User talk:StuRat/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Discussion timing 2 House Ethics Committee 3 Talk:A turning point in national history 4 Joe Carr pic 5 Ape? 6 Dutch complicity in genocide in Bosnia 7 sock puppets 8 Hawaii-Tibet relation 9 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Googolplexian (number) 10 Vermiform Appendix 11 Voice compression 12 Message from Aiman 13 Image:X_cubed_plot.jpg 14 Trampolines 15 Intersexuality/Hermaphrodite 16 Sturat Industries 17 Reading, England 18 Archiving 19 re: ==Can Nero allow you choose the sampling frequency when you rip?== on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing, Sept. 3/06 20 REf desk rumpus 21 RD transclusions 22 Aversion Desensitization Therapy 23 New picture at Boolean Logic 24 Why are you so bloody stubborn 25 The smell of air 26 From Loomis (Lewis) 27 Marking Ref Desk questions as answered -- unanswered 28 Old question about Japanese history books 29 RD 30 UN Flame War 31 cholesterol 32 Reference desk comments 33 Temptation: would a doctor help? 34 User Account Drama Cont'd 35 What would you say 36 From Phil 37 Saddam Hussein 38 Censorship 39 Why is your name Stu? 40 RefDesk Trolling 41 the limits of pattern recognition, and posting homework to RefDesk 42 Ref desk joke that goes too far 43 Blowing up the moon (see above) 44 Biodegradable corrosion 45 "Not sure if it's all that famous" 46 On Vacation 47 Happy Thanksgiving! 48 SCZenz 49 Reference Desk 50 Please read this 51 Please reconsider your approach to the reference desk 52 Comment formatting 53 Find out what users are admins 54 Wheels 55 HRT 56 E-mail 57 Old list discusion 58 Please put down the torches and pitchforks 59 Howdy 60 Ref Desk 61 Appreciation of constructive discussions 62 Input 63 Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy 64 Disruption 65 Humourlessness 66 Please 67 Iraq 68 Discuss, don't vote 69 Hemingway 70 Voting 71 Enemies 72 Please, don't make personal attacks. 73 No personal attacks, ever. 74 StuRat 75 Note 76 Hey 77 Can't we all just get along? 78 User Conduct RFC 79 Please do. 80 AN/I 81 Wikipedia pages 82 Hipocrite is getting personal 83 Endorsing 84 Does this help? 85 Inclusionists and deletionists 86 Antique Markings 87 Question 88 Changed link in response in RD 89 Origin Of A Saying 90 Please remove me from any lists you have me on 91 Re: about my signature 92 Addition to guidelines 93 Lists 94 Something must change 95 AGF and BITE 96 Thanks for considering 97 Restoration of inappropriate comments 97.1 Deletion 97.2 Reply to long section above 97.3 Discussion of THB editing comments and administrative response 98 "Laws of Wikipedia" 99 This might help 100 A perspective 101 Saint StuRat 102 Let old dogs lie 103 On a more collegial note 104 Deletionists won't "Break" me 105 Removed medical advice.

[edit] Discussion timing

I've decided to get some things in my life organised, so I won't be spending too much time on Wikipedia for a time. My fingers are itching when I see your latest entries and I've just read a book that provided me with some dynamite to throw at you (wrote an article on it, A turning point in national history, but that doesn't really give the reasonings, just the conclusions). Also, you've set this up for a very extended discussion, with all the subheaders, so it would be a bit of a shame if it ended here. But I have to be firm for once. Wikipedia has consumed almost a year of my life, so I should try to get some of it back. But I won't give up completely and might respond to some things every now and then. DirkvdM 13:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps I can goad you into further discussion by saying HA HA, I WIN !, LOL. I read your article and corrected it to identify POV content as claims made by the book, not proven fact. I also added the counter-arguments in the new "Criticisms" section. Also, your English, while quite good, needed some slight tweaks here and there. I left the European spelling in, though, since it's a European book. StuRat 16:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] House Ethics Committee

I noticed that you created this stub. I replaced it with a redirect to United States House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, which is its official name and already has a longer article. Please check more carefully when creating new articles. NTK 18:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that redirect was sorely needed, as it is almost always referred to as the House Ethics Committee and rarely by it's formal name, even by members of the committee. It could be argued that the more common name should contain the article and the formal name should be the redirect, but I will leave it as is. StuRat 18:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Generally speaking "generic" government department, branch, or officer names will have a country designator in the title. NTK 22:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:A turning point in national history

The rogue states thing was actually something I wasn't sure about including. It was just one example in the book and I won't claim to understand what exactly the authors meant by it. About your reaction, there are indeed loads of countries that have done bad things, including the US. So is the US a rogue state? I suppose what the authors meant was that this is a gliding scale. The term 'rogue state' suggests there are two types of countries. An oversimplification that befits Bush.

The opposite approach, apparently taken by you and the authors, is to say "all countries do good and bad things, so should all be treated equally, all the time". This sounds good, until you think it thru. This would mean countries currently engaged in genocide should be treated the same as those who aren't, for example. Shades of "good" and "bad" are definitely needed, with some countries, like those with current genocide programs, and those threatening their neighbors, treated differently than the rest. If you don't like the term 'rogue nations' for these countries, that's fine, you come up with another name for them. StuRat 19:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Your (!) second point is pretty much what the authors claim. The US has been a force for the good in the last century. But the point is that it has stopped doing that. The US unilaterally broke the alliance (the US did that, not Europe!). So Europe has to come up with an answer.

I dispute your claim that the US unilaterally broke the US-European alliance. We tried to get Europe to support the war in Iraq, and portions of it have, such as England, Poland, and, initially, Spain. If countries like France and Germany refused, that's their decision, not that of the US. StuRat 19:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

About your third point, you wouldn't claim the US never made a mistake, would you? The authors acknowledge that the UN make mistakes, but it's the only reasonable option we have (apart from the EU?). Pretty much what I've been telling you too, over the last few weeks.

You seem to be ignoring my discussion of it's current failures (like Darfur) and my reasoning why it will always be a failure (inclusion of totalitarian countries like China on the security council and Muslim nations, such as those with the death penalty for converting to Christianity, in the main body). If it had made a few mistakes in the past but had since proven it's capabilities, that would be different. As is, it's record, and prospects, are both pathetic. StuRat 19:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Who says Iran has plans for nuclear weapons? All that is needed is a good check on what they do with their material (as should be the case with any country that uses nuclear power). And what is needed for that is diplomacy, not the bullying by Israel (they actually attacked the plant, which is effectively a declaration of war - rogue state perchance? :)

We've gone the route of allowing Iran to develop nuclear power with inspections before, and they have repeatedly been caught trying to build nuclear weapons. They have even imported parts from the Pakistani (A Q Khan) who developed Pakistan's nuclear weapons. It is now the position of England, France, Germany, and the US that they have violated the agreement so many times that we no longer trust them and will not permit them to have their own nuclear fuel cycle, as a result. This does not prevent nuclear power, as Russia has offered to provide them with nuclear reactor grade uranium, and have it returned to them once spent. They have refused this offer thus far, suggesting that they want control of the fuel cycle so they can refine the uranium further to weapons-grade. They also have an abundance of oil, making their need for nuclear power at all highly suspect. As for an attack on Iran, I think you are confused. Israel attacked Iraq's nuclear weapons program in the 1980's. The size of Israel is such that the entire population could be killed with only a few nuclear weapons, so they acted unilaterally against an enemy. It was a violation of international law, but I find it highly understandable, on the grounds that survival trumps international law. StuRat 19:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, who checks on the nuclear plants of the US? Oh and aren't you all in favour of nuclear power? Then why deny other countries that miraculous power source?

The reason nuclear plants are inspected is to prevent nuclear weapons proliferation. In countries which already have nuclear weapons in quantity, that would be entirely pointless. I am in favor of nuclear power for countries which actually need a source of energy and which won't use it as a way to violate the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty or provide terrorists with dirty bomb materials, yes. Iran fails all those tests. StuRat 19:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joe Carr pic

Joe Carr has posted twice on the Humanities Reference desk asking us to remove his pic. He says it's from his website, and not public domain, and he doesn't want it displayed in Wikipedia, since he has received death threats. Just wanted to let you know about the situation, you do what you think is right. StuRat 04:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The image posted is perfectly in co-operation with fair use laws. He has received death threats, but how is that relevant to us? Hundreds of our subjects have received death threats. We still include them on our site. If he's so scared of people hunting him down, why does he run a website? If you want a private life, releasing materials publicly to anyone and everyone over the internet is not a smart move. If Osama emailed us and asked not to have his picture on our site, would we remove it? What about if the Wiggles said they didn't want their pic on our site, would we remove it? -- Zanimum 14:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I would actually like to prevent people from being murdered, but apparently most Wikipedians, like yourself, prefer to help the would-be murderers. He also says he has consulted a lawyer and will take legal action against Wikipedia if it refuses to remove the pic, which I suppose will be necessary. I wonder, if you said something anti-Islamic here, and had Iran sentence you to death and offer a reward as a result, if you would be as happy if Wikipedia posted your pic on an article under your name, and maybe included your home address just to be thorough. StuRat 15:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who wants to kill someone can probably conduct the same research that the Wikipedian did to get the picture or home address they want. Part of the benefit of WP:NOR is that Wikipedia can't "reveal" anything that's not already public knowledge. Obviously, there might be crackpots who wanted to kill people but who were only capable of tracking people down using Wikipedia. But there might also be crackpots who decided that people who asked that pictures be removed from Wikipedia deserved some sort of retribution, so there's no clear benefit from trying to understand the crazies. --Tardis 15:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia most definitely could reveal things which are not publicly known. Even if they were eventually removed due to a lack of public sources, they would still be in the history. Also, there are degrees of public knowledge. Something may be on microfiche buried in some library, and thus considered "public", but not nearly as many people will find it there as if it were in Wikipedia and found at the top of a Google search. I once fell victim to this. The price I paid for my house is considered public info, and I had no objection when it was on microfiche at the Department of Records indexed under something called a "Sidwell Number". However, it's now posted to the internet such that anyone who types in my address knows how much I paid. I consider this to be a bit of an invasion of privacy. I can think of many such public records to which people would like to limit access, such as some medical records, traffic violations, etc. StuRat 20:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

True, such amplification can occur -- but it seems to me that, really, the status of information shouldn't be based on how hard it is to get to it, but rather the other way around. Put another way, just because it's hard (comparatively) to get to your house price doesn't excuse it being public if it being entirely public (e.g., in the newspaper) would be considered improper. I think that any society would do well to deliberately decide precisely what information about a person/institution is public, and then arrange that that and only that information is instantaneously available. (To be relevant to the original point, I don't think this applies to Mr. Carr, because his complaint is about information that he himself distributed (even if he later came to regret that). But certainly it would be impolite at the least to go rummaging through public records to find "public" things to post online. Perhaps that counts (or should count) as harassment?) --Tardis 19:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I still favor degrees of "public info". My credit report, for example, should only be available to those who I've authorized to use it, or perhaps to those with a legitimate need for it. StuRat 20:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ape?

In response to a comment about humans being apes, you responded "No. The closest living relatives of man are the chimpanzees/bonobos, not the apes." I was a bit confused by your statement: my understanding is that both humans and chimpanzees are apes (for instance, [1] as well our Ape) article. What do you believe apes to be? — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I must have been thinking of gorillas, when I said humans are more closely related to chimps and bonobos:

StuRat 04:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dutch complicity in genocide in Bosnia

I just saw a program on TV today, about how the Dutch soldiers in the UN peacekeeping force in Srebrenica, Bosnia evicted thousands of Bosnian Muslims who were seeking refuge at their base. As they left the gates, the men were separated from the rest by the Serbs, then taken off and murdered. I, for one, think those Dutch soldiers should be put on trial for complicity in genocide (in the World Court, since the Netherlands won't prosecute them due to the general atmosphere of complicity in genocide throughout The Netherlands). StuRat 04:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sock puppets

Hi, could you confirm that these are not your sock puppets? Cheers, —Ruud 00:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I have never used a sockpuppet, under these names or others. If you view my contribution history, you will see I do not vandalize Wikipedia, but have contributed dozens of articles and thousands of good edits. I do have AOL as my ISP, however, and they provide dynamic I/P addresses. So, it is possible that those I/P addresses may have been used by me at some time in the past and either previous or subsequent to my use, those dynamic I/P addresses may have been assigned to someone else, who vandalized Wikipedia. It's not me, however, and I would like to see the reasoning by which I am being so accused. StuRat 02:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

That's good as they were socks of User:Science3456 (who in turn could be WoW). I'd don't know why you were being accused of being these socks, but it User:O^O who placed tags on it stating they were you. You might want ask him about about that. —Ruud 15:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I left the question on his talk page. StuRat 02:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello StuRat. I identified you as a suspected sockpuppet due to similarities between some edits you made and edits made by known sockpuppets of User:Science3456. Of course, when trying to round up sockpuppets, mistakes in identity can occur. No hard feelings I hope. - O^O

OK, but I'd like to see which edits you find to be similar, please. StuRat 20:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hawaii-Tibet relation

I feel that, in the confines of other topics, my theory of the relation between Hawaii and Tibet was not explained correctly. So, this topic is only about why I see a relationship between Hawaii and Tibet. Tibet belonged to China for hundreds of years, then the British took it. When the British left, the U.N. claimed it was an independent nation, but China was not part of the U.N. and claimed it was always part of China and that the British occupation did not change that. So, they are of the opinion that they sent military forces into Tibet, not as an invasion, but as protection of Chinese interests. So, you have a majority of the world that sees the Chinese takeover of Tibet as an invasion and a minority that can rationalize that the troops were sent in as protection of national interests. Hawaii was an independent nation. The U.S. sent a lot of military there and the American businesses brought in a lot of Philipino workers. The Hawaiians became a minority and, when the Queen of Hawaii said she would make a stand to protect the native people from foreign influence, the U.S. military and militias paid by the U.S. companies overthrew the Queen. The U.S. businesses placed their own government in Hawaii which pushed a vote to turn Hawaii into a state. Most people feel that the U.S. military was only sent into Hawaii to protect American interests. There are some who can rationalize that they were sent as an invasion force to overthrow the government and take over Hawaii. So, you have two events with similar views. The primary difference is that one is seen by a majority as an invasion and the other is seen by a majority as a legal takeover. --Kainaw ^(talk) 12:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

There are many huge diffs:

• There was a massacre of those who resisted (and many who didn't) in Tibet. No such massacre occurred in Hawaii. The takeover there was relatively bloodless.

• The Hawaiians have been treated well, including having a voice in Congress, being eligible to be US President, etc. By contrast, the Tibetans have absolutely no voice in how their nation is run. I know of no Tibetans who are influential in the Chinese government.

• If only native Hawaiians (of Polynesian origin) were asked to vote on whether they wanted independence, I'm still quite confident they would vote to remain in the US. Yes, there are always a few nuts out there who will argue for independence, but not the majority. On the other hand, if only the native Tibetans were asked if they wanted independence, then I'm quite sure they would vote in favor.

And let me ask, why exactly do you discount the decision of the UN and the majority of the world that Hawaii is a legit part of the US while Tibet is an occupied nation ? StuRat 19:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, I believe your logic that the US isn't allowed to criticize the occupation of Tibet based on your asertions of the occupation of Hawaii, even if they were true, constitutes a logical fallacy, specifically the Ad_hominem#You-too_version under Ad_hominem#Ad_hominem_tu_quoque. StuRat 20:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I feel you continue to miss my point. I do not claim that *I* believe Hawaii was bloodily invaded and I do not claim that *I* believe Tibet was kindly absorbed back into it's mother-country. This all begin by stating that while I lived in Hawaii, I listened and tried to understand those who were active in the Hawaiian Independence movement. Then, working with Chinese, I tried to understand their view that Tibet is and always was part of China. The arguments were very similar - even if you completely disagree with them. Since I don't consider the Hawaiians evil, I find it hard to consider the Chinese pure evil for invading Tibet. Does that make more sense? --Kainaw ^(talk) 20:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't, because you are completely ignoring the huge diffs in the degree of oppression. That would be like arguing that, since I once made a joke about Jews being cheap with money, I have no right to criticize Hitler's genocide. StuRat 20:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it would be like arguing: Since most people in the United States make jokes about Jews being cheap with money, it is difficult to claim that all Germans are pure evil because of Hitler's genocide. Most people in the United States do not think that there was any illegal invasion or oppression of Hawaii - but some Hawaiians do. Most people in China do not feel that there was any illegal invasion or oppression of Tibet - but most Tibetans do. I'm not comparing the degree of the events - I'm comparing the common threads in the point-of-view of the citizens. Also, keep in mind that the Chinese are basing their opinions on heavily censored information. --Kainaw ^(talk) 15:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

When did I say that all Chinese are pure evil ? My point is that the current attitude among many Europeans that the US is evil and China is good is quite dangerous, as it will lead to a realignment with China. There are ample indications that once China becomes the most powerful nation on Earth, it will not be a good thing. The evidence includes Tiananmen Square, the continued occupation of Tibet, it's non-democratic nature, aggressive actions regarding Taiwan, blocking of anti-nuclear proliferation measures against Iran, lack of significant help regarding disabling the nuclear weapons programs in North Korea (which they could single-handedly stop by threatening to cut all aid and trade with North Korea), blocking of anti-genocide measures against Sudan, unfair trade due to their undervalued currency, arrest and torture of members of religious groups like Falon Gong, etc.

Note that all this is while China is on it's "best behaviour" to prevent trade sanctions, etc. However, once they are powerful enough to not worry about such actions, then what can we expect ?

So, everyone should think of China as a dangerous rival, to be contained, not a trustworthy friend. Perhaps, if we can slow the rate of growth of China's economy significantly, it will reform and become a stable democracy before it becomes the most powerful nation on Earth, and thus not pose a danger to the rest of the world. Incidentally, I also think the US is too lenient with China. For example, we should not grant "most favored nation" trading status to such a country. StuRat 16:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. Chinese government cannot be trusted in foreign relations. Of course, I feel that the U.S. government cannot be trusted in MidEast relations either. Also, Mexico treats other Central American countries terribly. Nigeria has terrible relations with its neighbors. It is all around the world from one degree to another. Chinese government is very bad all around. The U.S. has luckily confined most of its terrible relations to oil countries.

My initial point was that the Chinese government did not consider Tibet an invasion because the Chinese government did not consider a separate nation. I never ever claimed that Tibet was considered by the rest of the world to be part of China. Then, after some very nasty emails, I slipped into a second issue of "All Chinese are evil". I get that a lot because I studied Chinese history in depth and, when I explain the Chinese point-of-view, I am called a communist and told to go to China if I hate the U.S. so much. Your comments hit me the worst because I knew, from your previous posts, that you were misunderstaning me. You are obviously more interested in gathering intelligence instead of blocking out all of China behind a stereotype. So, I really wanted to ensure that you understood what it was I was saying (and what I was definately *not* saying). I'm just not very good squeezing in articulate comments between programming and queries at work. --Kainaw ^(talk) 16:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps something like this would have worked:

"While the Chinese do not consider themselves to be occupying Tibet, I do."

