent childish questioner humour to be removed or should we just let and let live?83.100.251.85 14:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This removal

What do editors think about this removal [11]. I wasn't involved either way, but altho I agree the content was inappropriate, just wondering if editors feel it was necessary/wise. The discussion didn't seemeed to be getting out of hand and it wasn't unduly offensive IMHO Nil Einne 22:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of mixed feelings, eh? On the one hand, I'd prefer not to see anonymous IPs removing signed comments from the Desk (or anywhere) except when it's clear vandalism. There are issues with accountability, and I also don't like the prospect of an edit war among floating IPs. On the other hand, I don't think the Desk is any worse off with the remarks gone. The comments were descending into really rather weak political humour.

On yet another hand, the question was a bit silly to begin with (paraphrasing, "How do we deal with aliens using WMDs?"), so a bit of silliness might be expected in the thread. On the fourth hand, Atlant probably should have known better than to keep up with the joke telling in the thread, but it probably would have been a good idea for someone to have a quiet word with him, rather than just summarily delete the remarks.

In any case, I hope nobody chooses to do something silly like make a WP:POINT by edit warring to put the off-topic comments back in. Two wrongs don't make a right, and all that. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like how we're talking about aliens and you mention how you have four hands. V-Man - ^T/_C 00:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can't really say that logged in editors can make good faith edits where IP editors cannot.—eric 17:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can ask for a certain amount of accountability, however. There's no reliable way to follow up with a floating IP. I'd be more open to the idea of IPs making such edits if they also open a channel for communication, perhaps through a message on this talk page. Otherwise, we're giving IP editors more latitude than signed-in editors, in that there's no reliable mechanism for the community to give feedback (comments, criticism, guidance, and – if necessary – blocks) to a floating IP. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly agree with the way you phrased it here, everyone should be willing to discuss their edits, if an IP deletes something, refuses to discuss, and edit wars w/ floating IP's then that's certainly not "good faith". In this case tho an IP made an edit which clearly improved the desk and no one is arguing that the content should be restored, all-in-all a good outcome. I agree, best would be that someone has a quiet word w/ the editor and convinces them not to make such posts in the future, but really, has this approach ever succeeded?—eric 18:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the 88.110/111 abuse getting out of hand?

Anyone else feel the 88.110/111 abuse is getting out of hand? Would it be worth it to try and bring this case up to Wikipedia:Abuse reports? I might do it myself but I'm supposed to be reducing the time in spend on wikipedia... Nil Einne 00:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs? V-Man - ^T/_C 00:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Reference Desk Guideline: Everything is acceptable except personal attacks

It is readily apparent that there is a need for a general "chat" forum within Wikipedia; one that has a lot of traffic and is more user-friendly than Internet Relay Chat. The reference desk shall be that forum.

Well-meaning people have attempted to assert alternate formulations: note efforts such as this. However, those efforts (although honorable) simply do not coincide with the needs of the people. The Wikipedia community has demonstrated sufficient maturity and discretion to police itself. The attempt to constrict this discernment through arbitrary proscriptions on Reference Desk content can only lead to confusion, dismay, inconsistency and unnecessary pretense as a subterfuge for non-compliance (at best) or an utter disregard for posted guidelines (at second best) or something even worse than that (at least best). None of this is good.

Consequently, the only guideline for Reference Desk content shall be: "Everything is acceptable except personal attacks." This is the only rational way forward. dr.ef.tymac 06:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We the people of the Ref Desk, in order to form a more perfect union, establish chat tranquility, provide for the common need, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Guideline for the Reference Desk of Wikipedia. David D. (Talk) 06:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But David, I'm a Tory, and a loyal subject of the the king! Seriously, I am happy to be part of your 'more perfect union.' To be quite honest about the matter, I have never even read the existing guidelines in their entirety, and still have no idea what the casual jargon that people throw around refers to (OP, IMO etc.?). I joined the Reference Desk last October, and have frequently been both bemused and amused by the endless talks about talks, rules about rules, guides about guides that appears on this page, which, for some, would seem to be their only purpose in being here. There is only one rule I have ever followed, and ever will follow: speak where I can speak, and speak with sincerity and authority. The rest is silence. Clio the Muse 07:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So labor are more like the roundheads? David D. (Talk) 16:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was really thinking in the context of American history here. Were the Loyalists during the Revolution not referred to as Tories? Anyway, if you want an English analogy, I am certainly a Cavalier and an Aristocrat! Clio the Muse 17:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so great on American history since I moved here late in life. You're an Aristocrat? Well in that case, "Off with your head" :) David D. (Talk) 17:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just make sure you stay off the soapbox, and can back up what you say with reference to published source. Otherwise, you'll be off counting trees!—eric 18:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree, we should be much more lax about what goes on in the reference desk but I disagree we should allow it to be like a general chat forum. Some users are genuinely interested in learning things and while a bit of off topic chatter is fine, excessive off topic chatter is harmful. Have you seen what happens in usenet where someone asks a genuine, good faith question having done research but had no success but instead the discussion degrades into top vs bottom posting, or whether Bush is evil or whatever? For that matter, saying all jews/muslims/whoever are evil is not a personal attack but is clearly inappropriate. While it perhaps isn't necessary to have a guideline for this specific area, my point is your idea that any general chatter except personal attacks should be allowed is IMHO an exceptional bad one Nil Einne 09:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree, we should be much more lax about ...

