Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 32

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

What if every question at the desks had it's own page and talk page?

A large convoluted conversation was pasted here from User_talk:A.Z.#Just_a_thought but I think this was very unclear as used in this context.

The gist of it was that A.Z. has an idea about having each question on a separate page. Perhaps this idea can be explained without excess wandering conversation. Friday (talk) 04:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I must clarify that the reference desk would look exactly the same as now, with the history and everything. Except that there will be talk pages.
And... There was a post here that wasn't there, Friday. I hope you copy that post to my talk page, at least. A.Z. 04:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Unbelievable! No, un-freaking unbelievable! WTF do some folks think, that the RD is, a freaking nomic? Oh, I get it, the RD has been sitting here devoid of purpose until youse guys figured that now that you're here the real purpose of the RD can be revealed! For sure, the RD can and should evolve with each new user's perspective but damn, some of the thinking lately seems to suggest that this is a primitive Q/A board and has, until now, been RD-light and it's about time to scramble it all to fit some greater need. Damn! The RD concept is simple: some folks in need of information asking for help hook up with others who can provide assistance.
Now, excluding the crap at the margins such as the obvious homework verbatims, trollesque baiters, illiterate musings and such, the vast majority of inquiries are sincere (even if misspelled).
So, I continue to be wary of every proposal for a new set of rules or triaging concept that is being proposed to deal with those marginal inquiries. Why in the world can't some folks just let those marginal questions alone and respond vigorously to the vast and sincere crowd? No special set of rules such as each (stupid or not) question having its own little talkette pagette or some of the other imaginative quest-havens for the most part seem to be addressing the annoying few at the expense of the sincere many. ~ hydnjo talk 04:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
hydnjo, you seem to be talking about things totally unrelated to this proposal, which is to have each question on a separate page. StuRat 05:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I didn't understand them. I mean, their point, I couldn't get it... unfortunately. A.Z. 05:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
So pretty much no consensus. At least I found out a way to implement StuRat's proposal, that almost everyone seems to agree with. A.Z. 04:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Bots seem to be unreliable, sometimes working and sometimes not, at least that's the impression I get, so I'd prefer a solution that doesn't rely on them. StuRat 05:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Then what were the last four hours of my life worth? A.Z. 05:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, if you consider that the only job of the bot would be to make a history of the diffs, then it wouldn't be such a big problem if sometimes it stopped working for a while. A.Z. 05:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, we seem to have a history of bots being down for days at a time, which would wreak havoc on the history. StuRat 07:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