Note the omission of any mention of Hawaii. Mentioning claims that Hawaii is under a military occupation doesn't do much but make you sound like a nut. StuRat 17:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

But, I am a nut. At least that is what the people who take the time to go to my user page, then to my website, then hunt down my email address and email me keep saying. Well, they use worse words than "nut", but it's all the same. The Hawaii reference came later in our conversation. I was explaining what happened to change my opinion of the Chinese point-of-view. I always considered them ruthless until the Chinese I talked to described Tibet in the same way the Hawaiians I talked to described Hawaii. It humanized the whole thing from both sides. I still consider the Chinese government to be ruthless, but not the Chinese themselves. --Kainaw ^(talk) 23:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

There are some probs with just believing whatever a few people you meet say, they could be oddballs out of synch with the majority of the population, for example. Also, you appear to have been biased based on who you talked with. I get the feeling you never talked with any Tibetans, or you would have a very different opinion. In the case of genocide, it can be difficult to find anyone left from the side that was killed off, so any opinions you get in that country will likely be from those who committed the genocide or were complicit in it. That's not a very good way to form your opinions. StuRat 00:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Googolplexian (number)

Would you care to take a look at the debate again? Cheers, —Ruud 00:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I've never looked at that debate before, since my vote, as noted, was indeed forged. StuRat 03:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vermiform Appendix

Hello, I am not trying to start an edit war with you. I believe that Wikipedia should not provide sides of a debate that don't exist. In other words, if no serious researcher has proposed that the appendix may have been involved with the digestion of raw meat, then that hypothesis is unverifiable (meaning it cannot be verified to exist) and should not appear on the article. I encourage you to keep looking for verification that it is a serious hypothesis, even a minority one, at which point I would fully support including it in the article. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs} 14:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why you were unable to find any info. Here is plenty:

• [2]

• [3]

• [4]

• [5]

These refs in no way prove that this is the function of the appendix, but they do show this is the opinion of many people, so it should be discussed in the article. StuRat 04:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Excellent! My searches on "appendix" and "raw meat" didn't turn these up, so I appreciate your effort. Those are certainly enough for me to agree that the hypothesis is serious enough to include in the article. I would prefer something peer-reviewed, but since it's only a hypothesis, I think the only thing that needs to be verified is that it exists, not that it is widely accepted. Thanks for your hard work on this. I would use the first link you listed as a citation, as it is stated more clearly than in the last one and it's probably better than using a link from a creationist/ID discussion, since many are suspicious of the facts in such discussions. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs} 16:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

My impression was that those sites were debunking ID, not in support of it, so I think the discussion there was fairly rational. I don't know that any of those sites are good enough to be used as references, though, since, as I said, they only prove that the theory exists, they don't offer convincing evidence that it is correct. StuRat 23:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Voice compression

Hello! Are there any sources for the Voice compression article that you can add to it? Thanks. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 15:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I added a good source, removed the tag, renamed the article, and made the old article into a disambiguation page. I also noted other uses besides advertising mentioned in the source, so might add an "Other uses" section to the article. StuRat 19:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Message from Aiman

Actually, The reference about Jambatan Parit Sulong was adopted from Buku Rekod Malaysia Edisi Kedua by Ghulam Jie M Khan a Malaysian author and researcher. - Aiman b Majid 3 July 2006

[edit] Image:X_cubed_plot.jpg

I've been deleting things from Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons. You uploaded a number of similar images to commons, but not this one, though you marked it as being there. An oversight, perhaps? I removed the tag. moink 16:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, same thing with Image:X cubed rotated plot.jpg. Though they're not in the deletion log at Commons, maybe since they were identical to the gif versions (but less pretty), and the gif versions are at Commons, someone decided they weren't useful? moink 16:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yea, keep the GIF versions in commons and delete these, assuming nobody has linked to them since. Do you know how to do the link check in all wikiprojects at once ? I did, but have since forgotten how. StuRat 16:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trampolines

I don't know if you're still working on that side of things, or if you still think it's worth it, but what do you think about Simple Wiki? Don't you think it could accomplish the same thing? Could is stressed because right now not only are the articles simple but they're incredibly short and don't really explain much at all.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  01:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think those articles are a bit too simple for a general audience. And, as you've noted, it hasn't really caught on, either. I'd rather see Wikipedia proper contain an article or section for each subject, suitable to all knowledge levels, at least from average on up. StuRat 02:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course, and hopefully Jimbo does to. Guess I'll wait a couple years and see how things unfold.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  05:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intersexuality/Hermaphrodite

we (would) also need different terms for cancer in people versus animals, for heart disease in animals versus people (and why not different names for hearts as well ?), etc.[6]

Very well said. This would naturally lead to confusion and frustration for users, and as an example, let me cite my own experience:

I heard the phrase "male pseudohermaphrodite" on a TV drama (House MD), so I wanted to learn more about it on Wikipedia. There was no article by that name, so I typed pseudohermaphroditism. Confusingly, this redirected me to intersexuality. Why not redirect to hermaphroditism? I guess this is because the hermaphroditism article doesn't exist, but rather also redirects to intersexuality...oh wait, it does exist! But it's not about humans, it's about animals, because its use for humans is somehow not PC!

This was very confusing and frustrating, so I wondered if any other person was annoyed by it. Thankfully, I saw your comments on the talk page of intersexuality. I suspect that you are right, that the term hermaphroditism is commonly accepted by the medical community. See [7] and [8]. So basically we have got to do something about this confusing set of redirects and articles. Maybe we should recruit an expert to settle the matter:

• If "hermaphroditism" is not offensive, we'll merge.
• If it is offensive, we should at least not blindly redirect articles like pseudohermaphroditism to intersexual without providing more context in the beginning of intersexual, like "the conditions previously known as pseudohermaphroditism and hermaphroditism are now known as intersexuality, as such usage is offensive. Pseudohermaphrodism refers to so and so type of intersexuality, while hermaphroditism refers to so and so type of intersexuality".

JianLi 02:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added this hatnote to hermaphroditism: :''For hermaphroditism in humans, see [[Intersexuality]].'' JianLi 03:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good, except instead of saying "such usage is offensive", I would say "this usage is considered to be offensive by some", as I suspect that only a rather small portion of the population considers it to be offensive. StuRat 15:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sturat Industries

Hi StuRat, I just nominated the article Magnificent city council for AfD as a hoax and noticed that the article creator, User:Admin@sturatindustries seems to have referenced your user name in theirs. You might be flattered, but I just thought I'd let you know that someone may be using your name in vain, just in case there's some other issue at play here. I'm guessing the use of the word "Admin" and another user's name violates WP:USERNAME anyway so the account probably doesn't have much longer to live! Regards, --Canley 13:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I expect it's just a coincidence, though. I think Sturat is an actual name in India. StuRat 14:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I just got an email from the user involved. He's actually a Tasmanian high school student, but you're right, it appears to be just a coincidence that he's used the name as a nickname for some time. He said he's happy to remove the "admin" as he was not aware of the user name policies. Cheers, --Canley 16:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the follow up ! StuRat 18:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reading, England

If you don't mind me asking, I'm curious as to what kind of reading you do outside of Wikipedia. I'm assuming you're a reader, mind you. Maybe you listen a lot to education AM radio in India or something.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  12:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I pretty much do all my reading online. Besides Wikipedia I go to various news sites and do general Google searches for info in which I have an interest. I also listen to NPR (US National Public Radio) and PRI (Public Radio Internationale) and watch PBS (US Public Broadcasting Service) TV. Between those various sources I usually get some reliable info. StuRat 12:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Roger!  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  10:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving

Would it be possible, when you remove a transclusion, to also update the corresponding archive page, to reflect the changes made. Remove one here, add one there, thank you--VectorPotential^{71.247.243.173} 15:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• In the mean time, I'll continue creating the transclusion pages, until someone else is able decipher RoadWizard's somewhat convoluted, template/archive system--VectorPotential^{71.247.243.173} 15:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• I thought the archive pages were already created when the transclusions were first done. Isn't the individual archive page what the transclusion points to ? Do you mean the main archive page lacked links to the individual archive pages ? I'm confused. StuRat 21:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Mathematics/August 2006, the monthly pages, although you may be right about the transclusions and the archives being created at the same time. But since I've been doing the catch up transcluding and archiving, and I wasn't really sure, I had been waiting until the transclusions were removed, before adding them to the monthy archive page. Which is no longer made of a single transclusion. Yes, it's confusing--VectorPotential^{71.247.243.173} 02:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• OK, let's each double check our work after we make any change. StuRat 02:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• On that topic, Template:Reference desk navigation is now a whole new template, that only requires the desk topic, and the date of the archive, the template now calculates everything else on it's own.. --VectorPotential^{71.247.243.173} 02:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: ==Can Nero allow you choose the sampling frequency when you rip?== on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing, Sept. 3/06

Audio. Please respond on my talk page: user:100110100. Thanks.24.70.95.203 16:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think you can do that directly in Nero. You must use an audio editing software for that. StuRat 20:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] REf desk rumpus

StuRat, bearing in mind the criticism we seem to be having regarding jokey comments, what do you think of the idea of putting the ref desk editors jokes as editorial comments that would not be seen on the main page. You know, using <!this is a comment> ?--Light current 17:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that might be a good idea for a comment or joke that makes fun of the question asker, like the recent "is this a joke or does he really not know how to divide by 10 ?". However, using that for the average joke means I won't see them unless I edit that section, and, of course, I won't edit the section because I don't know there's a joke there. I'd prefer to avoid that. StuRat 17:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Understood. But there probably will be a joke there if I know the rest of the ref desk contributors!--Light current 17:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RD transclusions

Thanks for your concise instructions at the RD but I have had to rescind my commitments to remove old and create new transclusions at this at time. When things get back to normal at here home I'll revisit. I feel very sorry to have let you down.  :-( --hydnjo talk 00:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

addendum: I'll force the time to continue with the date headers, that'll cheer me up a bit.  :-) --hydnjo talk 00:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the effort, and I hope you find more time to help in the future. StuRat 04:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Something has gone wrong with WP:RD/M, with most of the questions now duplicated. (See contents listing.) I think this might have happened just after you did something with it(?) but I don't know how to fix it.--Shantavira 14:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, it was my fault, and I've now fixed it. I was doing cut and paste from the Ref Desk to the Archive Page, and I apparently did an accidental extra paste to the Ref Desk, as well, doubling all the entries. StuRat 14:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aversion Desensitization Therapy

Hey, Sturat, your idea got me curious, how exactly would I go about doing that if I were to take you up on it?- Blusher

I'm not sure how old you are, if you're under 18, you might want to try just talking to girls on the Internet, in chat rooms. Try it first without a cam, then, after you get comfortable with that, try it with the cam on. (If you don't have one and can't afford one, skip this step.) Then you're ready to talk with girls in person. If you're old enough in your location, you can go to a night club or bar to talk with girls. If you're younger, then maybe try parties or game arcades. StuRat 01:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Note that I used the wrong term, it' actually called desensitization therapy. StuRat 01:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I mean like what would I talk to them about?

Well, whatever things make you blush normally. I get the impression that's just about anything. After you get so you can talk normally without blushing, then try talking about things more likely to make them blush, like how pretty they are, etc. StuRat 22:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, how do you cross things out like you just did?

You do this:

<s>Aversion</s>

To get this:

Aversion

StuRat 22:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I will definitley try it, I will tell you if it works, although that may be a little while, like a couple weeks or something. Hopefully I can get it cleared up. :)

[edit] New picture at Boolean Logic

I replaced the JPG picture with an SVG one because SVG is better capable of expressing vector information, and also because JPEG files introduce sometimes undesirable compression artifacts. For more information, see Wikipedia:Preparing images for upload. -- Peter O. (Talk) 06:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why are you so bloody stubborn

I noticed in a desperate bid to save your ass form a losing battle, you have set up a straw man argument, using english definitions, and claiming my point as incorrect. We are trying to discuss scientific terminology, please dont try to discredit my point with your pathetic whinings, just because your wrong, doesnt mean you have to be a dick. Philc _T^E_C^I 17:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

My arguments are perfectly sound. You're the one who is wrong, and the one who is resorting to a personal attack (name calling). Calling people names (ass, dick, idiot) is counter productive. If someone disagrees with you, respect their POV, don't insult them. StuRat 22:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

If I am not kicked out for getting into a conversation of two administrators, can I ask what are we talking about? -- 08:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC) (I am from a cyber cafe; there may be others too!).

I "corrected" Philc when he called slowing down "acceleration", and I said that it should be called "deceleration". He then became abusive (some of which you see above). Apparently, there is a diff between UK English (him), where the word "decelerate" is considered to be improper slang, and US English (me), where it's perfected well accepted, even by scientists. However, none of that excuses calling names. Philc and I have since made up. StuRat 17:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The smell of air

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Water --Russoc4 23:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From Loomis (Lewis)

Stu, of all the guys on the RefDesk I find you to be by far the most sensible, and one of the most intelligent. We seem to have an affinity of opinion on so many subjects. I highly value each and every of your posts, as they're usually a refreshingly sensible, amongst all the bullshit flying around...(especially from you-know-who!)

I don't want to make you feel guilty or anything, but I asked a question that was very difficult to ask, and very near and dear to my heart. It took me over two years to come to terms with certain things, and I finally asked it. Again, I don't want you to feel guilty, I just felt like I had to write to tell you that I was hoping for a more serious response, one without a bunch of silly "Dick Cheney" jokes.

In any case, I still have a great deal of respect for you and your intelligence. I guess I just felt the necessity to write this little bit, if anything, just out of respect for my brother's memory.

I look forward to continuing with all the RefDesk fun, and if we can finally figure out exactly where he lives, maybe one day we'll seek out Dirk and give him the wedgie he so badly deserves! :--)

Take it easy Stu. I'm probably just overreacting anyway. You seem like a really decent guy.

Lewis

Sorry Lewis, I tend to use humor to try to diffuse tense situations. Following that vicious personal attack by Philc (see above), I needed to either laugh or risk stooping to his level. I removed my joke. StuRat 02:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem Stu. Using humour to diffuse tense situations is actually an art my people have (for tragic reasons of course) developed a mastery of. Have you ever seen Life is Beautiful? Many Jews are utterly offended by it, considering it to be some sort of mockery of the hell that was the Holocaust. To me, the movie was a masterpiece. Its masterful juxtaposition of deep, deep sorrow with humour was simple genius. Far better than any shitty sacharine tear-jerker that Spielberg could ever produce.

In any case, I know that I have a bit of a problem myself with having a short fuse when it comes to certain things. I'm sure that I must seem like some sort of "frothing-at-the-mouth" paranoid Jew, completely blowing up at each and every of the tiniest hints of anti-Semitism. But I'm working on it, and I hope it's starting to show.

The reason I'm saying this is because, well, I recognize that Phil tends to let his temper get the better of him as I (hopefully used to) do. Yet I don't know if you remember, but I know you were participating in the discussion, but he once went on with a little rant about how "Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Tito" etc... Did some good things for their people. Naturally, both you and I pounced on the absurdity of it all, and later on, recognizing what he had said, he wrote me a special note on my userpage apologizing for what he said. It wasn't necessary, but he did it anyway. That's why I feel that deep down, while like me, he can be a bit of a hot-head at times, deep down he's a decent guy.

But who knows...maybe I'm wrong, maybe I just feel for the guy because I think I can relate to his senseless rants and often utterly gauche behaviour because that's how I see myself early on, when I started out at Wikipedia. But who knows. I could be completely wrong about all of it.

Of course I know you much better, and it's far less of a guessing game with you. I KNOW you're a decent guy, while, on the other hand, I'm only ASSUMING Phil is. And like I said at the RefDesk, I'm now feeling like I'm sticking my nose far into where it doesn't belong, so I'll quit while I'm ahead. After all, it's your business, and it's totally up to you how to deal with the whole thing.

Lewis

Thanks, but I'm not going to forgive Philc unless he actually asks for forgiveness, as he apparently did with you. StuRat 06:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't, I just apologised, and explained my position which had been misenterprated, much as I had with you, and Loomis being the good guy who I respect, saw that I meant no harm, despite what I had said, and that I was sorry, and was willing to forgive me, and that is why I have so much respect for him. But you simply restarted the quarrel on my I-page... shame really... Philc _T^E_C^I 21:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

And did you also call him a dick while "explaining your position", as you did with me ? I hardly consider suggesting that you should refrain from swearing at other Wikipedians, and treat people with respect, to be "starting a quarrel", unless you disagree that people should be treated with respect. And this was on your "Help me improve" page, which would seem to be the proper place for such a suggestion. StuRat 23:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok this really is getting a bit pathetic now, were not even remotely intrested in the original point anymore, would you agree to put the whole thing behind us, and just forget about it, as it really doesnt seem to have any place on wikipedia, and even an argument or this in real life would be pretty sad, so you reasy to just call it cool now... cause I know I am. Philc _T^E_C^I 23:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with calling it quits, but please don't swear at me or insult me in the future. StuRat 23:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm I hate it when people talk down to me, especially when were meant to be in an equal society, I dunno, maybe I'm just a bit of an anarchist at heart. Well I'll let it slide because thers nothin to be gained by being grumpy, so glad to have this behind us. See ya around buddy, most probably on the ref desk! hehe. Philc _T^E_C^I 00:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marking Ref Desk questions as answered -- unanswered

About the "answered question" thing, I can see why you especially would want a system like that, so let's just go out and try it for 1 week on one of the desks. Do you have any problems with a simple "- answered" tag on the question?