1) My declaration was not founded in deliberation and assent, but upon the clear and sonorous cry of the unseen people, whose will unquestionably supersedes that of even the noblest of scribes and their lofty but misguided edicts.

Have you seen ... where someone asks ... but instead the discussion degrades

2) Yes, of course. Policing such degredation of the Reference Desk is well within the competent domain of the people. This has been proven repeatedly. This community is clearly not Usenet.

... evil is not a personal attack but is clearly inappropriate ...

3) see 2) above.

my point is your idea ... is IMHO an exceptional bad one

4) see 1) above, I propose no ideas nor redrafting of any rules; I come only to declare: Vox populi, vox dei. Digressions and tangents are for the people to decide, no proscription of the scrivener shall ever dissuade any gale from blowing where it will.

Have clear guidelines been written to establish what is "allowed" and what is not? To quote Vox Pop: Probably somewhere :) But continuing with the ... discussion ...

The people have spoken. dr.ef.tymac 15:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The people need lots of things. People like phone books and videogame guides. They're useful. But, we don't include this kind of content in Wikipedia because Wikipedia's purpose is to be an encyclopedia, rather than a collection of whatever people think is useful. I don't think people generally want to be heavy-handed with removal of content- there's all kinds of off-topic chatting that nobody seems to worry about. I think we mostly agree that reasonable editors should be given pretty wide latitude at the ref desk. I think it's useful to prune certain things though, because as we've seen, sometimes editors aren't mature enough to police themselves. Sure, it'd be better if they all were, but how to do proposed to accomplish that? Friday (talk) 15:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Friday you carry the banner of this declaration well! Indeed, remove just the fourth sentence from your response above, and everything you have said meshes perfectly with my (but truly, the people's) declaration. Some voices may warrant attenuation, others kind guidance, but let none be attacked or belittled. dr.ef.tymac 16:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your declaration is flawed in that it only expresses the perceived will of the editing bourgeoisie and ignores the great mass of the reading proletariat. Also you ignore historical precedent, were such a formulation was bloodily suppressed by the ruling class.—eric 17:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, Friday is essentially correct. A Reference Desk that answers encyclopedic questions helps the encyclopedic effort, albeit indirectly, by identifying weaknesses in our information net. A RefDesk that is a glorified chatroom is an inappropriate use of our resources, which is why much of this social networking has been pushed to IRC and otherwise off-wiki. Please read the Five Pillars to see where your 'treatise' breaks down. -- nae'blis 17:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Friday is certainly correct, as I have indicated. One need only read the relevant links I provided to discern the nuances of my message. I have indeed admired and am quite familiar with the mighty columns of this citadel, as well as your prior depredations of the now-disbanded faction that sought to balkanize it.

Not to belabor this, but as I already said (see point 4 above), I offer no new formulations or theories; no advocacy; no treatise; no distinctions between laity and clergy, prole and beauraucrat, leader and subordinate. I am of no faction or clan. I am merely a messenger of the communitarian will, which is surely now upon you.

This declaration is but a harbinger. Heed or disregard as you see fit. dr.ef.tymac 04:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that things are a bit more complex than just "Don't be a dick" - sometimes people outstep the bounds of propriety without meaning to, or without fulfilling the description of "dick." It's not that they're rebellious, just that they are probably new and aren't quite yet used to Wikipedia policies. The fact remains that this is an encyclopedia, and everything in it should contribute to making it more encyclopedic. There are very good forums outside of Wikipedia that can answer people's questions in a more chatty and wandering way. It's just that the excessive chattiness and the pointless wandering kind of detracts from the encyclopedic spirit, making the forum a forum and not a Wikipedia. V-Man - ^T/_C 00:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent ideals, may it ever be so, but see also above. dr.ef.tymac 04:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be no written rules, though I lack the mental energy to further elaborate my view right now. But, hey, about the "policing itself" thing that dr.ef.tymac wrote about: I happen to have just written something that some of you may think has to do with this section, some of you may not: anyway, I think my idea would truly help solving many problems like the ones we're dealing with right now on the reference desks.