More of the same, I see: half-baked, badly expressed, intellectually incoherent pseudo-improvements, a way of generating endless discussions about nothing in particular. Useless, in every degree. What more need be said. Clio the Muse 05:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, that was wonderfully incivil, Clio. Very uncharacteristic, if I may say so. Couldn't you have made a more constructive criticism? JackofOz 05:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
It was biting and to the point, Jack, rather than uncivil, but I confess my mode of expression is often coloured by direct experience. But I have, quite frankly, had enough of determined efforts by some to compile an index for a dictionary, if you take my meaning. Clio the Muse 05:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Definitely biting, but how was "what more need be said" to the point? Nobody gets to say when a topic is finished being discussed, particularly one who had not previously taken part in it. There are ways of arguing against what you (apparently) see as a silly proposal, without resort to outright demolition. If people want to talk about proposed improvements, let them talk, even if it goes nowhere. Interchange of ideas is never "useless". JackofOz 05:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
My apologies: I am not calling for complete silence, Jack. What I meant to say, of course, was what more need I say in the matter. Clio the Muse 05:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I honestly don't see the point of each question have its own page, just for the sake of providing a space to talk about it. The technical issues are not insignificant and for very little return. If someone mocks up a small scale example and shows that it can do everything that the current system can do, then I wouldn't !vote against its implementation, though. Rockpocket 06:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I can see many advantages:
1) We can then archive the question talk page along with each question, keeping the discussions with the questions permanently, versus now where the discussion, if any, gets archived separately from this page. It would be useful to have an "all question talk pages" view, so we could quickly find open discussions.
2) Even the most limited computer would still be able to handle one question, if that was all that was on the page, even if it included a few pics.
3) This would allow different views, such as "all science questions" or "all questions from yesterday" or "all science questions from yesterday". We may or may not elect to create all these views, using transclusions, but they would at least be available to us if we decided we wanted them.
4) The history page would only have history relevant to that Q, eliminating the need to sift through the history of many other Q's to find what you are looking for.
There may well be disadvantages, like technical limitations, that make this suggestion impossible, but we should at least give it some thought. StuRat 07:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Interestingly, the comment that the ref desk is not like articles has come up quite a few times, especially with respect to reliable sources and personal opinions. If we add a talk page for each question does this mean that personal opinions and unsourced answers get moved to these talk pages? David D. (Talk) 06:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Of course, we could simply move all of these to this page... Rockpocket 06:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
One problem with that is that it would be harder to find the relevant section. This talk page should be reserved for off topic discussion and personal attacks :) OK sorry, lame joke, but it is late here. David D. (Talk) 06:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Good point, it would be advantageous if the (dare I say it) forum for chat and personal attacks is fully indexed and cross-referenced with the question that spawned them. Only then will Jimbo's vision be fully realised ;) Rockpocket 08:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Right on!  --LambiamTalk 08:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
That was not what David D. meant. He didn't mean that the personal attacks and chat should be on the new individual talk pages. He meant that the "personal opinions and unsourced answers" should be on the new talk pages, then you said that they should be on this page right here, then he responded that this page should be reserved for off-topic discussion and personal attacks. 200.136.57.16 18:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
And the last one i might add was a joke. 200.136 has it right though. I am asking would the talk pages for each question be an acceptable place for personal opinions and unsourced answers? David D. (Talk) 19:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
If I'm understanding this idea, it requires major changes to the mediawiki software, so there's probably little point to us discussing it here. Friday (talk) 14:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
The only problem that we know about is that the history with all the diffs would no longer exist, and it seems to be a solvable problem. 200.136.57.16 17:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the point here is that the primary objections are based on the apparent technical unfeasibility. Before anyone is even going to consider supporting this idea, they are going to want to see how it works and what the advantages and disadvantages are over the current system. If the problems are solvable, I would suggest some solves them and puts together a mock-up in their userspace, so we can all see exactly what it looks like and how it works. Only then will individuals be able to give informed opinion of whether it an improvement or not. Rockpocket 18:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
For the record, i answer questions based on the ref desk for science popping up on my watch list. If i see an interesting edit summary I will click it and possibly answer a few questions if other answers need to be supplemented or questions are still to be answered. I rarely, if ever, go to the ref desk without the watch list prompt. The lack of a watchlist prompt seems to be the biggest flaw of treating each question as a unique entity rather than one part of the whole ref desk. David D. (Talk) 19:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, this is a flaw of this proposal, aside from the fact that said proposal seems to be little more than an excuse to debate about nothing on the talk page. We would have endless arguments about what belongs on the talk page and what belongs on the main page. Besides, I answer questions in much the same way as David D., so it would throw me off as well. - AMP'd 01:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

So to summarize:

Pros (adapted from StuRat's list above):

  1. easy creation of different "views"
  2. each question has its own talk page
  3. each question has its own history
  4. easier viewability for users with limited bandwidth

Cons:

  1. loss of desk-wide history
  2. vast change to current interaction between desks and watchlists
  3. fixing con #1 requires either significant changes to MediaWiki or fancy new bots
  4. each question has its own talk page

[Everybody feel free to add to these lists.]

Now, as you'll notice I've listed one attribute as both a Pro and a Con. It's not at all clear to me that having a separate talk page per question would be a feature. The reference desks are already mostly talk pages, and it's always seemed odd to me that they have their own, separate, meta talk page at all. (Yes, I know, it's for metadiscussion, but it still seems odd.) But since the reference desk is (famously) "not a chat room or discussion board", we're not supposed to be launching into long discussions about every question. So this "feature" would/should rarely get used.