Also, I was thinking that it might work if the requirement is for questioners to tag their own questions when they feel they are properly dealt with. Of course not all questioners come back to check their answers, but if only 50% of them could get checked manually (by a person that can't be challenged), I think it could work all the more smoothly.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  04:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Judging by the number of questions which are unsigned, don't list the country where relevant, are obvious homework questions, etc., I doubt if many of the question askers will pay much attention to any request we make that they mark them as answered. The answered tag on the title works for me. I suggest we put it in uppercase in front of the rest. For example: "ANSWERED - How many seagulls can I fit down my pants ?". :-) StuRat 04:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Does it really matter if it's in front and in caps? Don't forget that you are possibly the most prolific RD user, the top three probably handling more than a quarter of the edits, and most users won't care for the extra load of information. I would like to have it too, but I think it makes sense to have something that is easy to see, but doesn't stand out so much when you're not looking for it.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  14:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I would think it would be much quicker to scan thru the TOC for "ANSWERED" if it's in uppercase, and either right or left justified. Since we can't right justify, we need to left justify, by putting it in front. StuRat 14:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

You're kind of losing me now. Unless you're planning on scanning the TOC in like 3 seconds I don't see how this all makes a difference. Anyways, I think I'll leave this alone for the meantime and focus on editing the RD. That and the fact that I haven't actually read any articles in a while!  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  15:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Old question about Japanese history books

I forgot to respond to your question about your facts:

Which of my facts are a little bit off ? The new situation is North Korea having nuclear weapons and soon being able to reach the US West Cost with them. Once this happens, US threats to respond (if North Korea attacks Japan) will no longer be credible. Thus, Japan needs to be fully self-sufficient militarily. However, this makes the rest of Asia quite uncomfortable until Japan atones for their sins during WW2 ("If they don't say they're sorry for WW2, does this mean they will do it all again ?"). StuRat 12:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to this comment: However, the US and other nations will be uncomfortable with this until there is evidence that Japan can face it's past and thus move beyond it., because it seems hypocritical for the US to be "uncomfortable" when they, in fact, are the ones encouraging Japan to rearm.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  06:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why. To use a metaphor, aren't many parents uncomfortable sending their kids out into the world, but still manage to do so, despite this discomfort ? StuRat 06:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are right on that point. When you say that the US is uncomfortable, though, it seems to imply to me that they are "officially uncomfortable". Rice was quite clear how pleased she was to have this opportunity to pat Koizumi on the head for being such an obedient little democrator, and I assume she knew that he would have a hard time convincing his cabinet to listen to the USians, which is why you wouldn't expect her (or anyone else on Bush's speed-dial) to give the Japanese any impression that they were worried. I'll admit that I don't know much about the US side, and you might be very right that a large portion of the US public would be worried on some level about the re-arming of Japanese forces, but if we're talking about public opinion then it could just as easily be said that most Hong Kongers and Shanghaiese are perfectly happy with Japan's recent conduct, at least the ones that have business in Japan, which is almost everybody.

By the way, did you know that your profile is exactly the same as my dad's?  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  14:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

You're making me feel old ! StuRat 14:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RD

How many desks do you think we need? --HappyCamper 17:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

At the moment, splitting up the 3 big ones (Humanities, Science, and Misc.) into maybe 4 or 5 each, should do nicely. That gives us around 15-20 total. As the Ref Desk grows in popularity, I would expect to have to break it up further, though. StuRat 18:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't look like a 15 desk RD will be approved, at least not now. I'm thinking of cutting down the list I have right now to about 9 (haven't figured out exactly how yet) and fixing a couple of minor things before proposing it again. I won't change the vertical layout of the list, which would allow for easy expansion in the future, but I'm not sure if RD users are ready for 15 desks yet.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  23:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, let me know if you want suggestions on how to break it up into 9 desks. StuRat 00:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UN Flame War

Hey Stu,

We seem to see eye-to-eye on certain issues, and I'm grateful to know you as as intelligent, articulate person who's able to relate to some of my views, to disagree with me in a civil manner when we disagree, and to back me up and offer further perspective when we agree.

I happen to have unwittingly been caught in this flame war with what I see as this pro-UN nutcase from the UK. At the outset I explicitly tried to may it clear that I'm only interested in friendly, civil debate, but despite my efforts, it just descended into a flame war.

I just don't know what to make of it. As I hope you know by now, if I'm wrong about something, I'm unhesitant about admitting it. Yet this situation is just plain nuts.

Therefore as a favour to me, if you have the time, and if you're interested, I'd be very grateful if you took a look at my talk page and gave me your impression of the whole thing. If you feel I'm wrong somewhere, please don't hesitate to point it out. Otherwise, I'd just be interested in your take on the whole thing.

Thanks Stu, and all the best,

Lewis

Sure, but that would be a whole lot easier if you would sign your post with 4 tildes to give me a link to your user page. StuRat 15:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Stu! I forgot this time. My bad.

Loomis 00:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cholesterol

Thanks for your help on WP:RD/S. I see in fact that your answers differ from those of another user, and you'll see from my followup comment that I've decided to take his advice. Please don't be offended by this, it's just that his background seems to be medical (dentistry) whereas yours seems to be computer programming. Your time and effort is still very much appreciated. Slarey 18:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Beware that "experts" don't always have the right answer, however, such as when the tobacco industry paid doctors to extoll all the health advantages of smoking to the public in the 1950's. In this case, however, his answer looks good to me. StuRat 15:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reference desk comments

Please don't riff on RD misspellings, like this. Adding a smiley to a comment that's fundamentally just pointing out a misspelling doesn't really make it any less rude. In fact, if you would delete this comment I'd appreciate it. I'm sure you're up on my conversation with Light Current about this sort of stuff. Please just cut it out. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say anything rude about the person (like that they were an idiot), so it doesn't violate the standard I personally use to avoid the blatant abuse of others. In fact, others also pointed out the spelling error, so I wasn't doing anything worse than them. BTW, I don't recognize you as a regular Ref Desk contributor, which, in my opinion, somewhat reduces your authority to criticize those of us who do. StuRat 19:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

There's a huge difference between a simple "did you mean ..." and making a joke (at the misspeller's expense) after the misspelling has already been pointed out. The former isn't rude at all. The latter is blatantly rude. And, BTW, this is not about individual authority but about Wikipedia's standards of civility, particularly WP:CIVIL. You and the other "regulars" at the RD have no more "authority" over it than anyone else. However, just so you know I am an admin, and if you feel it's necessary we can get all official about it. How about we start with a warning?

(template:Funnybut removed)

Now, please cut it out. And, assuming you're not going to, I'll delete your comment. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Rather than respond to the implied threats above, let me say that I am hopeful that, per the discussion on the Ref Desk talk page, you now seem more willing to allow the Ref Deskers to deal with their own issues, and avoid the type of unwarranted escalation that calling in other Admins will cause. To your credit, you have shown some ability to limit using your Adminship as an opportunity to bully others, I just wish that was true of all Admins, as there is nothing more dangerous than the abuse of authority. StuRat 15:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

If you see any instances of admins abusing authority (at the RD or anywhere else), please let me know. In particular, I would be very surprised if any RD regular would do anything that would actually justify being blocked. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. The last instance was when my article linen closet was deleted. I'm not complaining about the deletion, per se, but rather the process used. If I recall correctly, the Admin who wanted to delete it placed it in the area where deletions are discussed. So far, so good. What happened next disturbed me, though. That same Admin who wanted to delete it decided when the discussion should be closed (which allows them to time it so they can close it at a point when the majority favors their opinion). They then concluded that the consensus favored their opinion, when it did not. When challenged on this, they responded that those favoring my POV must be sockpuppets, with the inherent threat to block me. They were not sockpuppets, and I saw no evidence that they were. Nevertheless, I was powerless to defend myself from this Admin's actions. I felt any attempt to bring this up elsewhere would just get me blocked. I think several reforms are needed to prevent this type of abuse:

1) If an Admin refers something to the page where the deletion of an article is discussed, then they shouldn't participate in the discussion, as they might well be biased.

An admin closing a discussion is already not supposed to have been involved in the discussion (I can't find a reference to this guideline off hand, but I'll keep looking). Seems to me nominating an article makes you involved in the discussion (there's generally an implied delete vote). Assuming I find the "don't close discussions you're involved in" guideline, I'll update it to clarify that nominating an article means you're involved in the discussion (it may already say this). Looking at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Linen_closet, it doesn't look like that's what happened in this case (nominated by user:CarDepot, closed by user:Mysekurity).

OK, my mistake. But do you see what I mean, the majority votes to keep it, yet the Admin decides the consensus is to delete it. Also, can you find the deletion discussion review ? StuRat 02:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

2) The time when the discussion is closed should be fixed (say one week after it's opened).

It is supposed to be at least 5 days, plus a variable amount of time "in queue" after that. There are a large number of articles that pass through AfD, so the queue could be several days. In this case, it was closed 5 days + 9 hours after being nominated. Would it help if the "5 days" was easier to find?

Setting a minimum time isn't really sufficient, as an Admin who wants to delete an article can look at the discussion at 5 days, decide that the vote isn't going his way, so just leave it open until the discussion is going his way, then quickly close it before the weight of votes drifts back the other way. StuRat 02:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Any admin who picks a "convenient" time to close an AfD discussion shouldn't be an admin. This is a gross violation of process. Is this your understanding of what happened with Linen Closet? -- Rick Block (talk) 03:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

3) Instead of this vague "consensus" concept (where that is determined at the sole discretion of an Admin) a strict vote count should be used. As I'm an "inclusionist" (don't delete things unless you have a damn good reason), I think something like a 90% vote for deletion should be required.

The place to propose this would be Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy, but realistically I think there's effectively no chance that this will change (sorry).

That's very bad. The current policy, as I understand it, is that the Admin gets to decide what the consensus is, which essentially means he can ignore the votes and do whatever he wants. Not good at all, we need an objective standard, not a highly subjective one. StuRat 02:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

There's a fair amount of discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:Deletion guidelines for administrators. The standard is rough consensus. Anyone is free to use Wikipedia:Deletion review to get a decision reviewed (although, honestly, it's generally an uphill fight - the issue is there's almost always at least one person who thinks the decision went the wrong way and there's generally a presumption in favor of the admin). If you'd like to get the decision on Linen Closet reviewed, please do. There is no (alright, shouldn't be any) retribution.

4) To accuse somebody of using sockpuppets, an Admin must have some actual evidence, like that both the sockpuppet and user share a common I/P address.

I haven't found the discussion about the alleged sockpuppetry, but per WP:AGF if you simply said you're weren't sock puppeting the admin should have backed off (pending some sort of evidence). Blocking for use of sock puppets does require evidence, generally based on IP address usage (which is not perfect, but pretty close).

I wasn't actually blocked, just threatened, and all those "suspected sock puppets" voting in my favor were ignored to get the consesnsus to go the way the Admin wanted. That was bad enough, believe me. StuRat 02:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand. Do you care if I look at the history of this? I assume it was roughly a year ago. I don't think there's any way at this point to prove (or disprove) sockpuppetry, however IMO the admin should NOT have threatened you, and probably should not have dismissed the votes. I can't vouch for all admins any more than you can vouch for all RD regulars (probably less so, since there are at this point over a thousand admins), but a very large majority are very reasonable. Lots and lots of admins deal with utter assholes on a near constant basis, and are sometimes overly quick to jump to the conclusion that someone they don't know is an asshole, too. I'm sorry you got jumped on, and this helps me understand our interaction a little better as well. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

StuRat 16:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Would you like to pursue any of these further? -- Rick Block (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I've started a thread on #1 at Wikipedia talk:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Closing an AFD you're involved in. You're welcome to contribute (or not), completely your choice. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Temptation: would a doctor help?

Honestly Stu, there is such a rich vein of virgin untapped material building up that I get so tempted to put in just a little funny here and there and that its becoming almost unbearable. What is the best way to get over this craving for joking? See a doctor? 8-))--Light current 11:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I mean there was a real 'gift' just recently and I had to back off so hard it hurt. I'll let you guess which one that was. You may or may not appreciate my toned down reply to it. (No I think you will actually) 8-)--Light current 11:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Why not list it here ? You know I always appreciate a good joke. StuRat 12:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Its not so much a joke but slightly reminscent of the tapeworm saga (well it involves a similar part of the anatomy). As I say its a recent edit, not too hard to find, written by me etc. I could hardly stop lol. But perhaps Im over due for my medicine 8-)--Light current 12:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok its here [9]. Now if thats not potentailly very funny, I must go see my shrink soon!--Light current 13:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I see some potential there, like "If your bottom is dirty, try to wipe it clean". StuRat 13:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Or "Confucius say: Smoking pot with chili lead to stain on bottom." StuRat 13:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank god Im still sane after all this time here 8-)--Light current 14:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I prefer to say: "Thank god I'm still INsane after all I've been through". StuRat 14:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Well of course in the old days here when we used to lock mentally ill people away, one of the sayings was:

There are more out than in you know!

Now of course we're all out! HAHAAA HAAAAA! THeyll never get me!--Light current 14:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User Account Drama Cont'd

Just to continue on from the Computer reference desk, where would i be able to find the system files? Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 14:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with where Windows XP keeps it's systems files, but, in Windows 98 they are mostly in the root directory ("\") or in "\Windows\System" on the boot drive (usually "C:"). To find them on your system, try creating a new user profile with a unique name, then doing a find for all files containing that text. To be sure you get all the system files, though, it's probably a good idea to back up the entire boot disk. StuRat 14:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

K thanks, if i can correct the problem i'll let you know. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 16:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What would you say

What would you say if it turns out there are no guidelines or policies on jokes or humour on WP 8-))--Light current 21:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure we need any. The same rules apply to jokes as well as anything else, don't be rude, etc. StuRat 21:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I know we dont. But most critisicm against me has been on the basis that there are guidelines on jokes. Hence the (worthless) templates. Get it?--Light current 22:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Watch that space (talk:Ref desk) closely in the next day or 2!--Light current 00:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From Phil

Thank you for your comments. I'm somewhat at a loss to how to respond correctly, as this did come out of the blue a bit. However, I thought it would be polite to let you know I recieved them, and that I appreciate it. Philc _T^E_C^I 21:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. StuRat 21:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saddam Hussein

Stu do you think this discussion on RD should be moved to talk:Saddam Hussein? i think its clogging up the RD anmd is clearly against the rules about extended discussions. I moved it one but was reverted. Can you help? 8-)--Light current 23:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

As long as the actual question was answered, I don't mind leaving it where it is. And, as had been noted, the Saddam Hussein talk page is supposed to be to talk about changes to the Saddam Hussein page, not a chat room about him. StuRat 23:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok well chat has now been deleted by another user. So no more problem! 8-)--Light current 02:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Stu Im sure you know about it but THIS [10] is where we will get the '4 minute warning' of blocking action. I ve been here before! 8-((--Light current 04:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship

Its now started again. This time its User:pschemp (admin) removing my legitimate replies to you on how to deal with skid marks. Any suggestions/thoughts?--Light current 03:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

While gross, it seems serious nonetheless. These "tremors" you mention that leave you with "skid marks" sound like a medical problem to me. StuRat 03:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I was of course referring to flatulence and or diarrhea by humorous use of the word 'tremors'--Light current 04:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

No Im talking about imminent blocking of me (possibly you as well knowing this admin). Please treat this seriously and think of a defence strategy. 8-((--Light current 03:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I asked him what his complaint is at Ref Desk:Talk. StuRat 04:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

THanks I saw it. Its a her actually! We've crossed swords before (I lost) That why I think she's picking on me again ATM 8-(--Light current 04:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

We (well me really) are now being discussed by pschemp on WP:AN/I 8-((--Light current 05:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from posting rude comments about adminstrators (espcially those who block frequently :-)). I really suggest that you e-mail each other, exchaing AIM screen names, or find an external message board to solve this dispute abou "skid marks". Cbrown1023 00:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Its NOT a dispute!! Merely an exchange of views!! And why particularly do you think the subject of 'skid marks' is outside the remit of the WP RDs? Is it becuase you are offended by the term?--Light current 00:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there are very few terms in the whole English language that offend me. So to answer your question, no. But I do suggest that you find an external way to talk about this so that no one gives you crap. Cbrown1023 21:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Which rude comments are you referring to? And why should high blockers be immune from comment?--Light current 08:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

That's right, talking about it here could allow certain anal people to smear your reputation, leaving a permanent stain on your name. :-) StuRat 00:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah there certainly are a lot of shitty assholes around WP (No names:no pack drill) 8-)--Light current 00:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI, shitty assholes is a rude comment. Cbrown1023 21:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It wasnt addressed to you or anyone, Cbrown So it is actually none of your concern. Hava nice day!--Light current 21:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I was actually referring to your question of what rude comments I am referring to. After you stated that you posted a rude comment and I was pointing it out to you. I can read, I noticed your statement of "no names" but it is still rude. Cbrown1023 21:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to pinch off this convo, before something nasty comes out. StuRat 21:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah delete it all Stu. We should NOT be using your page for this converstaion. Aploogies! 8-)--Light current 21:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why is your name Stu?

I am not trying to get into your private life but I just wanted to know if your name is Stuart.

Yep, you got it ! StuRat 17:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

My parents once received a letter from my school saying "We would like to congratulate your daughter Sturat on her excellent academic performance". I thought it was so funny that I continue to use it as a screen name to this day. StuRat 17:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Can I email you? Will you reply me? Kushal one 20:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

E-mail, no, but you can post here and I will respond. StuRat 03:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RefDesk Trolling

Hello StuRat.