Other pages that some may find useful are Wikiversity and its Help Desk, since they seem to be and really are much more "lax", and people actually fighting Friday's and Eric's point of view here may get really tired some times and even consider to leave Wikipedia! When this happens, you can just go there to Wikiversity and learn a lot and chat and have fun and not have your posts deleted! A.Z. 05:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, indeed, I for one know exactly how "lax" 'Wikiversity' is, a place truly laughable in its irrational, hate-filled absurdity. When shall we three meet again?/ In thunder, lightning or in rain... Clio the Muse 05:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't have said it better myself. If your primary aim is to "chat and have fun" then this is not the place to be. Rockpocket 05:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It makes me cringe, and that meeting place has nasty corners. For wikiversity's sake, I wish something could be done about it. It's not representative for Wikiversity, however, and this isn't the place to discuss Wikiversity. I see no problem with advertising for its help desk once in a while, the way it has been done recently. I don't think we need to discuss it on this talk page, however. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being one of the perpetrators having contributed to the cluster of comments dr.ef.tymac is referring to, I am amused by this thread. The cluster could be indicative of the title New Reference Desk Guideline: Everything is acceptable except personal attacks. It could also be seen as a vent event, something that needs to happen occasionally. Considering the topic's weird mirrored synchronicity at the desk and its talk page, It could be seen as a cosmic event, something that happens even less often. The original post and the comments could be seen as gentle reminders that meatpuppets are operating the keys. It might indicate all this, none of this, other things or nothing. On its own, this cluster doesn't give us much guidance for establishing guidelines, nor should it. ---Sluzzelin talk 05:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me my favorite essay could have been written with this very thread in mind: Wikipedia:Don't hand out panda sandwiches at a PETA convention. Rockpocket 06:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The web is chockfull of blogs where people engage in endless idle vapid chitchat about everything. The Ref Desk should not become yet another. I hope it remains a place where people can ask questions in search of information about just about anything with a good chance that one or more of the sage volunteers will track down the info for them. Edison 19:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While it's rare in my experience for ref desk chat of any substantial length to be about topics that are entirely unrelated to the question, the desk does sometimes engage in tangential discussions. I don't see that as a bad thing, if not taken to extremes. Far better for people to talk peacefully and genially with each other than engage in other forms of aggressive and dehumanising conduct. If we were physically together in some institution in the outside world, doing what we do for "real-life" clients, we would naturally talk among ourselves - and not always strictly about the topic at hand. That's human nature. May it ever be thus. Only computers strictly confine themselves to answering the questions they are asked. @ Edison - I love the word "vapid". It should become compulsory in every personal attack. :) JackofOz 03:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Humanities Desk - "Bible -Needs to be Interpreted by a Pope?"

I am going to remove the vast majority of the question/s and all of the answers, bar an amended version of Geogre's. I think that the tone of the question is offensive to Catholics, particularly in light of the questioner's other posts on Wikipedia. My responses in particular may be "feeding", and on reflection should go. I've also warned the questioner on his talk page about a variety of disruptive edits. --Dweller 10:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said ad nauseum, it is part of a consistent anti-Catholic campaign by this user. I certainly find it both malicious and offensive. The questions, such as they are, are incidental to the manifesto. In the past I took this seriously, to the point of giving a measured response. Now I do my best to ignore it; but it is, neverthless, soapboxing at its most pernicious, and deserves no place on the Reference Desk. I thank you, Dweller, for your intervention, and have now purchased an Indulgence, ensuring that you will have remission for at least a thousand years in purgatory!. Clio the Muse 11:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the questioner will come to find that anyone in a position of power is likely to abuse it, at least just a little, and that the expectation that the Pope would be beyond reproach is unrealistic and childish. Vranak

I just answered the questions which weren't soapboxing (where I had an answer, that is) and left the rest alone. StuRat 05:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFAs-How can I be alerted to these?