The current scheme -- where those few questions that invite question-specific metadiscussion get their own sections on this here desk-wide talk page -- seems fine to me. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe the very aim of the proposers is to create a "discussion facility", now that there appears to be consensus that that is not the purpose of the Reference Desk pages themselves. However, if every question is to have its own talk page, these talk pages should equally not be used by editors as platforms for venting their personal views. So to me the whole proposal seems quite pointless. The people who want a debating facility should instead support Wikibate/Wikireason/Wikiforum/Wikiviews/Wikilogic/Wikipolis or whatever it will be called, instead of keeping tinkering with the Reference Desk concept.  --LambiamTalk 07:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I see that Wikireason has gone into hibernation, due to lack of interest, but there are still the wikis Chains of Reason and DebatePedia.  --LambiamTalk 07:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Stop speculating about my unspoken thoughts. A.Z. 15:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Could each section of each talk page for each question on each desk have its own talk page, in case we want to discuss what belongs in it? Seriously people, we only have one talk page for all the desks right now, and that doesn't normally seem a problem. Surely, if the load was getting too great, we would shift to desk-specific talk pages long before we had one for each question. Skittle 12:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The idea occurred to me some time ago that the Reference Desk isn't actually an encyclopedia and its unique potential might best develop in a more specialized environment as a separate Wikimedia project, like Wikinews or Wikisource. The concept was maybe premature at the time, but as the RD community and organization has greatly expanded, and we see the development of commercial enterprises like Yahoo! Answers, it strikes me a good occasion to revisit the idea. Perhaps the time has come for something like a Wikioracle (after the French version).--Pharos 09:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

"Mathematics, Calculus and Accounting"??

Why on earth do we have this subject heading? Calculus is one of several branches of mathematics. Accounting is one of many practical fields in which mathematical techniques are important. We don't have a heading titled "Science, Hydrodynamics and Pharmacology." Can someone change it to just Mathematics?--Pyroclastic 03:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Where is this subject heading found? (I agree that it's childish and silly.) Michael Hardy 04:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
... oh, I see. Michael Hardy 04:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Here is the diff showing how it was done in the first place. The editor who did this is now blocked indefinitely. A.Z. 04:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Islam_Under_Attack.21.21.21

I propose that this "question" be removed, since it doesn't appear to be a question at all, but rather is designed to get us to read several PDF files. StuRat 02:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Support removal. StuRat 02:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, support. Clio the Muse 02:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You've got it a mistake. But what if it's not for you to read those PDF files, but for Muslims to read them, so they can try to defend Islam from them and refute and respond to them? And I didn't write those PDF files, nor do I completely believe in and agree with them. They're part of the Answers Book, written by Keith Piper. If the Reference Desk is not for this type of thing, then what is for this type of thing? Where can I write this type of thing, then?The Anonymous One 02:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

So? WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

@The Anonymous One, if you posted a question to the Ref Desk such as "I'd like to alert people to the existence of certain material about XXXX. What would be a good website to use for this?", you'd no doubt get a useful response. You can still do that. JackofOz 03:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

However, if it's worded in such a way to simply soapbox without it looking like a soapbox, it still wouldn't be okay. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah, but we know how to see soapboxing for what it is, so it would look like soapboxing to us (if, indeed, that's what it were to be). The Anonymous One, I hope you're reading this. JackofOz 04:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support removal. I've already said as much as I need to on the misuse of the Reference Desk here. The_Anonymous_One, I'm going to go along with your pretence that "Where can I write this type of thing, then?" is a genuine question, although your recent ban should have cleared up any genuine misunderstandings about what Wikipedia is not. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, the answer is: nowhere. Wikipedia is primarily an encyclopaedia. You may think there are a lot of other things it should be; you are mistaken. You're perfectly free to join any number of websites which are devoted to this kind of thing. You can post on USENET. You can start your own blog on a blogging site. You can even write your own website from scratch. In your own terms, all of those would be productive uses of your time. Attempting to use Wikipedia to promote your beliefs will not be. --Stephen Burnett 07:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