I noticed your "I'm going to start removing all these trolling "foolish culture of the west" "questions" today. I think you're right, that particular question appeared to be trolling couched in the form of a question. The reference desk is the part of WP most open to trolling like this, because of its discussion based format. Is there anything that can be done about it? If we change or delete peoples questions wouldn't this be censorship? --Amists 11:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and there have been a series of questions like this, maybe one a week, that all contain something quite similar to that phrase. StuRat 17:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

They are all from one user, kjvenus (talk · contribs), formerly Kartikv47 (talk · contribs).  --Lambiam^Talk 07:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the limits of pattern recognition, and posting homework to RefDesk

Hello StuRat, I recently got my submission to the RefDesk flagged with "Do your own homework." Now looking back at the question posed, it does look like a good candidate for being a homework question: it is explained in detail with supporting information, and the answer is non-trivial and would likely edify its student. But it is emphatically NOT homework. I started from ZERO in framing this question to the end of making a real-life application of its solution. They say that great questions are harder to discover than great answers, and while the question isn't particularly profound in that sense, it nonetheless took me a lot of hours of thinking and study and library trips and internet searches to get where I've gotten so far...and even to find the Reference Desk of the Wikipedia was not something that came easily, I've been to Google's Answers and Yahoo! Answers and still haven't found the answer to my question. I did recently get a tip from a friend about using a certain technique, but I don't know if it's the only one or the best or if it will even work (and neither does he), so my search continues...all in all, thanks for listening to my rant about the "limits of pattern recognition" as my question may quack like a duck but it's not a duck (NOT homework, NOT offloading all the work on someone else either)--it's my honest-to-Pete question! --Peter Kirby 05:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Why not list the method your friend suggested, and ask us if that's a valid approach to take ? That's the type of question that gets answered. StuRat 06:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I've now done so. --Peter Kirby 07:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ref desk joke that goes too far

Hi StuRat. I think your comment here is the sort of joke that it would be better not to make on the reference desk. It doesn't really help answer the question, and I believe it would be offensive to many Catholics. Can you consider removing it, or at least be more careful with your jokes in the future? Thanks. -- SCZenz 22:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not a joke, but an observation on an absurd result of Catholicism, which is designed to be thought-provoking. StuRat 22:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Why are these types of discussions taking place on the Ref desk anyway? Futhermore, why are you not just removing them on site if they look stupid or possibly offensive (such as "skidmarks"). (This course of action is acceptable; the reason being the clause of it "not being a soapbox"). Cbrown1023 22:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

That type of behavior is likely to lead to edit wars. StuRat 22:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe User:Cbrown1023 didnt intend to link soapbox with skid marks, but he did. Was that intended as a joke in bad taste? That could be interpreted as a blockable action. 8-( Asking how to remove skidmarks from underwear is a perfectly legitimate question. --Light current 22:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It may be a legitimate question, but it is not acceptable for that page and (possibly) Wikipedia. Cbrown1023 22:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

So where do people go to ask about removing skid marks? BTW do you know the best way?--Light current 23:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

idk, I'd just throw them away and buy new ones. Cbrown1023 23:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Which is exactly where I came in!--Light current 00:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You may also want to start at the source, your but and see what's wrong with it or fix it....... lol... awkward! Cbrown1023 00:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

That is an offensive comment against me. Please remove it immediately! 8-((--Light current 00:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

lol... if that's really true than you can remove it; I was just saying that you should try to fix it. Cbrown1023 00:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we don't want to set a precedent where any question about something impolite or controversial is removed automatically. For example, there might be many kids who can't ask anybody else about certain topics but feel safe here, because it's anonymous. We should support that type of welcoming environment, not stifle it by being politically correct. StuRat 22:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

But it is not the job of the Ref desk to handle those questions. If you feel that those types of questions need to be answered some how, then please create a new help desk (maybe Wikipedia:Help! I have controrersial, impolite, un-polically correct, or other question that I am too embrassed to ask some where else about). Shouldn't all relative questions be able to be answered by the articles, considering they are supposed to be encyclopedia pages with answers to questions and information? Other wise, I doubt they belong there. Plus, if they have a question about girls or sex; what are their parents, teachers, guidance counselors, trusted adults, or principals for and why should we, people on the internet who they have never met and could be lying about who they say they are, answer for them. Seriously, what are we here to do? Write an encylopedia or answer little kids' questoins about sex or girls? Or just questions aboout removing "skid marks"? Cbrown1023 22:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It was suggested that, when we split up the Ref Desk further (after volume becomes unmanageable with the current system), we will add a Sex & Relationships Desk. You'd best steer clear, for fear of being offended. Perhaps you need to create a Politically Correct Questions Only Desk, where only proper questions on the proper use of fondue sets are asked by proper young ladies and gentlemen. StuRat 23:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a good proposal. But as I stated with Light current, very few things offend me, especially not sex. Cbrown1023 23:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

(Reply to StuRat's initial reply) If it was intended as a factual comment, there are three major problems. First, you need to cite actual studies rather than just giving your vague impressions, because I rather suspect what you said isn't true. Second, you phrased your comment as a generalization about Catholic girls, so that it was apparently a comment on what they are individually like, rather than as a statistical statement—young women who self-identify as Catholic have a variety of positions on both pre-marital sex and birth control. Third, your comment was off-topic and was a vehicle for presenting your personal views rather than facts; such a"thought-provoking" comment implying problems with the beliefs of a religion was neither requested nor necessary. -- SCZenz 23:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

No, sources are not required with every reply on the Ref Desk. If so, 90% of the questions would go unanswered. My comment was related to the previous response. Your comment here was not requested, so should I just delete it ? StuRat 23:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Your talk page is for talking to you about Wikipedia content; I am thus using it for an appropriate purpose. Your comment on the reference desk did not fit the purpose of the reference desk, which is to help answer questions factually. Using the reference desk as a platform to randomly give an opinion that is a) not backed up by facts, and b) likely to be insulting to users, is simply not acceptable. -- SCZenz 23:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I was merely pointing out that your standard that only "requested" comments are allowed is inherently absurd. StuRat 23:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

He may have phrased it incorrectly, but it is true. Comments that answer the question and nothing else (no insulting items) are supposed to be posted there. It is supposed to help new users (and others) and posting things like that might scare them off. Now, anything can be posted on a userpage but can also be removed by the user at any time as well (i.e. you could delete every single word on this page and WP:DENY). Cbrown1023 00:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The primary purpose of the reference desk is answering peoples' questions. If you made an off-topic remark with no other problems, nobody would think anything of it, of course, but your remark had other problems as well. You gave your opinion as fact, and deny any responsibility to justify it, and that hurts the purpose of the reference desk. I would like you to address my concerns a little more thoroughly and carefully, please. -- SCZenz 00:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It would help if you could list them out more clearly, but, I will try to do so for you:

1) Any question which may be taken to be offensive is banned. No, because somebody will be offended by just about anything, such as Turks being offended by any mention of the Armenian Genocide.

2) "You need to cite actual studies rather than just giving your vague impressions". I've addressed this: You are wrong, there is no prohibition on answers which lack a cited source.

3) "Statements should be formed such that they are scientifically rigorous, referring to statistics rather than individual cases" (paraphrased). While this might be a goal, it certainly isn't enforced. For example, on the Language Desk, we are talking about what a "biscuit" means in US English vs UK English. Nobody is capable of citing a study that says "95% of those in England, 90% of those in Scotland, and 85% of those in Ireland, refer to a 'biscuit' when they mean a sweetened desert pastry in the range of 10-50 grams." Instead, we get statements like "What we Brits call a biscuit, you Americans call a cookie." This answer is quite useful despite lacking a statistical analysis or cited references.

4) Replies cannot be off-topic. A certain amount of off-topic discussion is permitted, to foster a sense of community, and always will be. The requirement is more that it be somehow related. For example, in the question about using a hacksaw to cut up a couch, suggesting other methods for cutting up a couch is certainly close enough to be allowed, while talking about dog farts would not be.

5) Personal views are not allowed on the Ref Desk. Yes they are, and, in fact, they are often requested by the OP.

6) Only requested replies are allowed on the Ref Desk. (Wrong, see below.)

StuRat 00:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your my detailed reply; I'm glad this discussion can continue, because I think it is vital to the reference desk continuing to work. My responses to your comments:

1. I'm not talking about banning questions. I'm talking about which replies are unhelpful. Replies that are offensive to no purpose are bad; those which have a clear purpose, of course, are useful.
2. There may be no prohibition on giving your off-the-cuff impressions, but we are a reference desk that should be providing facts and not opinions. In particular, if you say something that's not at all obviously true, you should be prepared to back it up with a reference to a Wikipedia article or other source.
3. Yes, this is not rigorously enforced, but it is still good to do it and bad not to.
4. A certain amount of off-topic posting is ok, yes, but it becomes bad when it interferes with the functional answering of questions.
5. I don't know where you get the idea that personal views are a good for the reference desk. It is a reference desk, not an advice column, and it is certainly not a soap box! People should be asking factual questions, and receiving factual answers.
6. I don't care what has been done in the past. The purpose of the reference desk is to answer questions. Off-topic remarks are not a problem, as long as they don't interfere with the purpose of the reference desk.

The way out of this muck is to aknowledge that there are shades of grey, and not to rules lawyer. There are six points above, where I claim there is a preferable approach and a non-preferable approach. Missing some of the points is not a big deal; but your comment missed all of them. That's why I object to it. -- SCZenz 01:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't complain about "rules lawyering" when you had asked me to respond "more thoroughly":

1) I had a purpose, to let him know to be careful about birth control. Assuming that just because he is dating a church girl he doesn't need any will cause an unwanted baby or an abortion.

2) I could argue just the opposite: If you say that Catholic girls have a lower rate of premarital sex or an equal rate of birth control usage, then you need to back that up with proof.

3) Not in all cases, as in the one I gave.

4) My reply was quite short, and after several serious answers had been given, so not interfering with getting an answer in any way.

5) Opinion and fact are not as distinct as you think. In language, for example, what the majority of people think is right, is, by definition, correct. Language is nothing more than the summation of human opinions. Much on the Humanities Desk is similar, as are Computer Desk questions about which device is better, and many Misc Desk questions. Even "soft" sciences, like psychology, are mostly about opinion. Only the Math Desk should be relatively free of opinion. And even there, questions like "what math do you think I need to be an economist" are inherently opinion.

6) The past sets the precedent for the future, so you should care about it, especially as the Ref Desk has been functioning just fine (notice the large volume of questions and answers, many by me) without major interference. In short, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

My comment didn't miss all of them, as it was related to the topic, had a purpose, didn't interfere with getting a good answer, and I believe it to be factual (you dispute this, but I await your proof).StuRat 01:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It was not substantially related to the question, but rather a total tangent, unless you were seriously advising him to treat Catholic women according to your generalization. Its purpose was, apparently, to randomly discuss your viewpoint; this does not fit the purpose of the reference desk. It may not interfere (much) with a good answer, but it sure didn't help. Your belief that it's factual is immaterial; you can't just present your views (based on what??) and not be willing to justify them if requeste—the whole point of the reference desk is to help people find information, which means sources rather than just telling them the answers. I don't know what else I can say; I'm happy to explain things as much as you like, but in the end your remark just wasn't appropriate. -- SCZenz 03:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It is related to the question, and particularly related to the comment right before. I am advising him to be sure he ALWAYS has birth control, do you think this is bad advice ? It's not "random", but related to the question. (A random discussion of my viewpoint would have been to insert my preference for direct democracy over representative democracy.) It didn't interfere at all with getting a good answer. And, I'm sorry, but there is no standard that those posting responses must be willing to cite references, if asked. Besides which, I haven't been asked, except by you, and you're obviously not actually interested, at all, just trying to make things more difficult for me. As for it not being appropriate, that's up to the OP to decide, don't you think ? I haven't heard any complaint from them. I've responded to ALL of your concerns; you're just manufacturing a problem when then isn't one, and taking up valuable time I could have used to give more answers at the Ref Desk. StuRat 05:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The fact that it was "related to the comment right before" does not make it related to the question; it is rather indicative of the standard chattiness that has become common on the reference desk, and that several users have already expressed concern about. As for the comment being not offensive to me personally, you don't know that—as it happens, I took note of it because I have several friends whose values I respect (if not necessarily agree with) who would be seriously and personally offended... is that good enough to justify my interest in your eyes? (Not that I was required to justify it, but you should perhaps avoid assuming peoples' motivations in the future.) Your continued assertion that you don't have to provide any justification for your claimed statements of fact, when a reference desk by definition is a place that helps people find sources and information, totally defies common sense. We might as well drop this argument now, but you need to understand that community consensus (and my self-imposed obligation to keep Wikipedia running smoothly and serving its purpose) are in opposition to you making further remarks like this. I appreciate you responding to my concerns, but this continued behavior remains unnaceptable regardless of your personal views and (I believe) it won't be allowed by the community to stand; please consider this when making comments in the future. -- SCZenz 06:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

My comment was related both to the original question and to the comment directly before it. I don't know what else to say either, I carefully responded and disproved each of your points, and yet you persist. You admit that you were not personally offended, but are just guessing that somebody else might be. That's worse than hearsay, it's more of a "hereguess". You claim that nothing can be stated on the Ref Desk unless it has a source to back it up, despite a total lack of any such rule, written or unwritten. I see no community consensus, I only see you complaining (but please don't go get more Admins to come here and "agree" with you). As for your motivations, I suspect you heard there was a problem at the Ref Desk, so were determined to find one, even if you had to manufacture it. StuRat 08:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I gave you a compromise, I changed it by adding the word "sometimes", in case it wasn't already obvious that I didn't mean they always skip using birth control. StuRat 08:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

---

I was merely pointing out that your standard that only "requested" comments are allowed is inherently absurd. To show this, I randomly selected a question, and highlighted those answers which aren't precisely what the questioner asked about. However, the OP did get their answer, so I'm happy with the results. StuRat 23:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blowing up the moon (see above)

As I was watching Mr. Show last night, I had a thought. If we were to drop every nuclear bomb we have on the moon, what impact (if any) would it have for life on earth? --Wyckyd Sceptre 04:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The biggest repercussion is that we've have no more nukes on the planet! Besides, how can one drop a bomb on the moon? -- You have to fly it there first. Chris 00:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

We'd be subject to a really bad television show about it. Sorry, couldn't resist. 192.168.1.1 9:04, 6 November 2006 (PST)

What impact would it have on Earth? I can't imagine how it would affect Earth. (The title of this question is "blowing up the moon", but we can't possibly blow up the Moon. The asteroid that caused the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event delivered much more energy than the world's nuclear arsenal can possibly deliver, yet relatively little happened to the Earth.) --Bowlhover 05:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

My guess is that if the moon was knocked out of orbit, it would change the Earth's orbit, causing temperature changes. IIRC, the moon does cause the Earth to move in a wave-like motion while following the orbit around the sun. It would also affect tides, since tides are related to the moon. But I'm not sure we have enough nuclear bombs to change the orbit of the moon, so probably just a big crater. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 05:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

My guess is nothing as I suspect every nuclear weapon wouldn't have enough energy to budge it one bit. But just a guess. Remember the Tsunami that affected onle surface water and also earthquakes that are many thousands of nuclear weapons that don't substanitally impact earth except at a very superficial level. --Tbeatty 05:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

More drastically, blowing up the moon would cause an instability in the Earth's "wobble". Scary stuff. Check it out No moon!. --Cody.Pope 05:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

We're going to lose the moon anyway as it is moving away from the earth (over an inch a year I think) and will eventually not be our moon. --Tbeatty 06:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

As that won't happen until after the Sun goes nova, I suspect that it won't matter that much. B00P 07:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Fisrt, the Sun is expected to go red giant, not nova. Second, barring such events or an encounter with an intruding body, the change in the Moon's orbit will never cause it to "not be our moon". The change is caused by tidal friction and the fact that the Earth rotates faster than the Moon moves in its orbit. In the long run the Earth's angular momentum is being transferred to the Moon. This can only go on until the Earth's rotation slows enough so that it always keeps the same face turned towards the moon. Then the day and the lunar month will be the same length (about 40 of our days, I think it works out to). Of course the lengthening day will cause havoc in terms of weather and climate, but the Moon won't be going anywhere. --Anonymous, 00:02 UTC, November 8.

Won't the tidal forces imparted by the sun continue to force the moon away from the earth? --Tbeatty 04:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The only impact I could imagine is that the explosion would be visible from Earth, provided it was on the near side of the Moon and was during night at your location on Earth, and when the Moon is above the horizon. StuRat 06:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Assuming you're old enough, did you feel anything when any of the American or Russian nuclear tests were done? Not even the Tsar Bomba had any noticeable effect outside of the immediate area. Heck, the U.S. army used to blow up bombs near Las Vegas and nobody was disturbed. (Trivia: John Wayne supposedly died of cancer he contracted from filming The Conqueror in the area.) It would take vastly more than the entire nuclear stockpile to budge the Moon, much less blow it up. Clarityfiend 07:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay I know very little about the physics of explosions but would it be possible if you carefully organised the explosions? Rather then just dumping all our bombs on the surfaces and exploding them, I'm thinking of tunnelling perhaps to the core in multiple locations (of course, this is probably outside our current level of expertise). Maybe even designing the bombs in such a way to try and blow up the moon rather then flatten a very large area. Nil Einne 10:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

OT but looking at the John Wayne article, this might not have been the case. He had a 3 pack a day cigarette habit and contracted lung cancer. The radiation he may or may not have been exposed to may or may not have contributed to his cancer but I wouldn't exactly say he contracted the cancer due to the filming. Indeed given the complexity of cancer, I would be reluctant to ever say someone got cancer from something. More accurate to say it was a major contributing factor. In any case, he actually died from stomach cancer 15 years later when he was 72 (and smoking cigars instead of cigarettes) and the article doesn't explicitly say it was a reoccurance of the lung cancer... Nil Einne 11:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Further OT, but in regards to The Conqueror and cancer, our article mentions that 91 of the people involved with the film had contracted cancer by 1984, three times the number you'd expect in a group that size (220 people). Yeah, they smoked, but that's still a lot of people. Matt Deres 00:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

How much energy does the world's nuclear arsenal have? 60 000 megatons? Assuming that all of this energy is converted into kinetic energy, and that all of the kinetic energy goes toward pushing the Moon, the Moon's velocity will change by 8 cm/s. Not exactly enough to "blow up the moon". --Bowlhover 17:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Re

How about expending a few carefully-placed megatons to give 2004 vd17 a moon-impact trajectory? Repeat as often as necessary. In a few hundred years, Earthlings could destroy the moon. Its a real David and Goliath kind of scenario. Lowerarchy 04:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Just reread my own nonsense. Two hundred years isn't enough time to find sufficient movable mass in the near solar system. Are there any Deimos-sized objects floating about loose out there?Lowerarchy 04:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Total world megatonnage is probably a lot less than that. I ran some calculations awhile back and came up with around 2,500 MT for the entire US arsenal at the moment (you can see them at Image:U.S._stockpile_size_2006.svg). If we say that Russia's arsenal is probably comparable to that, and figure that the rest of the world probably doesn't make up more than 1,000 MT at most, we're talking about 6,000 MT max — an order of magnitude less than 60,000 MT. --Fastfission 03:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

CHRIST ALL MIGHTY PEOPLE, HAS ANY ONE THOUGHT ABOUT THE TIDES???

Destroying the Moon (or even just slightly modifying its orbit) needs a LOT more energy we currently have. You can find some "useful" data on this page [11], [12]. --V. Szabolcs 16:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biodegradable corrosion

Hi StuRat,

Thanks for your reply. But I want a more specific definition for the type of corrosion. I am a Lecturer and this question has been asked in the university exam. I have to give a solution to the students and am not getting any reference.

I know microbiological corrosion which is caused directly or indirectly by bacteria, algae, moulds or fungi, singly or in combination. Swati Bhise 03:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure you have the term right ? Doing Google searches, I've found the phrases "biodegradable corrosion inhibitor" and "biodegradable corrosion protector". In both cases, I take this to mean that the biological agent prevents corrosion. In short, there doesn't seem to be any mention of "biodegradable corrosion". There is "biological corrosion", of course, if that's what you mean. StuRat 04:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Not sure if it's all that famous"

I went ahead and edited Burst of Joy substantially since you may have last viewed it. I'm also copying over my response to you from the reference desk.

I've never seen that pic before, so I doubt if it's all that famous. StuRat 20:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Dude, it is all that famous, and I was unaware you were the authority on what was notable or not. ;) As far as fame is concerned, the Minnesota Historical Society recently featured said photo along with the Iwo Jima photograph, and Ruby shooting Oswald. [1] Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 03:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

If you have any questions for me regarding the "validity" of this article, by all means, go ahead and send me a message, because you're one of the very few people who questioned the notability of the picture. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 00:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Why didn't you include the other people's responses, some of which said it was familiar, and some of which said it was not ? StuRat 03:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Because I figured if you cared enough, you would go back and read it yourself. I just wanted you to see my response first and foremost. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 14:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On Vacation

I'll be back on Monday or Tuesday. Until then, I may or may not have a chance to check in from the road. StuRat 15:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Thanksgiving!