I've only just discovered that an individual applied to be an admin., whom I consider had neither the skills, the temperament nor, above all, the intellect for the position. The matter is now closed (a failure, thankfully), but it disturbs me that I was not able to express a view. Is there some way that I can be alerted to future nominations of this kind? There is so much about this whole project with which I am still unfamiliar. Clio the Muse 19:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can follow ongoing RfAs at these pages: User:Dragons flight/RFA summary or User:Tangotango/RfA Analysis/Report. Or you can transclude it to a page of your own using the following text: {{User:Tangotango/RfA Analysis/Report}} Rockpocket 19:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and if there is a potential RfA you are interested in specifically, you can create a link to the page it would be created on and keep and eye on it. When it turns blue, go and make your opinion known. For example, if you were keen to support a future nomination of Jack, you would create: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JackofOz. Rockpocket 19:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, just put it on your watchlist. Any page, even those that don't exist, can be on a watchlist. When people start editing that page you will be alerted. Why has no one nominated Jack to be an admin? David D. (Talk) 19:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<edit conflict>The shortest shortcut I've found is to keep an eye on WP:BN. Five keystrokes in the search box. Jack's suggestion is also very clever, if you keep an eye on your watchlist. --Dweller 19:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that was David D's cunning idea. I think I may have asked Jack if he would like to be nominated, but he declined (like everyone else I ask!) Rockpocket 19:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, Jack of Oz would be superb in the position, measured, responsible and wise; though I doubt he has any interest in being elevated into Olympus! Clio the Muse 19:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be successful, i think he'd need to do some work to distance himself from the question in this edit. Boy, what a nasty process RFA can be, here Jack hasn't even hinted at wanting to be an admin and i throw a diff at him. Could that maybe be one of the reasons he declined? I try and keep track of ref desk contributors at RFA, but us "regulars" should probably keep in mind that the desk is really a small part of Wikipedia, and try and make positive contributions to what can be a very contentious process.—eric 20:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm ... that's odd. I would have thought that an obvious option for Clio would be to simply place user pages on her watchlist. A little browsing around seems to indicate that is not sufficient, as an RfA can go through without it ever appearing on the user page!? How many other important developments relative to a specific user account cannot be tracked by watclisting the user page? Am I missing something here? dr.ef.tymac 22:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfAs often don't get mentioned on userpages to avoid the appearance of canvassing. There are a number of infomative pages relating to editors actions that are not obvious from userpages alone - e.g. see Dreftymac (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log). Rockpocket 22:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am humbled by this discussion of me as a potential future admin. I've never declined to nominate, because nobody's ever suggested I do so (that I can remember; which doesn't necessarily mean much, what with my rapidly diminishing mental faculties). Anyway, it doesn't matter an iota, since there's no way I'd be interested in getting involved in such a capacity any time soon. I'm far too busy with my own terribly important work here to take on any new duties. But I do very much appreciate the compliment. Thank you. :) JackofOz 00:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second the nomination. Like it or not, you're running, Jack. :-) StuRat 05:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The hypothetically very first thing I would do if I were a hypothetical admin would be to issue a decree banning bad English, even in jokes. This would be binding on everyone, and punishable by death. It's just so unfair that we who hold such exalted and lofty offices should be subjected to the speech of the common masses. Now do you see why it would be an extremely bad idea for me to ever become an admin? :) JackofOz 05:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I need a spellchecker that catches mistakes like that (now fixed). StuRat 06:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Stu. I thought that "your" of yours was an intentional ploy to unnerve me. It worked brilliantly, regardless. :) JackofOz 06:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yore kidding, really ? StuRat 06:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now there would be an unlikely triumvirate of co-nominators: myself, Clio and StuRat. I urge Jack to reconsider, if only for the potential for global harmony that such an unholy alliance could unleash. Do it for the children. ;) Rockpocket 06:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be very supportive. Maybe we could have a ref desk nomination rather than multiple co-noms? Put him forward as the unifying voice of reason. David D. (Talk) 15:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too think JackofOz would make a good admin, which is probably most demonstrably reflected in the fact that he doesn't particularly seem to want to be one. Oh, and for the record, Jack, as far as I am concerned you can discuss any ole thing you like on the Reference Desk ... I'm sure that must be a weight off your shoulders. :) dr.ef.tymac 15:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support that, too. He's one of the most stubbornly patient and reasonable editors I've ever seen. The only potential problem I see is in the likely demand for shrubberies from certain denizens of the RfA process. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those denizens would also suddenly read some reasons and names they only rarely see in the support section. (Mine, for one) ---Sluzzelin talk 15:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC) Ack, that was poorly phrased. They normally don't see my reasons and signature in the neutral or oppose sections, or at RFA at all, either. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is where I should make a Shermanesque statement. When I can think of some uniquely Jackesque way of phrasing it, I'll get back to you. :) JackofOz 03:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting on what we (might) see as trolling