This user (User:The Anonymous One) has a history of inflammatory posts about religions, for which he has only recently returned from a block. I've reminded him at his talk page that he is skating on thin ice --Dweller 17:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

So, there is no place in Wikipedia where I can write and tell those to those Muslims so I have to tell other people and I have to go and look for another website to write and tell that? Are any of Wikipedia's sister websites suitable for writing this?The Anonymous One 09:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope. You need to find some other website. Wikipedia's sister websites aren't really suitable for it either. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 10:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll help you out. Watch the Miscellaneous Desk. I'll post a question. --Dweller 09:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Lambiam has made an excellent response. See Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Online_religion_debating_forum --Dweller 14:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Reference Desk philosophies

I started a collaborative essay. Wikipedia:Reference Desk philosophies. A.Z. 03:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

(See also, [1], Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia philosophy). dr.ef.tymac 15:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
(See also, User:Geogre/People People, an excellent WP user essay; evaluates the relationship between "personality" and "contributions"). dr.ef.tymac 15:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

RefDeskBot run amok

The archiving bot seems to be taking out a good part of the header: [2], I am attempting to restore. StuRat 00:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I fixed the first 4 desks, and User:Corvus cornix fixed the last 3. The bot author has also been contacted: [3]. StuRat 01:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

What some, but not all, think is an example of inappropriate soapboxing

I think this edit is inappropriate. It may only be a bit of a joke, but StuRat took the opportunity to call a politician "evil" in response to an unrelated question. While this didn't result in a big off-topic debate or anything, I still think responses like this should be avoided. StuRat, you've been around a while, surely you understand that the ref desk is not a platform for promoting your personal opinions? Friday (talk) 15:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