Template:AndonicO's version of Randfan's Happy Thanksgiving template

Thanks ! I'm thankful that turkeys don't jam stuffing up MY butt and cook ME for dinner. :-) StuRat 07:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, so am I. :-) Shouldn't Thanksgiving be renamed "Turkey massacre day"? AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 16:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC) ^{sorry, I didn't see you had responded here.}

[edit] SCZenz

I responded on my talk page and put a warning on on his talk page. DirkvdM 19:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reference Desk

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#The tone of the Reference Desk. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please read this

Please check out WP:VIE, WP:CON and WP:POL and realize that Wikipedia guidelines are created through discussion, not voting. This has nothing to do with vandalism, which is explained in WP:VAND. (Radiant) 10:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to read all that while you're busy vandalizing the Ref Desk Talk Page. If you have a specific section you want me to read, put it here. StuRat 10:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• And need I really point out the irony that you are deleting my comments, whereas I have not in fact deleted any of yours yet? (Radiant) 10:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• I tried to put yours back, but the way you delete ours at the same time you add yours and keep at it constantly makes it quite difficult. If you add your comments without deleting anybody else's comments I won't touch yours. StuRat 10:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Read WP:TPG. StuRat 10:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Before you start accusing people you should read the lead section of WP:VAND. Thank you for your time. (Radiant) 10:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

That says:

"Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia."

I consider deleting the comments of others to be a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. If we can't add comments to talk pages without having them deleted, then no discussions can take place, and no consesnsus can be reached. This will destroy the integrity of Wikipedia. StuRat 11:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Spot on. You see me suggesting a different way of doing things and carefully explaining why I believe this is so, and you conclude that this is a deliberate attempt to compromise the encyclopedia. I clearly state that I am encouraging further discussion and you mischaracterize that as an attempt to stifle discussion. This is why WP:FAITH is an important policy. (Radiant) 11:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Deleting the comments of others never "encourages further discussion". StuRat 11:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• • • That is another mischaracterization. Polls are known to stifle discussion, polarize the issue, and cause strife. Hence, changing a poll to a discussion does indeed encourage further discussion. (Radiant) 11:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• We had already discussed this before, in the sections noted in the intro to the poll. It was now time to see if there was enough interest to bother going any further. So far, it appears that there is, based on the 3 to 1 poll results. Of course, I'd like to see the opinions of others before actually making a change, as 3 people isn't exactly a consensus. Trying to read through pages of comments and side discussions to figure out what the consensus is would be damned near impossible, and everyone who tried would likely come to a different conclusion. A poll makes it simple to determine if there's a consensus. StuRat 12:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please reconsider your approach to the reference desk

You seem to be using the RD as a chat board. This is not helpful to the project- please don't do that. A typical example is your helping someone come up with ideas for a school play here- how is this encyclopedic in any way? If you want to chat, go find a forum. Friday (talk) 19:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

That was the answer that the question required. You might be interested in the proposed test "Strict Rules Ref Desk", where such things would not be allowed. You can even volunteer as an "enforcer" for that Desk, and go through and delete anything there you don't like. StuRat 02:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe IRC is what you're looking for? That's meant for chatting, whereas Wikipedia is meant as an encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

What is the purpose of the RDs in your opinion?--Light current 22:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

See WP:RD. It's meant to be like a library reference desk, where people help you find the information you're looking for in the encyclopedia. Somewhere along the line it lost its way and turned into a chat room for the kiddies. Friday (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm so library staff dont talk amongst themselves?--Light current 22:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The analogy only goes so far. I'm sure librarians talk in places that are appropriate for conversation- what I suspect they don't do is write notes to each other in the margins of the books. Friday (talk) 22:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Where is an analogous place then?--Light current 22:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Writing in the margins of books would be equivalent to writing on an article page, not at all the same as talking at the Ref Desk. If you went up to a reference librarian and asked them a question, say, what the saltiest lake in the world is, one might say "I think it's Great Salt Lake, Utah", then another might say "No, I think it's the Dead Sea", then they would look them both up to see which was right. This is exactly what we should allow here. StuRat 06:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment formatting

Hi StuRat. Could you please consider creating your own section, rather than interleaving your comments with mine? I'm worried that what you're doing will make it unclear who said what, especially if you reply to more points. Thanks, SCZenz 05:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Answering point by point, right after the point is made, is far easier to follow. Also, responding after your entire post would make it necessary to repeat large portions of your post in my answers, making the discussion much longer than needed. Please add signatures after each of your points, and/or put something like "Where we stand, according to SCZenz" in the title, to make it clear. StuRat 05:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This brings up a controversial subject: Talk page layout and protocol. 8-(--Light current 21:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Find out what users are admins

Not sure you'll notice, but I answered your question at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk about how to find out if a user is an admin. The answer is Special:Listusers is definitive. WP:LA is a manually maintained list. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. StuRat 06:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wheels

Just wondering if you could keep an eye on a do gooder reverting my inputs on Wheels on Science whoops Humanities (what a strange place) RD . Thanks!--Light current 22:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Please provide a link. StuRat 06:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HRT

Also someone deleting legit Q on HRT. Can you keep an eye out 8-) ?--Light current 22:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean HRD ? StuRat 06:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you kids go play someplace else? Friday (talk) 22:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:AGF. WP:NPA WP:CIVIL--Light current 23:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Friday, I'm amazed to find out you are an Admin, as you don't seem to know how to talk with people properly and don't seem to understand even the first concept of how the Ref Desk works (you talk like you're about 12). Your idea that anyone should feel free to delete anything they want for any reason shows this total ignorance. Please leave the Ref Desk discussion to more competent Users and Admins. StuRat 06:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess we have a difference of opinion. To me, playing games and chatting at the RD is the childlike behavior here. I think I usually know how to talk to people, but I'll admit my patience wears thin when dealing with people whose goals here don't line up with the project's goals. I don't believe I've ever suggesting that anyone should feel free to delete anything for any reason- this obviously would be in conflict with the wiki process determining content. Friday (talk) 15:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

That's right, you're the one who wants to delete the Ref Desk entirely. StuRat 16:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I asked the question once, I believe, of whether it should go away. You appear to be the one repeatedly bringing this up. My question was answered- yes, the RD is useful for some purposes. So now I'm trying to move forward in a useful way, by identifying and supporting the RD's useful goals, while removing the irrelevant timewasting aspects of it. If you wish to help with this task, that's great, I would appreciate it. If you wish to stand in the way, you may find we continue to disagree. Friday (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Since we know your real goal is to remove the Ref Desk entirely, I suspect that every suggestion you make is designed to sabotage it to achieve that goal. StuRat 17:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm so you think you are a good judge of 'the RD's useful goals, and the irrelevant timewasting aspects of it' Nice to be so confident! How do you differentiate exactly? 8-)--Light current 00:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Asking a question once has now convinced you of some evil ulterior motive on my part? I doubt you'll find that you can work well with me with such a bizarre attitude. I admit the "why don't you kids play somewhere else" was needless rude- I apologize. Can we move on now? If you want to discuss how to improve the project, we have some common ground. If you just want to flame me, you're in the wrong place. Friday (talk) 17:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, but before you make "suggestions" which are total changes in how the Ref Desk works, you should read through the rest of the Ref Desk Talk page, where many of the things you've discussed have already been discussed and rejected, like not allowing any jokes in Wikipedia. Having a constant stream of Admins come in, with little Ref Desk background, and wanting to change everything, is very annoying. I'm not looking forward to the next dozen Admins who come in doing the same thing, with me having to explain everything all over again. StuRat 17:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

What do admins have to do with anything? Do you really just mean "experienced editors who are familiar with the goals of the project"? I gotta admit- this last response only convinces me more of the need for significant change at the RDs. In every case I can remember, when someone complains that people keep coming by, talking about policy, and wanting to change things, the essential problem is that someone's been misusing Wikipedia. In such cases, the people wanting to use Wikipedia as something other than an encyclopedia are in the wrong. This is similar to someone using Wikipedia as a personal diary or phone book- they might complain that people keep coming along screwing up their contributions. The essential issue, in that case, would of course be that Wikipedia is not meant to be a personal diary, or a phone book. Just because something exists on Wikipedia is not an endorsement of it- it's possible that activities contrary to the goals of the project have been going on for a long time at the RD, but this doesn't make it OK. I don't care so much about humor- humor is welcome here, on project or talk pages- but hopefully these are remarks relevant to the issue at hand and not just jokes for their own sake. No amount of "explaining" why you don't want a certain Wikipedia page to be in line with Wikipedia goals and policies will help. A consensus cannot override such core issues. Friday (talk) 18:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Right. You're yet another Admin who is going to ignore the carefully built consensus of all the Ref Desk regulars who have patiently worked out issues, instead planning to unilaterally decide what's best for the Ref Desk and what's best for Wikipedia. The many people who man the Ref Desk couldn't possible have valid insights, only an outsider who has never actually worked on the Ref Desk knows how to make it work properly. What exactly is the point in us having a talk page where we work out issues, if outsider Admins are going to come in and destroy everything we've worked to build ? If the problem is that you don't respect the opinions of anybody except other Admins, try talking with user:Rockpocket. He, at least, is a Ref Desk contributor, as well as an Admin, so has some basis for his opinions of the Ref Desk. StuRat 18:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I've missed something, but what's getting destroyed here? People are allowed to have different opinions on what is or isn't appropriate. I don't think we should be doing original research for RD but I see little value to me attempting to enforce this opinion. Blatant junk, on the other hand, I may try to do something about. It sounds to me like you're trying to own your edits a bit too much- this isn't a good way to look at things, with this being a wiki and all. It may well be that the RD people are mostly a different set of people from the encyclopedia editors, and perhaps there's a different culture and a different set of expectations. But, like it or not, the RD is part of the project. FWIW, I have taken a few stabs at answering RD questions lately in an effort to help out (and understand the RD better). I've been accused of having an anti-admin bias before, but I think this is the first time it's been suggested I have a pro-admin bias. Such a bias would be harmful and I'll endeavor to make sure this isn't the case. Friday (talk) 18:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, maybe I've misjudged you based on your "Why don't you kids go play someplace else?" comment and suggestion to delete the entire Ref Desk. After that, when seeing your "let's assume anyone posting a RD question wants a useful answer", I assumed the worst, that you wanted to eliminate all humor, side comments, answers lacking references, etc. (in short, destroying the sense of community we've built here). Perhaps I'm wrong, and you just didn't read or understand the meaning of the "strict template". But you should be more careful when joining a discussion on a project which you are not familiar with, rather than just charging in "like a bull in a china shop". Think of it from our POV, if you had worked for months or years on a project, then I came in and suggested deleting the project, then told you to get lost, how would you feel about me ? StuRat 18:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

To the extent that the RD functions like a chat forum, this needs to change. If this means irritating a community of non-editors who enjoy using Wikipedia as a chat forum, I won't mourn their loss. The encyclopedia is our goal here, and editors who aren't doing work relevant to that goal belong at another project. I'm really struggling to understand where you're coming from here- if "let's assume anyone posting a RD question wants a useful answer" causes you to assume the worst, I can only only conclude that your goals here are vastly different from my own. If someone asks for information, my first assumption will be that they want the information they asked for. Why on earth would suggesting that answers be informative cause you to assume some nefarious goals on my part? Friday (talk) 20:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, you said that in response to the suggestion that we provide a template for those who ONLY want a serious answer, without jokes, opinions, side remarks, etc. Therefore, in that context, it means "we don't have to ask users if they want a serious answer only, and don't want any jokes, opinions, side remarks, etc., because we can assume that is what all users want...thus we should ban all jokes, opinions, and side remarks outright". If that's not what you meant, then what did you mean ? Perhaps you weren't following the discussion about the template ? StuRat 20:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

If you see me removing a joke, then it's a good assumption that I think jokes should sometimes be removed. Until that day, why make assumptions? Sorry if I was unclear (we could all benefit from improved communication skills) but I think it would help if you assumed I meant only what I said. I make enough mistakes in what I say as it is- I'd hate to have to spend time clearing up misconceptions about stuff someone thought I might someday say. Friday (talk) 20:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, apparently your comment was just unrelated to the section topic. StuRat 20:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] E-mail

Email Should be open now. --Light current 16:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yours, or StuRat's? | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 16:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Both. StuRat 16:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but I don't understand what that has to do with the previous discussion, the one about your genius and absolute brilliance. ;-) | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 17:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Quite right, it needs a new section, which I've just added. StuRat 17:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Old list discusion

• Now I am sad because I doubt that there are many editors active on the RD who are as ready and willing as I am to stand up against "heavy-handed Ref Desk removals and blocks". I mean, were you watching this exchange? Are you mad at me because we differ on the purpose of the RD? Or are you mad at me for just being too pushy? Sorry, but that is who I am, for good and bad both. --Justanother 22:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not mad at you at all, I simply don't know where you stand. You are now taking positions that will tend to support heavy-handed deletions, such as removing my comments on the value of opinion on the Ref Desk, which will tend to support those who delete all opinions they see. StuRat 22:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• We are in a draft mode on the policies. Lots of time to get it right. Right now we were talking purpose. That is NOT the place to introduce the place of opinion and, in fact, I want to edit all that out of purpose. Where the question of opinion belongs is in directions to askers and answerers. Or in a section on how the RD works. Trying to push this in the purpose section muddies the purpose and turns people off as asking/giving opinions is NOT the purpose. Giving opinions can be part of the answer process. --Justanother 22:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• There are other vague things in the purpose statement like it being "encyclopedic", which seems to be a keyword to allow anyone to delete anything they dislike and say "that's not encyclopedic". If such things are going to be in there, then we also need to get the other side in, that inclusion of jokes, opinion, original research, etc. is allowed, even if they call it "non-encyclopedic". StuRat 22:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Well Stu, you might as well go ahead and put me here too as I would rather be here than "neutral or unknown" as I am neither of those. --Justanother 15:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• As you wish. StuRat 15:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please put down the torches and pitchforks

what about the white pointy hats with the eyeholes? Cant we keep those on? --Light current 18:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I've lifted the block of Light current and paroled him, for reasons described here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Light_current (diff).

Friday has agreed to this approach, and I think is being quite reasonable.

For your part, I would ask that you refrain from making further attacks on his integrity and judgement [13]. While Friday (apparently) disagrees with both you and me about the utility of the Ref Desk, that doesn't disqualify him from commenting on its activities. Nor does it bar him from acting in what he believes are Wikipedia's best interests—as in cases where editors may be detracting from the Ref Desk's functioning by telling off-colour jokes or engaging in newbie-biting.

I'm a bit concerned at the section on your talk page right above this one, and I hope that you're not trying to create an advocacy group to harrass admins (or other editors) who are trying to do their best to do a fairly thankless job. I hope that you (and everyone else involved here) will attempt to adhere to the highest standards of civility and courtesy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I was concerned because there appears to be a steady influx of progressively more unreasonable Admins into the Ref Desk. The first, User:Rick Block, was somewhat reasonable, the next, User:SCZenz, was a bit less reasonable, but at least pretended to discuss things. Now, we have User:Friday, who, rather than discussing things civilly, seems to resort to insults, suggests removing the Ref Desk entirely, and then imposes a lengthy block on a user for the most minor of offenses. Thus, I feel the need to keep track of those Editors and Admins (yourself included), who are at least willing to discuss things rationally. Rather than being an advocacy group to harass Admins, this is an advocacy group to prevent Admins, like Friday, from harassing Editors. I still feel that User:Friday should move on to "policing" other areas, as his presence at the Ref Desk causes disruption, rather then eliminating it. StuRat 16:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

(added after edit conflict with above, though I think my remarks definitely apply) ...That's what I get for not reading closely, I guess. I am surprised to notice that you added me to your 'posse' up above. I'm afraid that I'm in favour of removing comments from the Ref Desk that are very off-topic or off-colour; I'm also in favour of blocking editors who repeatedly reject advice to remedy that type of behaviour. Call me heavy-handed if you will—it's up to you. Frankly, I think that 'heavy-handed' is an unnecessarily loaded term that poorly reflects what is most likely a continuum of opinions, and that your choice of terminology is more likely to divide and polarize opinion rather than result in a productive dialog and resolution of the problems we've been seeing. I do hope that you will reconsider your approach.

As an aside, I will also note that Friday has reevaluated his position on the utility of the Ref Desk and has stated his intention to start helping out answering questions there. I think that the two of you have gotten off to an unnecessarily rough start and I hope that you two can set your differences aside. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The word "heavy-handed" is there intentionally. I do not object to all Ref Desk removals and even blocks, but believe they should be used rarely, and only after the proper courtesies are followed: [14]. Since I believe you also oppose heavy-handed Ref Desk removals and blocks, I included you in the list. StuRat 16:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

May I ask... Do you really think it's better, if I think something needs to be removed no matter what, for me to request its removal first (and then delete it if the user doesn't agree)? Is it a courtesy or duplicity? That's an honest question, something I've been wondering about. -- SCZenz 17:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's duplicity. However, you are missing the deeper issue. The whole reason to discuss it with the user first is to have an honest conversation with them. We have had many examples where an excessively negative interpretation of something (usually the OP's question) turned out not to be the case at all, like the question taken to mean "which races are superior" when it was really asking "which races were considered to be superior according to 19th century thinking". Thus, you need to be open to an honest discussion. If you "talk" to someone, already having made up your mind to ignore everything they say, then that is indeed duplicity. StuRat 17:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You may be right that people shouldn't have their integrity questioned, but prohibiting us from questioning someone's judgment? If we believe someone is acting wrongly, what is wrong with questioning that, and stating that we disagree with it? That does not constitute a "personal attack." And a ";;;;;block" should be used against clear violations of policy, not just someone who an admin is tired of arguing with. Tragic romance 16:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, with the provision that questioning someone's judgment should not take place on the Ref Desk directly, but on talk pages, instead. New users don't need to be exposed to that type of hostility. The problem on the blocks is that nearly everyone has committed a "clear violation of policy" sometime. But, if Admins take sides in a debate and then use their Admin powers to only block (or take other actions against) those on the opposite side of the debate who violate policy, while ignoring the violations of those on their side of the debate, this is a very bad situation, indeed. StuRat 17:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Howdy

(This is in response to your AN/I post but it seems more on-topic to reply here.) I just wanted to let you know something- I'm very, very against treating admins as a seperate class of people from editors. I've probably said this many many times in various places, but of course I can't expect you to magically know this. I've gotten flak from other admins before for criticizing admin actions that I've disagreed with. I'm often the guy that argues for leniency when people get blocked. I've written a few rambling essays on admin abuse and related topics. One that seems relevant is User:Friday/drama if you care to have a look.