If we perceive a question or thread of questions to be trolling, inappropriate or phony, shouldn't we keep our remarks observing this to a minimum at the desks themselves? And maybe discuss our concerns here, or on the talk page belonging to the user in question? (Thinking of the still and peaceful library atmosphere). ---Sluzzelin talk 08:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Or, after having tried all that, we can take it to the notice board.) ---Sluzzelin talk 08:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Clio the Muse 08:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Total agreement. I hold little hope of seeing that happen though. --LarryMac 12:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support the intention behind this idea. But switching to Devil's Advocate role for a moment, how would it work in practice? Twenty editors might say nothing on the Ref Desk page because they perceive a troll to be in our midst. But another 10 might think that's because the first 20 have nothing to contribute to an answer, and/or they themselves don't see the troll for what they are - so they answer the question instead, thus defeating the intention of the first 20. There are potentially thousands (well, at least hundreds) of editors who might come along here and answer questions, so how are they all going to be educated about how to respond to trolls (ie. not respond)? Should this become part of our guidelines? JackofOz 12:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I expressed myself unclearly. I have no problem with adding referenced and dry information to the question's answerable skeleton (ignoring the trollish flesh), much in the spirit of Deborahjay's comment here. At the desk, however, I do not think that we should spend a lot of space and time on commenting on the question's trollishnes or phoniness, but rather raise these concerns here or on some other talk page, notice board, pump, or whatever else there is out there. My only concern here, is topicality, peace and etiquette at the desks. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I believe I misunderheard you, Sluzzelin. I support this completely. Anything that stops us talking openly about the questioner, rather than about the question, is good. JackofOz 13:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even an insulting trolling question can have an informative and encyclopedic answer. In the reply, first discount any doubtful fact embedded in the question, such as "Do you still beat your wife?" In a made up extreme case, if the troll asks "Why are Americans so fat and stupid?"an answer might refer to international statistics for obesity and educational attainment in various countries, then look at the underlying causes. The answer could inform other readers even if the troll was not really looking for information so much as trying to provoke or make a point. Certainly there are some questions which violate policies such as WP:BLP which should be removed to the talk page and should could even justify a warning on the questioners user page, even though such warnings are pretty much a waste of bandwidth for IP addresses. Edison 14:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, yep, yep, and yep. The hotter the question, the cooler the answers should be. I particularly like the readers first approach in Edison's comment. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like sensible thinking above. The problem as I see it are those among us who just can't resist feeding those trolls. Moving the question to the user talk page and giving the dryest response possible may help prevent this, but this really only works if other editors refrain from putting the question back. I'm leery of the suggestions that such moves/removals always get noted on the talk page, since this may only bring it to the attention of those who will insist on putting it back. In the past we've had some folks bending over backward to come up with very unlikely ways that such questions could be interpreted at serious, so that they feel justified in insisting they be answered. We need to find a sane balance between assuming good faith and recognizing trolls for what they are. Friday (talk) 15:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, Friday wants the removals to be done in secret, so nobody has the opportunity to debate and/or undo the removals. I find this to be totally unacceptable. I agree with the original suggestion, that we take all troll discussions here. We should only include a short statement and link here from the Ref Desk itself, such as "There is a discussion of the legitimacy of this question at link goes here". StuRat 15:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is not to do it "in secret", but rather, to do it with precisely zero fanfare. A lengthy debate, or a series of restorations and redeletions, is just as bad (in terms of wasting our time and feeding the troll's ego) as going ahead and answering the damn question would have been. WP:DENY has more to say about this.

I know you're still worried about out-of-process or hidden deletions, Stu, but really, for certain kinds of narcissistic trolls, the utterly quiet deletion approach works very well. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I much prefer Edison's approach. Then what's a troller to say, "Geesh, those RD nerds take everything so seriously - this ain't no fun". ~ hydnjo talk  18:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've seen, in practice, answering boringly on the ref desk does nothing to discourage other editors from coming by and feeding the troll. Heck, we've even tried putting warnings in comments saying "this looks like trolling, please don't feed" and those don't work much either. Short of removing the questions or magically educating all ref desk contributors on how not to feed, what can be done? Friday (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fuggetaboudit? ~ hydnjo talk  18:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a comment on the Misc desk asking how many homosexuals it takes to fill a grave. I still stand by the "remove first, ask questions later" policy, and I think that discussion is best served on the talk page of the RD to make sure everyone frequenting the RD knows about the removal and can discuss it one way or the other. However, I don't think in some instances discussion is really needed. -Wo o ty Woot? contribs 19:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your action was fully justified, Wooty. Clio the Muse 19:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That'll work just fine, as long as everyone is reasonable. Friday (talk) 19:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now the disturbed querent will wander around killing homosexuals and we did nothing to prevent it. So what if this is an encyclopedia? A.Z. 03:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if such was the querent's intention - heaven forbid - he/she would hardly have announced it beforehand. I also think that it's a bit of a leap to interpret a stupid question from a trolling bigot as any kind of threat that we have a responsibility to do anything about. JackofOz 04:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a lot of experience with this, but I know that a lot of hate groups announce on the Internet their intentions of beating up and hurting and killing people, and then publish movies and pictures of it afterwards. Indeed, it may be that the person's intention was not to actually kill someone themselves, but the question is the one of someone disturbed who could do a lot of harm even if they didn't wish to go and kill someone. I feel that we should at least try to do something. Maybe start a little thread just to talk about the subject for a while. The bigot would read it and there would be a chance for them to learn something, maybe. A.Z. 04:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I applaud your compassion, A.Z. However, in a case like this, we have no information other than they made an incredibly tasteless joke. Although it had the form of a question, it wasn't a question but an expression of bigotry, so it doesn't belong here. To respond to it at all would paint us as naive, which might be ok if something positive also came from it. However, we know nothing of the OP's circumstances, so it's more than likely imo that anything we say would have no effect at all. Sometimes the best response is silence. JackofOz 06:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"'Listen, bud,' said Ford, 'If I had one Altarian dollar for every time I heard one bit of the Universe look at another bit of the Universe and say "That's terrible" I wouldn't be sitting here like a lemon looking for a gin. But I haven't and I am.'"