There is, of course, nothing wrong with personal opinions on the RDs per se as long as they are sourced. For example, our erudite colleague Clio often includes her opinions in her responses on the Humanities RD - "How close did Operation Barbarossa come to success? Far, far closer than many people care to allow", "I've always believed that an understanding of history should be an essential basis for the formation of policy", "Gertrude Bell is a particular heroine of mine" - and fascinating reading they make too. But Clio (usually) links her opinions back to reliable sources. Gandalf61 16:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, if it's sourced properly, the fact that the opinion happens to correspond with someone's personal opinion is irrelevant. The only way I could see this becoming a problem is if someone is intentionally skewing their answers by cherrypicking sources that happen to support their agenda. Friday (talk) 16:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, scholarly opinions on method, plausibility etc are alright, and even more so, when referenced properly. In the case of demonizing a living person, however, I think we should keep the possibility of offending readers in mind, and thus avoid these characterizations, as harmless as their intention may be. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
And is "Gertrude Bell is a particular heroine of mine" a "scholarly opinion on method, plausibility etc. ... referenced properly" ? I in no way object to such statements, but merely want everyone to admit that opinions are allowed here, and not just a "scholarly opinion on method, plausibility etc. ... referenced properly". StuRat 17:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
It is not referenced properly, no. Clio didn't cite the publication that published that Gertrude Bell is a particular heroine of Clio. I also don't object her statements, by any means, but they are not referenced, and there's no problem with that. A.Z. 16:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Friday, of course RD editors cherrypick sources that support their agenda ! Look at Clio's answer to "Churchill and Black People", for example - it is a selection of quotes from Churchill and explanations of those quotes with the sole purpose of supporting Clio's opinion that Churchil was "paternalistic rather than racist". It is a fascinating mini-essay - but it makes no attempt to be balanced (I am using Clio as an example because I think her RD responses are generally viewed as top quality). Friday, you seem to want a fantasy world in which every RD editor carefully presents a balanced response weighing up the pros and cons of every side of every argument - common sense says that just ain't going to happen ! (Sluzzelin's objection carries more weight for me - but I am arguing that Friday's original "personal opinion" objection is nonsense.)Gandalf61 16:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I have no fantasies about this- realizing that we're far from perfect is no reason to not point out inappropriate soapboxing where it occurs. I'm not sure what you're claiming is "nonsense"- is it the bit about the ref desk not being a platform to promote your personal opinions? I don't think there's any serious disagreement that this is not what the ref desk is meant for. Friday (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't think most of the everyday users of the RDs can agree with you, Friday, because they put forward their personal opinions all the time. And when those opinions are sourced, that is fine with me. Gandalf61 16:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
MFD is over that way. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at Special:Newpages some time. Most of what's coming in is directly contrary to WP:NOT. This doesn't mean WP:NOT is wrong, it means new users very often don't know what Wikipedia is for. Once you go with a "whatever anyone tries to do with Wikipedia is legitimate" approach, we're not an encyclopedia anymore. Just because we get a lot of people misusing the ref desks doesn't mean we have to recognize the misuse as proper. Friday (talk) 16:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Friday, obviously I never said "whatever anyone tries to do with Wikipedia is legitimate". I assume you are trotting out such a strawman argument because you realise you cannot logically defend your strange and extreme views. Gandalf61 19:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Strawman? Maybe I misunderstood you. Sounded to me like you were saying that because people put personal opinions on the ref desk, this means that personal opinions are appropriate for the ref desk. Friday (talk) 20:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
(rmv indent) Friday, you are misrepresenting my stated position. Even with the greatest assumption of good faith, I cannot see how you can reasonably understand "there is, of course, nothing wrong with personal opinions on the RDs per se as long as they are sourced" as meaning "whatever anyone tries to do with Wikipedia is legitimate". Once again, I can only assume that you are misrepresenting my middle of the road position to distract attention from the fact that you do not have a rational defense of your own very extreme views. Gandalf61 08:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Soapboxing notwithstanding, that comment should be removed as an unsourced critical attack per WP:BLP. Rockpocket 17:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a rather silly thing to complain about (and I suspect no complaint would have been lodged if somebody else had made this contribution). Unless you click on the link you only see "Some Newts are evil, other Newts are not", hardly likely to offend people. The OP seemed to appreciate the joke, and I did also include answers to his questions, so everybody is happy. StuRat 17:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP:

"Where the material is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked"

I suggest you amend your comments, or else they will be deleted. Rockpocket 17:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not "biographic material". If I said Newt likes to kick puppies for fun, you might have a point. StuRat 17:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Suit yourself, I'll do it for you. Rockpocket 17:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I find it hard to believe that you're seriously defending this edit, StuRat. If you're so completely unable to tell the difference between what is or is not appropriate, maybe Wikipedia is not for you. Have you seen Wikianswers.com? Friday (talk) 17:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it was just about time for you to tell me to leave Wikipedia again, despite your ArbComm warning to not do that any more, wasn't it ? StuRat 17:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I find it hard to believe that Friday seriously thinks that StuRat's opinion is so completely illegitimate and so obviously wrong, and I find it very offensive everytime that Friday tells someone to leave. I think Friday should not leave Wikipedia. He should stay and learn more about argumentation, and about debating using arguments, instead of appealing to common sense and the like. A.Z. 16:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think everybody needs to relax here.

Yes, even though we discourage opinionating on the Reference Desks, people invariably do it anyway, sometimes appropriately, sometimes not. StuRat, perhaps, opinionates inappropriately more often than he ought to, and some other editors, perhaps, are harboring various vendettas against him for this.

But, the particular example that started this thread is just trivial. Tongue-in-cheek "stealth" pipelinks have a long, long history in online hypermedia. I will join with the rest in chastising Stu when he crosses the line, but this wasn't it.