I know that my "there is consensus among admins" probably gave the opposite impression, but the simple fact is they're the only ones with the technical ability to change the block. I like to try to drive home the idea that "we're all just editors", but this isn't always doable when dealing with software functions that not all editors have. I think we got off on the wrong foot and I'll admit this sure looks like it was my doing. I hope that my ill-tempered remark has not permanently convinced you that I'm a jerk, fool, or anti-reference desk crusader. TenOfAllTrades has jumped in to help out with Light current, and I think this is for the best. Anyway, this may all seem like disingenuous bullshit to you, but I really hope it doesn't. Friday (talk) 16:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, but I don't understand how the Admins being the only ones with the technical ability to add or remove blocks matters when building a consensus to add or remove a block. If, as you claim, you respect the opinions of all Wikipedia editors equally, then I would expect you to say "Apparently, the total consensus of all users, including both Admins and Editors, is against this block, at least in it's current length. Therefore, since I respect the opinion of all Wikipedia contributors equally, I will now remove the block, and apologize for acting in this manner without having first obtained a consensus." StuRat 16:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I started soliciting input from others well before the block. The problem with blocking is, many people will say "He's my friend! the block is unfair!" with no other reasons. Many editors have a solid understanding of the goals and policies of the project. If people who I've seen around before and I feel have solid judgment are saying one thing, and people whose judgment I don't have confidence in are saying another thing, I give more weight to those I feel have better judgment. This has nothing to do with being an admin or not. I realize this sound elitist, but I think if you think it through you'll see that there's really no other way to go through life. If someone cried "Block him! He's a jerk!" I would give little weight to that opinion too. There world is full of reasonable and unreasonable statements, and there's no getting around the need for human judgment to tell which are which. Friday (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

That simply isn't a logical way to proceed. A person will naturally consider anyone who disagrees with them to have poor judgment. So, by saying you only respect the opinions of those "with good judgment", you are really saying you only respect the opinions of those who agree with you. StuRat 16:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

That's something we all need to watch out for, isn't it? But what's the alternative, agreeing with people who disagree with you? This would lead to an endless flip-flopping of opinion. FWIW, well-reasoned arguments sometimes do get me to change my mind. I've already changed my mind on the RD- my snap judgment about itwas in response to the worst parts of it. The solution is not to throw the baby out with the bathwater- the solution is to improve it, as people correctly pointed out. Anyway, I'll stop rambling. The point I apparently failed to make is: I'm sorry we got off on the wrong foot- I'm taking the blame for that one. I hope we can move on and work together in a useful way. Friday (talk) 17:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

We all need to watch out for it, yes, but, in the hands of Admins, assigning different significance to the opinions of different users can lead to far more serious consequences. Thus, Admins need to work even harder to be unbiased. And, if they can't be unbiased, then they should become a normal Editor again, and leave the Admin duties to those who can be unbiased. StuRat 17:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, the alternative isn't "agreeing with those who disagree with you" it's "respecting the opinions of those who disagree with you". StuRat 17:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

---

StuRat, I really don't think that you're being fair here. Friday seems to be reasonable guy willing to be swayed by reasonable discussion and reasoned argument. To take the most recent available example, I offer his rational, polite, and agreeable tone when I lifted the Light current block.

All of us in this discussion have been on Wikipedia long enough to get to know a lot of other editors, to see how they work, to see how they argue, to see how they behave. Through that experience, we are able to evaluate the judgement of other editors; if we are honest enough with ourselves, that evaluation will be based on factors beyond Joe Schmoe always agrees with me, so he must have good judgement. I think it's rather unfair – not to mention a bit insulting – to suggest that Friday only considers those who happen to agree with him on this particular issue to be people of good judgement. I hope that you're not trying to pick a fight with Friday, as you're both generally helpful, productive, reasonable people. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that User:Friday can be swayed by anyone on the Ref Desk who disagrees with him, and is not an Admin ? StuRat 17:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I give up. He's trying to be reasonable, I hope that you'll do the same. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

If he's trying to be reasonable, then why did he undo a permanent block on a deletionist sockpuppet troll, which just happens to support his position: [15] ? StuRat 18:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

By their fruits shall ye know them--Light current 09:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ref Desk

Hi. I don't intuitively understand SCZenz's wikilawyering and I really can't be bothered traipsing through the articles to get my head round it. IMO the Ref Desks have worked pretty darned well since I came here and if LC cools it a little, they'll be just about perfect. --Dweller 09:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I am cool man! 8-)--Light current 09:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that quoting pages of general Wikipedia policy is not constructive, as many don't apply to the Ref Desk, and there are policies that will allow you to do anything you want, like the infamous "ignore all the rules" page, for example. Instead, we need to build consensus, document that consensus in a specific Ref Desk Policy Page, and follow that. With any luck, our Ref Desk Policy Page will not be as confusing and contradictory as the general Wikipedia policy pages are. StuRat 09:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

They may appear contradictory because, at the end of the day, one just has to use common sense. For example, WP:IAR says to ignore rules (judiciously) if it's needed to improve the encyclopedia; intent and effect are both critical. -- SCZenz 17:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

And hence we come back to 'common' sense-- whatever that is. THe only commn sense were going to get here is that upon which we agree.--Light current 17:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that's how Wikipedia is run. You're gonna keep encountering people citing common sense, and there's nothing you'll be able to do about it. -- SCZenz 18:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and "common sense" is code for "I get to decide how to apply the rules, unilaterally, ignoring the consensus". StuRat 18:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Appreciation of constructive discussions

Hi StuRat. I appreciate your contributions to the ref desk talk page over the past few hours. In particular, it appears to me that conversations between the two of us have taken a turn for the constructive. I'm going to bed now, but I just wanted to let you know that I intend to do my best to keep them that way. -- SCZenz 09:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I hope you see that I am willing to abide by consensus, it's just one person telling me that I must do what they have personally decided that I object to. StuRat 09:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I know you won't agree that this is what I've done, but I'd like to note that my intention has never been to unilaterally impose my personal views. Rather I have been acting (and continue to try to act) according to my understanding of existing Wikipedia-wide policy and consensus. Good night! -- SCZenz 09:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I really see the two as synonymous. Since general Wikipedia policy is sufficiently vague that anyone can interpret it to mean anything they want, we all will tend to interpret it so that it corresponds with our personal views. Thus, any one person deciding which Wikipedia policies apply at the Ref Desk is the same as imposing their own rules. Have a good night, and be sure to dream of consensus-building solutions, LOL. StuRat 09:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem to have the experience with broad Wikipedia policy that I have. You may rest assured that, whether you agree with my views or not, they are based on my understanding of consensus from many past policy discussions and incidents. The rules are thus not "my own," even if they may seem that way to you. Now, that's only clarifying my intent, not saying I 100% promise I'm right. -- SCZenz 16:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

As you say, they are based on "your understanding". As we've discussed before, many of the Ref Desk volunteers also have broad Wikipedia experience, including myself, so we don't just accept that your interpretation is always right and ours is always wrong. And, when interpretations vary, that's when consensus should decide the issue. StuRat 16:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't have broad policy experience, frankly, and it shows. That's no criticism, but it is true, and it does mean that you tend to invent new solutions to problems for the reference desk rather than using those that are consistent with the rest of Wikipedia. Of course I have to use my judgement about what policy says—everyone does! I tend to be bold in the use of my judgement, because (outside the reference desk) my judgement is generally regarded as good. -- SCZenz 17:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

That's because those applications of Wikipedia policy to article pages is appropriate, while it's not appropriate at the Ref Desk. A different project requires a different application of policy, it's not "one size fits all". StuRat 17:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You're arguing about something that already has an accepted answer. The RD is in "project" space, not "article" space. Yes, standards are a bit different. Friday (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not arguing it, I'm saying that is why you two are incorrect in applying policies that are designed for articles, such as when you say "nobody owns an edit" so anyone can delete it if they feel it improves things. That's quite true of an article, but it's not at all true on the Ref Desk. A much higher standard must be met before deleting comments from a talk page, such as the Ref Desk. That is exactly the type of thing that apparently needs clarification for Admins, in the form of a Ref Desk Policy Page. StuRat 18:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Input

I am at work now but will leave my input this evening. Thanks for asking! --Justanother 13:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Work ??? Get your priorities straight, quit your job and get back to Wikipedia immediately ! :-) StuRat 13:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Man cannot live by Wikipedia alone (not until thay start paying us that is). Hey do you think we'll get royalties on the first printed or CD versions? --Light current 16:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yea, I have to go put in an appearance at work, myself. Why doesn't the boss understand that I have more important things to do ? :-) StuRat 17:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Cos hes not a nutcase Wikipedian like us 8-)--Light current 17:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy

I just wanted to remind you again of this. Once again, you seem to be wanting a very formal, everything-must-have-an-exact-rule approach, and then you want to vote on it. This is not how we do things here. We don't need to have rules against disruption at the reference desk or any other specific page- disruption is already disallowed, by policy, tradition, and common sense. Friday (talk) 15:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The need for rules and consensus should be quite obvious to everyone by now. This sounds very much like you want to go back to saying "some of the Wikipedia rules apply to the Ref Desk, and some don't, and I will be the one who decides which do and which don't, so no consensus is needed, just do as I say". Again, if you don't respect the consensus of other editors, might I point out that a number of Admins have said the same thing as I ? As for disruption, the questions of what constitutes disruption, and what constitutes disruption of a level sufficient to require action, and what that action should be taken, these are all issues to be decided by consensus, not by unilateral action. StuRat 15:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a number of policies already. If you want to nail down some specifics about the RD (it is different from most pages in some ways) that's great. Of course we all need to respect consensus. But "disruption" is a tricky one- there's a reason we don't have a page that exactly describes which exact actions are disruption. It's a judgment call. If nobody's ever been able to make such a description before, what on earth makes you think we can come up with one at the RD page? I just think if we focus on other areas, we may get a useful result. Trying to nail down a definition of disruption? That's not doable. Friday (talk) 15:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree, we can at least nail down the major categories of disruption. The concern here is that you, or somebody else, will just call anything they don't like "disruption" and ignore all the rules we are setting up for how to properly handle disputes. Incidentally, I also consider such actions to be disruptive. Your block of User:light current is a prime example, you took his behavior to be disruptive, while many people, including Admins, disagreed. Thus, we have proof that your unilateral judgment is not sufficient in these matters. For a quick definition, I would say something is disruptive if it prevents the Ref Desk from functioning. I have a hard time seeing how LC's comment did that. The block, on the other hand, certainly did prevent us from answering many questions, as everyone involved had to spend a great deal of time discussing the block to get it overturned, time that took away from the Ref Desk. And, of course, LC couldn't answer any Ref Desk questions during the block. Therefore, this block violated the goal of working to minimize disruption. StuRat 15:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Light current was very obviously trolling just before the block - see the discussion at AN/I. This is hardly in dispute. Friday (talk) 15:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I saw the AN/I, did you ? There most definitely was a dispute about whether he was trolling. StuRat 15:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I wasnt actually, I was busy apologising and removing 'offensive' comments and trying to save my skin (failed tho)--Light current 16:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's just disagree on that then. If you want to talk about disruption specifically, maybe WP:DIS is a good place to start. Unless there's something I'm missing, there's nothing special about the RD that suggests we need different standards of disruption there than anywhere else. Friday (talk) 16:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

That page strongly supports my case. First, it doesn't contain any actual way to determine what disruption is, meaning that the definition is left to be decided elsewhere (like on the Ref Desk Policy Page). They then warn that "...it is tempting every now and then to use the word to refer to certain acts that, while they should not have been committed, do not actually disrupt anything, either. Please try to avoid this." I believe this applies to your characterization of LC's actions. They certainly were no more severe than "small-scale vandalism": "For instance, one user gratuitously insulting another user, while inappropriate, is not disruptive. Neither is simple small-scale vandalism." They then follow up with an example quite similar to what happened with your block of LC: "Furthermore, don't cause actual disruption in an effort to fix a perceived disruption. An excellent example of this is the Great Userbox War of 2006; several users who claimed userboxes were disruptive, set about deleting and trying to stop further creation of such userboxes. The ensuing fight was orders of magnitude more disruptive than any supposed disruption for which the userbox opponents were able to provide evidence. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it is disruption. Disruption is a large-scale hindrance of Wikipedia's ability to function, whether technically, administratively, or socially. An insult, or even a string of insults targeted at several users, does not do this." They then finish up with: "Please note, however, that 'disruption' is often Wiki-code for 'something admins don't agree with', which also seems to be exactly what is happening here. StuRat 16:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed that last sentence. It was added recently by a user with only two edits, and was a throwaway line does not accurately reflect the intent of the essay or community consensus on Wikipedia; it simply didn't get fixed quickly. -- SCZenz 16:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It has stood since October 13th, so many people apparently agree with it, including me. StuRat 16:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It was reverted as vandalism, and then forgotten about and later restored. It's clear it's not a highly trafficked page. It was a cheap shot at admins by a disaffected user. I'd rather not argue this point further though; I don't think we need to take our disagreements onto random essay pages. -- SCZenz 16:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

We may agree with it Stu, but I still dont think it belongs on that page--Light current 17:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

As a side note, I firmly believe that administrators who use "disruption" as an excuse to remove things they simply don't like should be held accountable. (In fact, I've seen it happen.) Perhaps you guys believe this is what I have done, but all I can say is it's not what I meant to do—and I believe many other admins have reviewed my actions, with none censuring me for acting in bad faith... although two did tell me I shouldn't have blocked DirkvdM as I did. The point is, that remark shouldn't be in that essay not because admins are perfect, but because that page is a description of how things ought to be handled. -- SCZenz 17:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

They also list two other cases where things don't work as they should (somebody calling things disruption that aren't and a reaction to real or imagined disruption which causes more disruption than the original trigger). StuRat 17:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

As illustrations of what can be done better, not generalized cheap shots. -- SCZenz 17:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disruption

Regarding this, we've had this conversation before. I'd rather not repeat it, but if we must, please direct concerns about me specifically to my talk page, not a project page. Friday (talk) 00:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

No, because it has a direct bearing on whether we are willing to let you unilaterally decide what disruption is, which is precisely what we are discussing at the Ref Desk. Therefore, it is entirely relevant to that conversation. StuRat 00:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I assumed you were complaining about the Light current block. If your issue is relevant to the RD, you could make that more clear. Friday (talk) 00:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It is related. Your lack of judgment in that case, and others, is why we need to go to formal rules. If you and SCZenz actually only performed "out-of-process" deletions for things which were truly disruption, then nobody would have a problem with that. However, you both delete things which fall far short of being disruptive, then place blocks on users who disagree with you. This is simply not acceptable behavior. Since you don't seem to know what disruption is, we apparently need to define it for you. StuRat 00:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding what people call "out of process deletions", by the way. I've never blocked an editor for disagreeing with me- I endure all manner of insults quite regularly and disregard them. The Light current thing is over (or, I wish it was). It was discussed at AN/I. I'm fine with how my actions were viewed in that discussion, because many experienced editors who well understand how Wikipedia works agreed that the block was appropriate. Many people gave the same reasons I did for why his actions were disruptive. And yes, I see that many people disagreed also. I'm fine with discussing what I think should or shouldn't be done, and I'm fine with discussing whether or not something I did was a good idea. Hell, anyone who wasn't wouldn't function very well here. If you have something new and relevant to say, I'm all ears, but if you just want to flame me, that's not helpful. Friday (talk) 00:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

What I want is for you to stop trying to disrupt the process of building a consensus on RD rules and work with us to achieve them. Saying "we don't need any rules, I know what's best" (paraphrased, of course) is not helpful. StuRat 00:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Not sure if it's rhetoric or edits that you're unhappy with, or some of each. If it's rhetoric, let's just agree to disagree, alright? If it's specific actions, object to them as they come up in the approrpiate place and we'll discuss them. Have I done something since the block that you're objecting to? Friday (talk) 00:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you did an "out-of-process" deletion of the question by User:Kjvenus. While the deletion itself may have been acceptable, had you followed the proper process, having you decide the issue unilaterally is not acceptable. StuRat 00:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If you're objecting to process but not outcome, I'm afraid I'll rarely be sympathetic. There's a general tradition here regarding product and process. Friday (talk) 01:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Humourlessness

I'm glad you're in conversation with the happy guy, as well. Of course, I'm much more 'useless' than you... --Zeizmic 14:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean User:HappyCamper ? StuRat 15:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please

Again, please: if you're just picking on me, do it on my talk page. We need to struggle to stay on-topic at the RD talk page. Friday (talk) 23:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I merely meant to say that you are bound to be more proficient at apologizing, since you need to do it so often. :-) StuRat 23:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I wish you would heed the advice of the editors who've asked you to put our personal conflict behind you. Friday (talk) 23:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Just having a bit of fun. StuRat 23:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm asking you again to please keep the flamebait on my user talk page rather than on project talk pages. Actually, stopping with the flamebait altogether is even better. Friday (talk) 19:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not flame bait, it's the truth, you seem to be intentionally lying about what the template says to try to get it removed. It does NOT say "You must add this template to get a useful answer", which is how you keep misrepresenting it. StuRat 20:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I was expressing my opinion about the impression the template gives. Reasonable people can disagree reasonably without it requiring one of them to be intentionally lying. Friday (talk) 20:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

You couldn't possibly think the template means what you claim: StuRat 20:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

If you would prefer a more formal response, put Template:Strict at the end of your question. Editors will try to include references in their responses to your question, and will refrain from posting responses not specifically applicable to your question.

[edit] Iraq

Man what a shitstorm I got myself into! Oh well, that's life, and it seems to me that even if they don't entirely agree with me, most of the folks involved are smart enough to realize what's what.

Anyway, with regards to Iraq, I hope you didn't take my comment the wrong way. To your credit, you tend to hold a very finely drawn position on many issues. Sometimes so fine that I can barely make it out. I was only surprised because if I remember correctly, you seem to hold a very cynical view of things like Halliburton and the like. I only assumed, therefore, that your cynicism would include a belief that the whole war was "all about Americans stealing oil from Iraq". I suppose I assumed wrong. Take care, Lewis Loomis 20:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I think it was about Bush getting revenge for Saddam trying to kill his father. There has been one positive effect of the war, though, huge numbers of terrorists that would have been launched against the West were instead sent to Iraq. StuRat 20:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I realize that it's the job of the President to put the country first, and not let personal feelings cloud his judgment, but between you and me, honestly, if you were President, and some prick tried to kill your dad, wouldn't you feel like having the guy whacked? I know I would. In any case, he certainly deserved to die. I'm not sure of the circumstances surrounding Ford's decision to issue a Presidential Directive outlawing political assassinations, but perhaps it should be reconsidered. I still believe that Saddam had to be dealt with, not just diplomatically, but physically. He was a madman and a danger to the region and the world and, I won't mince words...he had to be "eliminated".