—Douglas Adams, So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish, ch. 36

It's probably terribly callous of me to say so, but there are some problems that we in our individual or locally collective wherewithal simply cannot fix. The chances that the bigot making the hateful joke is doing it as a prelude to some actual act of real-world violence are very small, but even so, the chances that we, with a few words on a web page, might magically talk him out of it are vanishing. The chances are much, much larger that the bigot simply enjoys seeing (what he perceives as) a flock of bleeding-heart liberals work themselves up into a lather of indignation, and we'd do well not to gratify him on that score. —Steve Summit (talk) 14:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It takes 5 to 8, depending on their girth. Edison 07:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to the number of bleeding heart liberals required to generate a lather of indignation? (if so, do you have a source for that) Rockpocket 07:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden Answers

I've hidden some answers to thve question on the Virginia Tech shootings, since it seemed the easiest way of showing what bits I meant, and that the previous answers were sufficient, and that it was easily reversible and does not remove them without concensus, while making removal easy if they are determined to be removable. *phew*

Anyway, these answers struck me as being exactly what we try not to do when asked this sort of question, besides being rendered obsolete by the previous answers. Skittle 19:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several points:

1) I find hiding answers unilaterally to be just as unacceptable as deleting them unilaterally. The person(s) who gave the answers thinks they are valuable and you don't, so how do we know your judgment is better than theirs ? The OP won't know those answers are there, so can't judge for themself.

If you looked at the box, the OP will know they're there. They can choose whether or not to view them by clicking, or not, the 'show' button. Skittle 11:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2) I feel you should still notify the author(s), as they may not know you've done so, otherwise, or what your reasons were.

3) Redundant answers can be useful, as they lend weight to that answer, showing that more than one person thinks that it's correct. Also, due to edit conflicts, a certain amount of redundancy is to be expected.

4) When discussing a Ref Desk Q, please provide a link here to the Q, or at least tell us which desk to search.

My bad Skittle 11:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5) When discussing a Ref Desk response, please list your specific objections to that response, don't just say it's "what we try not to do".