Finally, about the carping. Stu, I know you feel like you're being picked on, but when it happens, please don't always drag Clio in for comparison. This feuding is exceedingly tiresome and has got to stop. You just scolded Friday for breaking a promise not to tell you to leave, but I remember getting the impression that you and Clio had promised not to bait each other any more. Since you either (a) can't tell what baiting is, or (b) delight in flirting with behavior which some would call baiting but you would claim isn't, it would be safest for you just not to mention Clio's name, or refer to her, at all, ever. That's the only way to stop a petty feud like this. (Actually, a determined feuder wouldn't be deterred even by this promise, he'd find a way to insult his enemy by oh-so-pointedly not mentioning her name or overtly referring to her, even though it would be obvious he was. So please don't do that, either.)

Enough. —Steve Summit (talk) 23:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I was in no way criticizing Clio. I think it's fine to include personal opinions on the Ref Desk, as Clio did. And I didn't bring her up, either, but just referred to Gandalf's example. StuRat 00:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I posted without reading carefully enough. I should have said, "Stu and your defenders, please don't always drag Clio in for comparison". —Steve Summit (talk) 01:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Steve, it was I who first mentioned Clio in this thread, but I did not "drag her in" - I have the greatest respect for Clio. I quoted from her Humanities RD answers to show that here is a frequent, experienced and (by general accord) top quality RD editor whose answers are clearly based on her personal opinions - but that is absolutely fine with me, and with most other editors, because her opinions are based on reliable sources. I introduced this example to illustrate the absurdity of Friday's extremist view that personal opinions do not belong on the RDs, even when when sourced, and that editors should not represent their personal opinions in their answers. I was not defending StuRat's "Newt" remark, but I was challenging Friday's basis for his objection to that remark. Gandalf61 09:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't consider this all that trivial. StuRat took an legit question and used it as an opportunity to call a living person "evil". The ref desk is not a soapbox. StuRat needs to to learn that if he can't answer appropriately, he needs to not answer at all. Friday (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I won't argue the triviality or (in)appropriateness of the original comment further, since it's a matter of opinion that's not worth arguing about at length.
I think we (all) agreed, several months ago, that
  1. We will never have (there can be no) absolute, objective standard for what is and isn't appropriate.
  2. A single inappropriate comment, even if unarguably so, does not spoil the Reference Desk forever.
I think I remember expressing my wish that (a) critics of particular, allegedly inappropriate comments could let their opinion be known (as you have indeed done), as a relatively gentle guide for future behavior by the criticized poster, and not as any insistent demand either that the comment in question be taken down, or that its poster admit guilt; and (b) that we not (and especially not the original poster, no matter how defensive he's feeling) get into long, drawn-out arguments about every one of them. I also remember suggesting that (c) criticized posters simply say "I'm sorry, I'll try to be more careful next time", even if they were sure they'd done nothing wrong. I remember Stu saying he couldn't possibly do this last, but that doesn't mean the rest of us have to participate in the enabling behavior of participating in the unnecessary long, drawn-out argument. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Soapboxing, I can let go having expressed my concerns over, but StuRat's post was an unnecessary, personal and defamatory attack on a living person and that it was hidden behind a piped link doesn't change that. Our policies are patently clear that is no justification for this anywhere on Wikipedia, so its not a matter of opinion. If we want to be taken seriously here we can't be seen to tolerate such nonsense.
StuRat was asked to reword it himself, but as usual, he kicked into wikilawyer mode and declined to accept the invitation. Therefore I removed the offending content myself. I would have followed the same process if it was drawn to my attention no matter who the person was that had written it, and I will continue to do so in future. Of course, StuRat still will not accept it publically, but its pretty obvious to me that he knows that he has no leg to stand on on this issue, otherwise he would have reverted my edit (as he does with every other edit to the Ref Desk he disagrees with). Sometimes actions speak louder than words, and this is as close as any of us will ever get to hearing him say "I'm sorry, I'll try to be more careful next time." Lets accept that and move on. Rockpocket 02:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
No, it's just pointless to argue over something so trivial. I'd much rather spend my time answering Ref Desk questions, which is just what I've done. StuRat 01:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey, AGF! Maybe he's learned that some little things aren't worth fighting over! :-) —Steve Summit (talk) 03:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Probably best not to include words such as "as usual" and "this is as close as any of us will ever get to hearing him say ...". We should be dealing with specific issues, not labelling editors as irretrievably recalcitrant. JackofOz 02:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what Stu's comment has to do with Soapboxing, it was clearly a Tongue-In-Cheek joke. I think everyone here just needs to relax. He obviously wasn't saying "NEWT GRINGICH IS EVAL!!!". Hell, for all you know, he supports him. See The Daily Show and Colbert Report. Nowadays you don't have to hate a politician to insult them. -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 08:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The Ref Desk is not a satirical television programme. Nor a place for insults, hateful or otherwise (thats what this talkpage is for ;) Rockpocket 17:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
No, but not allowing any personality is just boring. It's not a proper wiki articles. Some questions are funny, there's no reasons the responses shouldn't be -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 19:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Funny is in the eye of the beholder. I'm sure many would not find it funny, even Newt bashers. Let's stick to humour that all can enjoy rather than using it to defame. David D. (Talk) 20:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Ugh, would you people rethefucklax? He wasn't bashing Newt, he was kidding. We're not putting "Newt is evil" in an article, we're not saying "wikipedia thinks newt is evil!" or even "Stu thinks newt is evil!". This is no more 'bashing' than making a pun involving the word niggardly is racist. There's a big difference between 'soapboxing' or 'bashing' and making an innocent joke, and Stu definitely didn't cross that line -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 20:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Did you read what i wrote? No one knows what StuRat really meant and that is the whole point. It can be taken the wrong way. Humour is easily misinterpreted in a two dimensional medium and jokes need to consider that point. By the way, you appear to be getting worked up about this more than anyone else. Maybe it is you that needs to rethefucklax? David D. (Talk) 20:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry, I'm sure User:Friday will soon suggest that Phoeba Wright leave Wikipedia. StuRat 01:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I know this discussion has petered out, but I've just seen it and would like to put in that wit is an important and often undervalued part of communication, and even of professionalism. StuRat's helpful answers are often delivered with style and humor, and radiate an easy competence. Questioners and regulars get the facts, and also some enjoyment. I would be delighted to receive such an answer from a real-life reference librarian, even if I had diametrically opposed politics. --TotoBaggins 14:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ref Desk negativity