I've come to realize that the whole "shock and awe" thing was unnecessary overkill, and, tragically, cost the lives of several thousand young Americans who did not deserve to have their lives cut so short. Still, I support Bush in the sense that he had the simple wisdom to realize that something had to be done, and quickly. Put a Democrat in the Oval Office and he'll just dawdle around overintellectualizing the whole thing until it's way too late.

I know I'll seem partial by saying this, but there's a better way: the Israeli way. A surgical strike here, a targetted assassination there, and you've basically accomplished the mission, with few if any casualties.

Just wait and see what happens sometime in the next 24 months regarding Iran and that insane midget of a President they have. Mark my words here. Of course the UN and the international community will put in some pathetic attempt to deal with the whole thing, and I wish them all the luck in the world. But you and I both know that the UN is clearly not up to the task. So what's the alternative? The legitimacy of US military action has basically been spent due to the whole Iraq thing. So, when the time finally comes, when faced with a nuclear armed Iran and no one else willing or able to do anything about it, the Israelis will have no choice but to take matters into their own hands. Israel's been underestimated time and again, yet they've always risen to the task. The Mossad knows precisely where each and every vital component of Iran's nuclear program is. And the IAF is more than capable of executing the necessary surgical strike. In fact I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that they're planning and training for it at this very moment. And don't worry about any sort of nuclear war breaking out in the region. The strike would obviously be timed to be executed before Iran finally has any capability to strike back. And the whole thing would involve so few human casualities. Virtually none for the Israelis, and, though even the death of a single human being is a tragedy, the casualties on the Iranian side would be rather minimal. Of course the UN would condemn Israel for its "deplorable and unnacceptable" breach of "international law", just as they did in '81 when they did basically the same thing in Osiraq. Incredibly, even the US voted FOR the condemnation. But as I've said before on another subject, that's life. What must be done must be done. Most of the leaders of the free world, though they may not be able to admit it publically, are intelligent enough to know what's what.

Of course I may be totally wrong, but that's my prediction. I just wanted to state it here so that if I'm right in my prediction, I'll have the proof to back it up! Loomis 06:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you may be right on an Israeli strike on Iran, and quite possibly with covert US help (like helping to develop "bunker buster" bombs for Iran's underground sites). I disagree on Iraq, however. Saddam, while an evil genocidal bastard, is a "moderate" by Muslim standards, in that he isn't a religious extremist. The leaders who eventually replace him are likely to be as bad or worse. More importantly, the Iraq war prevented us from dealing with more serious threats, like finishing the job in Afghanistan, killing bin Laden, and preventing North Korea and Iran from getting nuclear weapons. The cost in money, troop availability, and international clout has made the world far less safe. The old process of keeping Iraq "in the box" was working, although the "oil for food" program needed to be taken out of the hands of both Iraq and the corrupt UN officials. Perhaps it could have been run by NATO, with oil funds paying for food, meds, and reparations for the first Iraq war.

And, of course, if we were committed to invading Iraq and setting up a democratic government, we should have done it the right way. The total incompetence of Rumsfeld and the Bush admin in running this war is unforgivable. They have made nothing but mistakes, from failing to provide troops to prevent looting, firing the existing Iraqi army, the Abu Graib scandal, excessive reliance on contractors like Halliburton and Blackwater USA/KBR (the ones who sent the four men into Fallujah to be killed and dragged through the streets), their stance on "enemy combatants", and spying on phone calls in the US without getting warrants. I think the prisoners should be treated as POWs, which means they would be imprisoned until the war on terrorism is won, which will likely be never. StuRat 09:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

As for what to do in Iraq now, I'd partition the country (I've said this for quite some time now), move US troops to a few, very well protected bases, where they can engage in operations against al Queda and be called in when Iraqi troops are about to be overrun, but not engage in operations against insurgents or in normal patrols. At this point, Rumsfeld and Bush have allowed it to become a civil war, and we can't do anything about that, the "cat is out of the bag". StuRat 09:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

You make some very good points. One thing I've never understood is why it's considered so unthinkable for Iraq to be divided up into more homogeneous states. A Shiitistan in the south, a Sunnistan in the middle, and a Kurdistan in the north (of course Turkey would be really pissed off with that one, but then again, just as they've managed to live with an independent Armenia, they'll have to learn to live with an independent Kurdistan).

I still don't agree though that the Iraq war in any way "overstretched" the US military. Especially when it comes to killing bin Laden. I really don't know why he hasn't been found yet, but I certainly don't buy the argument that the 150-200k troops diverted to Iraq made any difference. The kind of operation required to hunt down and kill the guy isn't one that requires hundreds of thousands of troops. Rather, it's all about the gathering sufficient intelligence and the training of relatively small elite commando units. Bin Laden, if and when he's (hopefully, finally) killed, it won't be by a tomahawk missile, but rather from the bullet of an Uzi or an AK-47.

Anyway, we can go on and on about this, and of course we'll have plenty of little disagreements about the tactics of how this and that should have been gone about, but I think it's fair to say that we're of the same mind when it comes to our overall view. Loomis 02:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

When bin Laden was trapped in Tora Bora, we could have captured or killed him had we put enough troops between him and the Pakistan border to prevent his escape. Instead, we left the border unguarded, and he slipped away. The reason for this is that we were starting to redeploy our troops to Iraq and no longer had sufficient manpower in Afghanistan to do what needed to be done. StuRat 09:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

From our Tora Bora article:

Former CIA officer Gary Berntsen, who led the CIA team in Afghanistan that was tasked with locating Osama bin Laden, claims in his 2005 book Jawbreaker that he and his team had pinpointed the location of Osama bin Laden. Also according to Berntsen, a number of al-Qaeda detainees later confirmed that bin Laden had escaped Tora Bora into Pakistan via an easternly route through snow covered mountains in the area of Parachinar, Pakistan. He also claims that bin Laden could have been captured if United States Central Command had committed the troops that Berntsen had requested. Former CIA agent Gary Schroen concurs with this view.[16] Pentagon documents seem to confirm this account. StuRat 09:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discuss, don't vote

You may want to have a look at WP:DDV. I think you're confusing the majority votes you've been conducting with consensus. Friday (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Since you and a couple other Admins pretty much oppose anything we do on the Ref Desk, the majority is the best we can ever hope to get. And, I didn't see anyone argue against the template when it was implemented, so we did indeed have consensus, at that time. If you want to remove it, you need to get consensus to do so. StuRat 20:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

When have I ever told you I was an admin, and why does this matter? You seem to think there are admins throwing their weight around, but I don't see it. I'm hardly opposed to "anything" people do at the ref desk- there's a lot of good work going on there. I agree with some things on the talk page, and I disagree with other things- this is normal. I'm made quite an effort to explain to everyone, and specifically to you personally, where I'm coming from and why I think what I think. I realize I'm far from a perfect communicator, but I'm doing my best. As to the point above (which really belongs on WT:RD) there's active disagreement over this going on at the talk page right now- this means we don't have a good consensus. Friday (talk) 21:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

You've had that item there for 2.5 hours, and now, just because you and one other Admin want it removed, you want to ignore the previous consensus, cut the conversation short and do as you please. This is unacceptable. StuRat 21:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I think you're disagreeing with me just because it's me. I can only recommend you read Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Archive_15#POLL_-_start_a_new_.27strict.27_ref_desk_.28as_a_test.29_.3F. I'm bowing out- I've already tried my best to explain where I'm coming from. Friday (talk) 21:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Er, can't speak for everyone else, but the most recent thread on the Ref Desk talk page is the first that I even noticed that the {{strict}} template even existed. I can't be on Wikipedia all the time, after all. (It looks like the discussion mentioning it was inadvertently archived very soon after the template was announced.) I'm not trying to do some sort of end run around consensus, but I don't think that there really was a clear consensus established to begin with. Sometimes it's a good idea to let these proposals simmer for a bit longer before jumping in and adding them to a high traffic page.

I would appreciate it if you didn't cast this debate as some sort of holy war between the good and fun loving gnomes of the Ref Desk and the big evil admins who want to suck all joy out of helping others. For the record, I'm a big evil admin who happens to help out a fair bit on the Ref Desk (and I enjoy doing it), and I think you're doing yourself a disservice, StuRat, by drawing a line between yourself and the 'Admins'. Much obliged. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Please, note that it's considered bad form to send out personal invitations to a discussion only to people you believe agree with you. All the interested parties probably have the talk page watchlisted by now. If you're concerned that an issue isn't getting broad enough exposure, there are several places to request comment. Not only do you not have to worry about people feeling left out, you also don't risk giving the impression that you're trying to stack the discussion. Cheers, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed that, whenever an Admin wants his way, several other Admins who happen to agree with them show up, so this is my attempt to counter that tendency. StuRat 21:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Believe it or not, we don't have secret red telephones and clattering and telexes that ding whenever someone, somewhere on Wikipedia, happens to hold an opinion that differs from that of an admin. Jimbo doesn't shine a big W silhouette on the sky so that we can throw on our capes and defend the honour of the administrative brotherhood. Honest. 'Twould be a bit silly, wouldn't it?

I hope you don't think that as soon as someone gets an admin bit, they are magically transformed into some sort of callous dickhead, out to ruin everyone's fun. For what it's worth, I think you've made some good efforts trying to deal with the Ref Desk issues. I want you to enjoy contributing, and I've seen you be a very good contributor for a long time. In the case of the {{strict}} template I don't think it will work and I've provided my reasoning; it's nothing personal. I wish the assumption of bad faith would stop.

I've been participating in these discussions in good faith. I'm not interested in making them personal, as you and Friday are in danger of doing. I've been offering my honest opinions and doing my level best to ensure that the Ref Desk is friendly and useful. Please don't try to stack discussions or romanticise this into some sort of noble uprising against the bourgeoisie. All it does is poison the atmosphere, and it means that any 'consensus' that comes out of a manipulated process won't stand.

I don't believe that the two of us hold opinions that are as widely divergent as you think, and I hope you can stop treating me (and even Friday) as a hopelessly craven enemy, to be defeated at all costs. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I've seen posts on the Admin Noticeboard asking for "assistance on the Ref Desk", followed by an influx of deletionists Admins here. Also, we have requests from User:SCZenz for help from "like minded individuals", like this one: [17] . StuRat 22:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind if others have differing opinions, but trying to stop us from forming a consensus, by saying it's "illegal under Wikipedia rules" or such nonsense, or attempting to declare "no consensus" after 2.5 hours, as User:Friday does, I do object to. Another admin, User:Radiant!, just deleted a consensus vote entirely. Then there were those pair of deletionist sockpuppets, one of which was unblocked by User:Friday (and is known by User:SCZenz), then reblocked by another Admin. Do you see yet why I am getting a bit suspicious of certain Admins ? I would very much like to spend more time answering actual questions, but every time I leave the Ref Desk:Talk Page, Friday is up to some other mischief. I also feel I should be monitoring his edits on the Ref Desk, to see what else he is deleting and not telling us about. StuRat 22:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hemingway

OOPS... how do you do a blushing smiley? :P Maybe you could program something, lol. I'm just a poor high-school gradute exchange student who hasn't read hemingway, or program computers (although give me some time and decent photo editing program...), so i don't know who it could be... but you know what would be awesome? If it actually was Hemingway :P Crisco 1492 11:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL, yea, that would be quite a coincidence. StuRat 11:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Voting

Do you plan to continue calling for votes on things, then? If so, I have a couple questions: 1) are you aware of the established practice here at Wikipedia that we try to avoid votes? 2) Do you see a reason to generally follow established practice, or do you think it's better to generally go against established practice? 3) Have you read the explanations about why voting produces poorer results than a discussion? Do you agree or disagree that this is the case? 4) Do you think that other Wikipedians, looking at the voting that's going into your proposed policy page, will recognize the result as being legitimate? Friday (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

1) I've seen votes in many places, such as when an article is nominated for deletion.

2) Some established practices may apply to the Ref Desk, while any project can also come up with their own practices to supplement those general rules which aren't applicable to that project.

3) Voting is all that's left when you have one or more obstructionist individuals who will fight everything you do. Otherwise, that one individual or group could obstruct the will of the larger group.

4) Yes.

StuRat 18:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

1) could use some additional explanation. One of the duties of an admin is to close Afd discussions (not votes). In doing so, they are expected to consider the weight of the arguments with respect to Wikipedia's goal and policies, and not do simple nose-counting. If we used simple vote counting, there'd be no need for human judgment in interpreting the results, and we most definitely do depend on human judgment there. I can see why people looking at Afd get the impression that it's a vote- we see this all the time. No offense, but it's painfully apparent that you're not very familiar with many aspects of what we do here. So, would you consider being less rabid about doing things your own unique way? There are generally decent reasons for established practice. Friday (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

We've had many excellent arguments made for each of the points of view and come up with a consensus for each, after much compromise. This is the wiki process, no matter how many times you try to discredit it. StuRat 19:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enemies

Please, please please try to stop seeing those who disagree with you as enemies. These people who you keep saying are "obstructing everything you do" are trying to help you. Have you noticed the help you've gotten with Wikipedia:Reference desk/guideline, even from those who disagree that such a page is needed? Wikipedia is not a battleground. Friday (talk) 19:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

As I've said many times now, I have no problem with those who participate in the process to form a consensus, even if they disagree with me, and even if I must compromise (or surrender) on an issue of mine. I do, however, have a huge problem with those who try ever trick in the book to try to undermine those consensus discussions. StuRat 19:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

So, as long as votes are held, you're happy with abiding by majority rule? Friday (talk) 19:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a setup, are you planning on bringing in a dozen Admin ringers to tilt the vote ? StuRat 19:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I dislike voting because I think discussion works better. I was trying to understand what you would see as "consensus", because so far it appears that majority votes are the only thing you're willing to accept. Friday (talk) 19:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Not true, there are some items where there is no dispute, so there really isn't a need for a vote. For example, one editor suggested that any opinions should be clearly identified as such. I couldn't see how anyone could object to that, so agreed immediately. If, however, somebody does disagree, then we can call for a vote to gauge the consensus more formally. StuRat 20:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we may be at an intractable impasse here. I've no wish to belabor the point, despite having probably already done so. All I can say is, a majority vote that ignores the objections of others isn't what we call consensus here. I cannot recommend strongly enough that you read WP:CON. Friday (talk) 20:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've read it, and it says that a supermajority may be used to gauge whether a consensus has been achieved, especially when dealing with stubborn individuals who refuse to compromise. That's exactly what we've done here. StuRat 20:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to discuss any new objections, but just repeating the same objections which have already been discussed ad nauseam serves no purpose. StuRat 20:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC) StuRat 20:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please, don't make personal attacks.

Do you really think this is helpful at all? Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

If it convinces him to stop being delete-happy and block-happy, then yes, it is helpful. StuRat 17:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Attempting to harass other users will not end well. Please stop. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't harassment and he's not a user, he's an Admin. StuRat 17:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)StuRat 17:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Admins are nothing but users with buttons. Given that it's intended goal is to make friday do something, rather than do something to the reference desk, don't you think the right place for it us User Talk:friday? Given that I think it was a harassing personal attack, don't you think it's likely that other observers see it as such? I suggest you focus on the topic at hand - comment on the content, not the contributors. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It's difficult to make any progress on content while Friday (and a few other Admins) are actively working to block progress. StuRat 17:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I suspect they would say the same about you - the only difference is, they don't, so they get to look like they are working on a solution and you look like you are making personal attacks. Perhaps you should focus on getting to yes instead of beating the other guy. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

He does indeed engage in personal attacks, such as "Why don't you kids go play someplace else? Friday (talk) 22:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)" in the section "HRT" above. Then there are the constant statements that we are all ignorant and "don't understand how things work around here". And, of course, there could be nothing more insulting to a Ref Desk volunteer than the statement that the Ref Desk is worthless and should be deleted (he claimed to have retracted it, after stating it on the Ref Desk talk page, but we just don't believe him anymore after finding he repeated the same thing on his own page). StuRat 09:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I will generally have a high tolerance for such stuff- in fact I've invited StuRat specifically to flame me on my talk page if he must, rather than sprinkling it over other pages where it's not relevant, see User_talk:StuRat#Please. I'd rather have no flames at all, but I make a clear distinction between attacks and criticisms of someone's behavior. I will endure a certain amount of unpleasantness provided there's relevant criticism bundled with it as well. Friday (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not. Broken windows cause crime. See also Fixing Broken Windows. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No personal attacks, ever.

Your edit summary here, in addition to being wrong (Radient deleted the section, not I) was a personal attack. Unlike others you have dealt with, I will not allow this continue. Do not make another personal attack against me ever. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Merely moving your attack to Radient is not acceptable. Please review WP:VAND. If you are honestly accusing either of us of acting to damage the encyclopedia, my discussions with you are over. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

There are specific Wikipedia rules for what may, and what may not, be deleted. With the exception of article pages, where anyone can delete anything if they personally feel it's not needed in the article, deletions are meant to be rarely used on other pages, and only for severe problems like "disruption". Listing a set of deletion guidelines agreed to by the majority who discussed the issue, is in no way "disruption". Therefore, deletion of those rules, without consensus to do so, is a violation of Wikipedia policy, or "vandalism". My saying so is not a personal attack, it's a statement of fact. I am sorry, however, that I got your name confused with his, and fixed it as best as I can. StuRat 13:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. You will find that my ignoring your comments means not that I don't get to speak my piece, but rather that you don't get listened to. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You certainly are free to ignore my comments if you wish, as I am free to ignore yours. StuRat 13:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] StuRat

You do realize you're being set up to be blocked? -THB 13:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure you're right. I will be careful to avoid a WP:3RR violation. There are more of us who work by consensus than those who wish to change the guidelines without consensus, however, so, as long as we are careful, they should violate that policy before us or back off. I've also called for help from Admin Zoe, who seems impartial in this matter. StuRat 14:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Not just the 3RR but see sections above and below this one. -THB 14:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. They have now pulled in another person to do non-consensus edits of the guidelines page. Will you please revert this last one ? Be sure to keep it to just two reverts, though (although I think 3 just gets a warning, and 4 gets a block). StuRat 14:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

No, 3 can get you blocked. I'm not sure reverting anything is going to help at this point. It would only be re-reverted. -THB 14:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have a new strategy. I've created a new page at Wikipedia:Reference desk/rules where the consensus rules can be listed, and they can do all the non-consensus edits they want to the old location. If they do something to the new location, it makes it even more obvious what they are up to. StuRat 14:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the best strategy at this point is to edit at the RD as normal and if attacked as by SCZenz or Friday ask for Administrator involvement. You might also want to vote for or against Radiant for ArbCom. -THB 14:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Geez, he's seriously trying to become an arbitrator ? Sure, I'll vote, can you give me a link ? StuRat 14:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote -THB 14:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Note

Please familiarize yourself with WP:VAND before making more false accusations. Note that false accusations are incivil, and border on personal attacks. Note also that an ad hominem is a fallacy, not a valid argument. (Radiant) 13:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

Hey there. I just wanted to drop you a line to say that I admire your passion for the Ref Desk and share many of your opinions on the larger scale. (I'm also frequently impressed by your creative and helpful responses on the Desks). I'm also worried about you getting blocked... I think things are getting very heated. In the friendliest way, can I suggest a one or two day Wikibreak? I find they're brilliant for chilling. Either way, hope all works out OK. --Dweller 14:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I have a strategy for cooling things down. Read the "StuRat" section above for details. StuRat 14:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ditto what Dweller said. I just hope the Admins realize that any undue heavy-handedness on their part will have its repercussions. If someone as dedicated to wiki as Stu gets blocked, I'm outta here too. And I'm quite sure many of the RefDesk's best and brightest would follow, leaving a pretty pathetic and useless RefDesk. Think of it as a union. Any bullshit on the part of the Admins (like blocking Stu or any other dedicated contributor) and I go on strike until he's reinstated. Care to join up, Dweller? Wiki RefDesk editors of the world unite! :) Loomis 17:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. What truly amazes me is that User:Radiant! is running for ArbComm right now, so should be on his best behavior. Is this as good as it gets ? I've left my vote there, and I would encourage you, too, as well, Loomis (link is [18]). I am going to take a WikiBreak, but only for a few hours. StuRat 17:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can't we all just get along?