Sorry, ran out of time.... Skittle 11:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat 22:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How the hell can you leave in comments in favor of one opinion while removing another, in the name of getting rid of a debate? See WP:5. We try not to be POV, but when people are giving their opinion, it's very rude to just remove it. Especially when the removal makes it MORE POV. -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 01:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The responses of Splintercellguy and Dismas pointed out that the Ref Desk is not a discussion forum, and linked to Wikipedia's relevant coverage. The remainder of the responses were merely the opinions and speculations of editors, not sourced and inappropriate content for the desk. The five pillars to which you linked also mentions verifiability and the fact that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The NPOV policy states that we should represent "fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)." If you would like to respond to the question, please present your information "fairly and without bias" and support it with references to reliable sources. I've removed the inappropriate content.—eric 04:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the fact that leaving in anything that accuses one group one way or another is POV. Saying "some people think Gun Control would've stopped this" isn't much better than saying "Gun control would've stopped this". It's weasel words. You either leave in non-troll opinions or you remove them. The nature of the reference desk can make it hard to avoid POV. In the future, how 'bout we just automatically stop any opinion questions by saying "The reference desk cannot provide you with answers to questions of opinion.", and deleting anything that's POV in the slightest, instead of leaving in some shady POV or letting total POV go unchecked? -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 04:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read the text you removed? It look like Dismas tried to point out Wikipedia's coverage fairly and without bias. This deletion of yours seems awful WP:Pointy.—eric 04:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Eric. I pointed the questioner to articles that discussed both sides of the topic of gun control which is exactly what many in the U.S. are shouting about right now in light of the shootings. I wasn't not fostering my viewpoint but leading the questioner to make their own decisions. I've put my response to the question back. Dismas|^(talk) 04:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though your comment reaks of POV, if you truly didn't mean to place blame, I will refrain from removing it again, as I can understand that it would be annoying and upsetting -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 13:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please provide a link to the original removal ? StuRat 07:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two clicks away (via original poster and original poster's contributions). ---Sluzzelin talk 09:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it looks like at least the first commented out response (from User:SteveBaker) was quite on topic and relevant. Since the six people whose material was removed were presumably opposed, and I am as well, that makes 7 of us for retaining the text in question. I have therefore restored the text. StuRat 10:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. Sorry, I didn't have long last night. Basically, I hid the answers because I thought it was the best way of showing what I meant, made things easier for people, discouraged others from continuing with the really unsuitable comments that could be found there, but didn't actually remove the comments. Anyone could click 'show' on the box to see what was hidden. I removed the comments because the first few (which I left) basically said 'some people think this, others disagree. Here are some pages that discuss this in detail. This page isn't for people to post their personal opinions'. The next messages all seemed to be along the lines of 'I think this', and didn't really stay civil. I wasn't sure about the first, Stevebaker, one, but felt that the response it generated, combined with it being unnecessary and undermining the whole 'we're not discussing, we're refering' message, justified it. But then, my unsureness, and desire for concensus, was why I only ringfenced it, not deleting. It was not a removal. Skittle 11:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, you're saying "some people think this", some people will think anything. Unless there's a huge movement saying something, it's not worth noting. This would be similar to if someone asked "What happens to you when you die", the poster was linked to what many, or even the majority think (Heaven, Reincarnation, etc.), but deleting anything that says "You go in a hole and you rot.". Just because we might not have articles on decomposition as the afterlife doesn't mean there aren't people that think exactly that. When someone asks an opinion question, we need to have a guideline on if we should say nothing but "At Wikipedia, we must maintain a neutral point of view, and cannot answer your question", or if we should allow everyone to have input, as all opinions are equally incorrect. Would anyone care to put that to a vote? -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 13:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of correctness or incorrectness. I'd prefer to say that all opinions on a question of the form what should happen about XYZ issue? are equally valid. JackofOz 00:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lame! lame! lame!

Sorry to be blunt, and to not have the time (or stamina) to follow this debate and all the deletions and reversions last night, but I have to say, this kind of edit war is really foolish. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me of when my cousin and I were asked to set the table for ten people, and he put the knives the wrong way around, so I corrected them. Then he changed it back, then I changed it back, then he changed the knife at his place back, then ... (We were eight or nine at the time, I think.) ---Sluzzelin talk 13:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC) Offensive comment crossed out by Sluzzelin talk 14:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foolish, lame, and eight or nine year olds? If you two have some criticism of of any of the above edits, then please, i for one would welcome it, we're often lacking in comments from reasonable editors around here. But honestly. are your edits above valid criticism and can they accomplish anything besides pissing off a few editors?—eric 14:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for pissing off editors. I've asked to take it easy with the removals and especially with the reverts before, as have other editors. Like it or not (and I don't like it), this talk page and those actions that can be seen as disruptive at the desks themselves seem to revolve around a handful of users. Meanwhile, anyone else interested in improving the desks, but not necessarily in a wiki-lawerying fashion, loses interest in this page, where almost every single item turns into the same repetitive debate. I wish the hard work that has been done at the guidelines page saw some results in conduct here. I really am sorry though, and struck out my comment above. Nothing else to add. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't apologize too much, there, Sluz: it's always a two-way street. We need to take care not to piss each other off, it's true, but at the same time, we need to work at not getting pissed off so much, and especially, not to go around actively looking for reasons to get pissed off!