Why is everyone so willing to say bad things about others but so reluctant to say anything good ? For example, there wasn't a single "thank you" given to User:Corvus cornix and myself for restoring the deleted Ref Desk headers taken out by the Ref Desk bot. Please, everyone, try to be more friendly. StuRat 17:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Corvus cornix and StuRat. Your fixing of the Ref Desk headers was much appreciated. Rockpocket 17:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks from me. Did the bot *only* take out the headers, or did anything worse happen? Martinp23 17:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
It seemed to leave the first four characters behind, like so:
[[Ca
StuRat 17:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Well in my case, I didn't know you did it. Actually, I still don't, but I won't require a reference, since this is tha talk page. ;-) THANKS A BUNCH!!!!!!!!!!!!! Anchoress 17:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
You're quite welcome. StuRat 17:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I think a reason for this is pretty simple: if something good is happening, there's no problem to be solved and thus nothing that needs said. When something bad is happening, this is not true. That said, sure, there's no reason not to thank people for their useful contributions. Friday (talk) 17:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
In addition to that negativity bias, there are statistical reasons for the number of times your name pops up in critical comments, Stu. They lie in the sheer quantity of questions you choose to answer. This is also reflected in the number of thanks you have received at the desks and on your talk page. And thank you for keeping the desks tidy. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome. StuRat 18:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to StuRat and Corvus Cornix for restoring the deleted headers! And thanks for pointing out the negativity, StuRat. I'll try to be more thankful now. A.Z. 03:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)