I'm not talking about any one person here, so please, don't anyone reading this get your back up. I'm sure, if I did have the time and stamina to figure out who said (and stands for) what in this tempest, I'd decide that it's only some of you who are being foolish, and that others are being perfectly reasonable. But really: any time you get into one of these edit wars, with back-and-forth bickering in the edit comments (and especially if it's over a relatively trivial issue), nobody looks good. —Steve Summit (talk) 14:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, after some reconsideration, Steve Summit is right, no need for an apology on your part. He's been against deletions since way back when, and after looking through the archives i see where you have also counseled moderation. While i disagree and would still hold the opinion that the "wiki process" is the way to improve Wikipedia, getting pissed off over something so trivial is inexcusable. As for disruptive and wiki-lawyering, all i can say is that my edits were certainly never my intended as either.—eric 00:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there seems to be no way around the wiki-process. I've always tried to apply WP:AGF with everyone's actions and intentions, and disruption is no one's goal here (so I assume, and so I hope). More often than not, the disturbances seem to be a result of one single unresolved issue: Inappropriate answers and their speedy removal (i.e. without prior discussion). We've tried and will keep trying to dissuade from giving offensive, misleading, or dangerous replies. Things have improved since last November, but they're not perfect, nor will they ever be. No one here believes the guidelines will make them perfect either, but guidelines may provide a helpful basis for mutual understanding and agreement. Meanwhile, disagreement on how to handle inappropriate responses remains (please don't ask for an objective definition of inappropriate) and the disruption will continue to a certain extent, until the issue is resolved (and maybe even after). Phoeba Wright is right, my own sensitivities are meaningless here. Process overrules tranquility, and dogging it out, whether discursively or by pushing the revert button, is part of the wiki-process. There's a lot to learn. I'm trying. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it might seem foolish, but it's just editors trying to make wikipedia a better place. Trust me, I've seen MUCH worse, from people with worse intentions, if you want to call people foolish, I'd check that last link of yours. I'd really like to know what you're trying to allege with a tongue-in-cheek response to another comment entirely -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 14:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And this is just me trying to make Wikipedia a better place. :-) —Steve Summit (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still like you to explain what you meant by that last link. Completely unrelated -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 14:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry; editing error. Fixed. —Steve Summit (talk) 15:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, subnote to the above, a lot of times what seems like bickering or childishness is caused by people debating out of sync with each other. People don't clearly state their intentions up front, and other people are left confused, so even with WP:AGF, your actions might be out of place. Like I said above, I don't think anyone here was being foolish or childish, at least not in the handling of this.

Wikipedia would work a lot smoother if we could all sit down at a table with each other and discuss our changes, but that just won't happen. Although it does get me giddy at the thought of being able to bitch-slap vandals -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 14:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, this isn't ever going to stop, right? ~ hydnjo talk  13:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, I've started to avoid these debates on the ref desk talk page. I could spend all this time doing something productive like answering questions that won't send the whole refrence desk into an uproar. - AMP'd 21:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reached precisely the same conclusion, AMP'd, a long time ago. Much of what goes on here, and on the talk page for the Reference Desk guidelines, reminds me of Franz Kafka's short story The Great Wall of China-"...I imagine that all human thoughts and wishes revolve in a circle, and all human aims and fulfilments in a circle going in the opposite direction." Best to concentrate on constructing what can be constructed. Clio the Muse 22:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well put Clio (I think!). ~ hydnjo talk  23:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why, thank you, hydnjo. I think I think so too! Think always of the great dragon herself, then you have a motif most apt. Clio the Muse 23:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yummm!

Archive anyone? This page is gettin' ~~two~~ I mean to Oops, I ~~meen~~ mean too ~~damn~~ darn hot damn long. ~ hydnjo talk  23:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My best estimate is that the Reference desk/all page is almost 1,251,263 KB long, isn't that way too big for any one page? Even considering that page is built entirely out of transclusions?--VectorPotential^Talk 23:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect that most people will tend to use and watch the sub-Desks that coincide with their areas of expertise; the /all page is a luxury for those who can afford the bandwidth. I can't quite see how we can archive the Desks any more often without damaging their functionality. Did you have something in mind? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure what to do with it, we could split it off into 2 pages, but that would of course defeat the purpose of having an /all page to begin with. I suppose I'm just wondering if anyone actually uses it, or if it's just a throwback to the days when we only had 4 or 5 desks--VectorPotential^Talk 23:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wot Bot?

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2007 April 7

Good Burger 2

archiving

Shampoo

Pretentious, pedantic airs

Religious taunting and trolling

Please let me ask my question

LEAVE! For the love of God LEAVE!

Archival

An idea

Purple??

the ref desk

Miscellaneous & and the end of March

Personal opinion

Who removed the guidelines templates ?

Russian interwiki

"jaja" and "xD" in answers

Conjugal Visits

The RD editors connection (refactored) (again)

So, is it a guideline?

This removal

Isn't the 88.110/111 abuse getting out of hand?

New Reference Desk Guideline: Everything is acceptable except personal attacks

Humanities Desk - "Bible -Needs to be Interpreted by a Pope?"

RFAs-How can I be alerted to these?

Commenting on what we (might) see as trolling

Hidden Answers

lame! lame! lame!

{{Wikipedia:Reference desk/all}}