I encouraged you above (#more on RD) not to give up on trying to find a solution out of the current mess. Your more recent responses and actions look to me like you've stopped listening and that you have reached a state that could perhaps be characterized as intransigent. I now encourage you to reflect on the following:

1) I, and admins in general, are not the enemy.

2) If you ignore #1, treat admins as the enemy anyway, and choose to go to war against us, you will lose (this is in no way a threat, just simply the truth).

I am still quite busy in real life. I know you feel you're being picked on and I really would like to help. It pains me when Wikipedia loses any contributors (see, for example [19]). It would really REALLY pain me if you got to the point that you were considering leaving. I will have far more time next week. Do you think you might be able to refrain from doing anything too extreme for about a week or so?

If you want to discuss anything (or even just vent) privately, please feel free to email me. If you don't trust me, but might like to talk to someone who might be able to help, please see Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates.

I really do wish you the best. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me show you my POV on your recent action. You apparently saw two versions of the rules/guidelines, one of which was the original, and was agreed to by consensus, which was almost exclusively the Ref Desk volunteers (there are more of us there, so we form a supermajority). The other, newer version, was almost exclusively created by Admins, without consensus (they each edit it as they see fit). Then, you decide to nominate the Ref Desk volunteers version for deletion, and keep the Admin's version. Now, do you see how this looks to a Ref Desk volunteer ? StuRat 02:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I nominated the "Ref Desk" version for deletion because you simply can't fork the content because you don't like the way the conversation is going (do you see this?). I very nearly protected the guidelines page this morning because of the ridiculous reverting going on. This has to be resolved on the talk page, not by forking the content to a new page. All the previous content is in the history, so there's no danger of losing it. By forking the page, you're saying "wikipedia's processes don't work, I'm not going to even try to resolve this". Wikipedia's processes almost always do work. Take ten deep breaths. Drink a glass of wine. Go for a 10-mile bike ride. Play with your kids for a while. Smoke some pot. Do SOMETHING. But get a grip. I repeat, I am not the enemy. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Why do you insist on...on insisting that Reference Desk volunteers and admins are mutually exclusive categories? I've worn both hats for a long time now. Every time you assume I'm acting in bad faith because I'm an admin, it's like a kick in the gut. I ask you to please, please, please lay off. Demonizing your opponents doesn't accomplish anything beyond making people dig in to their positions a little bit further. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

A supermajority of us agreed to each of those rules, and we then recorded them. Then, the Admins ignored all that, deleted our votes, launched a couple of sockpuppet attacks, deleted all our rules, and replaced them with their own. I agreed that the revert war was absurd, and saw the split as a way to cool down the tempers, which does seem to have worked, BTW. Once the tempers are completely cool, we can work to bring the sides back together. But, just deleting the non-Admin side in the middle of this process isn't helpful. Also, have you admonished those Admins for starting the revert war (by deleting the rules we had recorded and replacing them with their own) ? That's the type of action that would convince me you are unbiased. StuRat 04:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You're still doing it. We agreed to the rules...the Admins ignored us. Telling me that I have to take your side in order for you to perceive me as reasonable and unbiased isn't going to work, though I admire your chutzpah. (For the record, I have emailed some of the editors involved to ask them to tone it down.) The way that you've conducted your votes hasn't established consensus; it's just entrenched the position that you favour. Look, for example, at what you did with Hipocrite's suggestion (Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/guideline#Proposed_addition_-_not_a_chat_room) that RD regulars shouldn't use the Desk as a chat room and ask silly questions just for the sake of chatting. You reformulated the question as whether or not there should be a blanket prohibition on RD contributors asking questions, then declared that consensus opposed his suggestion based on less than ninety minutes of discussion. Do you believe that you fairly represented his position?

While that's the most extreme example (that I've seen), many of your consensuses...consensi?...'consensus' decisions have been based around fairly short periods of discussion, which you've closed off very rapidly and refuse to continue to discuss. The fact that reverts go on after you've declared a consensus – and that you have to advise editors on how to game 3RR – suggests that consensus hasn't been reached. Reaching sound decisions takes time; it's a process that can't be rushed. A lot of people really do have things to do outside of Wikipedia; I find it a bit stunning when I leave for a day or two, then come back to find that someone has claimed the policy issues are settled and all the admins are conspiring against the consensus.

When we discuss deleting an article, we'll spend at least five days on the job. On the Ref Desk, we're formulating a whole new policy that will describe and (possibly) regulate the conduct of a significant part of Wikipedia's public face. Let that process have at least that much time. Don't be in such a rush to etch things in stone. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Some cases really don't need much discussion, as there's almost universal agreement, like that everyone can ask questions. As I said when you brought this case up before, though, I'm entirely willing to rediscuss any item and remove it from the rules, if the consensus has changed. I've already done that on one item. I declared a consensus on "no sexual jokes", was asked to get more input, then, after more discussion, decided that no clear consensus existed either way. If you really want me to reopen the issue of whether Ref Desk volunteers can ask questions, I will, but it really sounds like you're just trying to find fault with me (do you really think the consensus would be against that ?). On items where there was more conflict, like the rules for deletion, we discussed it for several days and got the opinions of almost everyone involved before I declared a consensus. Also note that this is just the initial phase. I intend to ask everyone to review the finished rules, suggest anything that's missing or needs to be changed, then, once they are finalized, get a consensus that they should be linked to from the Ref Desk template. At any point we can take steps backwards, if needed. StuRat 06:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User Conduct RFC

I have filed an RFC regarding your personal attacks and your seeking of false consensus. You can respond here. Unless another user certified the RFC, it will not remain listed. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please do.

If you file an RFC regarding my conduct I will waive the requirement of a second signer. I welcome the communities input on my behavior. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is the type of thing I should waste the community's time with, but you can open one on yourself if you feel strongly about it. StuRat 02:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AN/I

Howdy! You may wish to see this thread on AN/I, a user has raised some concerns about something with which you are involved. Your insight would be appreciated. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look. StuRat 18:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia pages

Responding to this here since it's not really on topic for the ref desk talk page. Wikipedia is loosely organized. But, it DOES have different pages for different specific purposes, and there are already pages where blocks get discussed, mostly WP:AN/I. There's nothing specific to the reference desk that gives that page a different code of conduct than the rest of the project in general. Ned Wilbury 00:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hipocrite is getting personal

In case you haven't seen it already, you need to read this from Hipocrite at the RD Talk page. Gandalf61 17:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Endorsing

StuRat, if they ask me to remove my sig from the other outside views I will, it says don't edit except to endorse, and I left a quesiton on the talk page asking if I were allowed to sign your statement since it seemed less clearcut. I went ahead and did my own statement instead of editing and altering yours because it doesn't make sense for me to change or add to what you said esp. since you've already signed it and I certainly don't think you or anyone else should have to vet or defend what I said! I just hope all of this can be put behind so the RD can move forward. I will be monitoring the RFC closely. -THB 14:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Does this help?

Check out Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Finalizing_the_rules_proposal, specifically the latest from TenOfAllTrades. To my way of thinking, this is good stuff, but I don't know how it would read to people who want specific rules. (I'm already in the "we don't usually need exact rules" crowd, so what makes sense to me may not apply to others.) Ned Wilbury 19:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused, is that link correct ? I'm not sure what you want me to look at, can you provide a diff please ? StuRat 19:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

here's what I meant, specifically: this. Some of the follow ups to that may be good stuff too. Ned Wilbury 19:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusionists and deletionists

Describing someone as thinking "I can delete whatever I don't like" is a bit of a straw man. The corresponding attitude on the inclusionist side would be "I can add whatever I like to any page I want." These are both ridiculously inappropriate positions for any editor to take. Anyone who tried to put either belief into action would find themselves blocked in a hurry. I think we can safely eliminate both classes of editors from our consideration. There's plenty of room for disagreement about what is or isn't appropriate, without resorting to such extremes. Ned Wilbury 20:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

In response to this, a better way to word it might be "I can edit how I think is appropriate, without needing permission ahead of time." Phrased that way, it's EXACTLY what we expect from all editors. Or, if you want it phrased your way, the corresponding inclusionist attitude is "I can add content as I see fit, without consensus, as long as I think doing so improves Wikipedia". Maybe in either case, the problem is that consensus does NOT mean "prior approval". Ned Wilbury 20:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I would accept that def of inclusionists, but think both terms are more about how you deal with the posts of others. Also, the rules for articles are quite different from talk pages. It's generally considered inappropriate to delete another person's comment from a talk page because you think it's incorrect, while doing so in an article is expected. Thus, the Ref Desk volunteers tend to characterize it as a talk page, where you do have limited "ownership" (not in the legal sense, of course) of your words, versus an article, where you have absolutely no ownership rights to those words. StuRat 20:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right, it IS generally considered inappropriate to delete someone's talk page comment. However this doesn't mean it's ALWAYS a bad thing to do. I removed a question from the ref desk not long ago and left the editor in question a note about it. They understood why it was removed, and there were no problems. Seems like simple common sense and politeness solve the problem here, without a (probably impossible) set of exact rules. By making up ridiculous positions and attributing them to people who disagree, we only hurt the discussion, when we should be helping it. Ned Wilbury 21:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it was an absurd position; saying "I can delete anything I don't like, without consensus" is the same as "I can edit how I think is appropriate, without needing permission ahead of time", it just sounds harsher. Specifically, "edit" includes "delete", "what I like" = "what I think is appropriate", and "without needing permission ahead of time" = "without consensus". Note that "without consensus" does not mean "against the consensus", the first implies none was formed, while the second implies a consensus was formed, but ignored. StuRat 21:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The key difference is "what I don't like" versus "what, in my judgment, is inappropriate for the encyclopedia." And thats a huge difference. I may LIKE pictures of pretty girls in bikinis. But if I go and put such pictures into random unrelated articles, I'm being disruptive. Even if other people on the talk page agree that they want the pictures in there too, I'm still doing the wrong thing by adding them. It would bog us down in tons of needless discussions if people tried to get permission for everything ahead of time, and therefore this is not one of our expectations of editors. Now, it depends on circumstances of course- major changes to mature pages SHOULD be discussed ahead of time. We call this "being bold, but not reckless" and it's a basic part of how wikipedia works. Ned Wilbury 21:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

How do you know that only you have good judgement? I thought mine was pretty good-- only to be told by othres that it wasnt 8-(--Light current 22:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Judgement is not absolute but relative!--Light current 22:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

An interesting point here is a difference between additions and deletions. When an addition is made, the only opinion in play is that of the person making the addition. Hence, there's no conflict. When deleting another's words, however, you have the opinion of the OP, who apparently thinks it was appropriate, and the opinion of the would-be deleter, who apparently thinks it's inappropriate. Thus, a conflict inherently exists, and I judge the best way to solve such conflicts is via consensus, not unilateral action. I do, however, include an exception for seriously disruptive behavior. StuRat 22:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Who is to say that your judgement is better than mine? Or vice versa--Light current 22:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Unless, of course, you happen to be George Bush, then everyone's judgment is better than yours. StuRat 22:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

(ec) Absolutely. This is why we should be conservative in reverting someone else's changes. Find a way to improve it if possible instead. There's little harm in giving someone the benefit of the doubt. "Consensus" and "unilateral action" are NOT opposites. People do things unilaterally (meaning, without prior permission) all the time, on the assumption that consensus will be with them. When an editor has good judgement, they will usually be right in this assumption. Light current, I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but I wasn't suggesting above that MY judgment is the standard- I mean every editor has to use their own judgment. Ned Wilbury 22:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You appeared to agree with my logic, but reached a different conclusion. What I, and I believe, LC, are saying is that no matter how "conservative" somebody is in reverting another's work, it's still not justified (except for the seriously disruptive behavior exclusion) as they are always saying "my judgment is better than that of the OP", which is simply not appropriate. When you have 2 people who disagree, at the very least, you need a third to "break the tie". StuRat 22:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that would be true, if we used majority rule here. But, thankfully, we don't. If two people disagree, yes, getting more opinions is USUALLY the way to resolve it. But, if someone believes that "Bush is evil" is a reasonable first sentence for the article on Bush, I don't NEED to ask other people to know whether it's alright to revert them. Even if they continue to insist, I still don't need third opinions to know who's being reasonable or not. Granted, this is a fairly extremely silly example but the point remains. Ned Wilbury 23:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

But not only is 1 out of 2 not a majority, it also isn't a consensus, so, by any rule, such a deletion should not be allowed (except for the seriously disruptive behavior exclusion). StuRat 23:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Look, If I judge that my statement is OK, but 10 others dont think so, that means that my judgemnet does not concur with those 10 others. Does that mean that my judgement is wrong, or the other 10 are wrong?--Light current 23:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

We can use existing consensus (and policy) to know that "Bush is evil" is not a proper first sentence for the article on Bush. I'm not sure what else can be said other than Wikipedia is not a democracy, and Wikipedia does not have firm rules. Really, the basic thing we ask for from editors is to exercise reasonable judgment, not to memorize various lists of rules. Ned Wilbury 00:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

So when you excercise what in your opinion is reaonable jugdement in making a statement, would you expect others to disagree with you? And if they did what would you do?--Light current 01:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

(StuRat, please pardon me responding to someone else on your talk page- if you want to move this, feel free) That's another judgment call. The standard that a lot of editors (generally including me) use is this: if we think something might be controversial, we seek input ahead of time. If we think something is pretty obvious, we just do what we think is right. Once in a while, we might be wrong in our guess about what is or isn't controversial. So, if someone disagrees strongly enough to revert our edit, don't just redo your edit. Stop and talk things over on the talk page. That's the key- go ahead and be bold, but if there's disagreement, do NOT just insist on your own way. Work things out on the talk page instead. Ned Wilbury 01:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

THat seems to make sense to me: getting a broad consensus on whether ones judgement fits in with other peoples. So you wouldnt seek immediate deletion and user blocking for a simple lack of judgement on , oh lets say , the reference desk? 8-)--Light current 01:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

But your argument (that your deletion will be reverted if controversial) again assumes that people will notice your deletion, which isn't likely to happen if you delete something from the Ref Desk and don't tell anyone. StuRat 04:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

More than one editor should agree to any deletion IMO (Do I remember saying that before somewhere?)--Light current 04:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Antique Markings

Thanks for the info on the antique markings. Your idea that the markings may indicate weight are interesting. The carvings are on an antique chest. The top is ornately carved and the front(where 1694 is carved) has 2 rows of a diagonal checkerboard pattern with what I believe to be ebonized wood. It seems too fancy to be a shipping crate but it might be. To answer your question--yes it does have a line at the top and the bottom (I),but it has a horizontal line in the middle too. I will search those pages per your suggestion. I am a first time user of Wikipedia and have been viewing alphabets. The closest match appear to be cyrillic. I will try to learn more early Russian history to unveil the mystery of the antique markings.--72.24.49.253 06:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Hey. Sorry to be abrupt but I am pressed for time. Where is Ten's draft? Let me get this done and then we can talk about it. --Justanother 15:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Here: User:TenOfAllTrades/RD_thoughts. StuRat 15:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, Stu, all done. Very "quick and dirty". Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Proposed policy for the reference desk Please tell me if you think this will aid us in moving forward. Your suggestion to move it to different user pages would have had the effect that I especially don't enjoy, discussion in multiple places. --Justanother 16:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

So, under your plan, what happens to the following:

• The /rules page.

Moved and redirected.

• The /rules talk page.

Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/rules I think admins move talk pages after you put the template.

• The /guideline page.

Merged and redirected

• The /guideline talk page.

Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/guideline I think admins merge talk pages after you put the template.

• TenOfAllTrades' page.

That is up to him, I just copied.

Also, I don't agree with putting talk about this on the main Ref Desk talk page. Any discussion there gets buried in all the discussion of archiving, adding new Ref Desks, specific issues on editors, questions, and answers, then gets archived before a decision was made. StuRat 17:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, if you think that is best then I am fine. There is policy guideline that would indicate that a draft belongs on a talk subpage. Ned already moved it out of talk space though I suggested he move it back. After Ned's move things are pretty screwed up and I am not touching it until we get some admin involved. Ten would be best as he is involved in the process. Would you take that up with him, please? --Justanother 17:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it OK now? At least it is somewhere stable, or at least I hope so. Still needs /purpose merged in. Maybe you could do that. If not I will do it tomorrow. --Justanother 22:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's OK to leave /purpose on it's own, for now. StuRat 22:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, but don't be surprised if someone else moves it. It is best that we create one document, IMO. --Justanother 22:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changed link in response in RD

I changed a link you used at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2006 December 15#Tobacco_Addictiveness because the copy you linked to had a bunch of advocacy that I don't think was (or at least hope wasn't) intended. The version I added appears to be just plain-text, which is better. I hope you don't mind! Happy editing. —AySz88\^-^ 04:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It's generally not a good idea to edit somebody else's response. If you just changed the source, without notifying me or leaving the ref to the original, I would have been upset. But, since you really only added another link, and told me about it, I'm OK with that. I didn't actually read the article, just looked at the chart, which was just what was asked for. See his nice thank you note a couple of sections up. StuRat 04:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Origin Of A Saying

Friendly word. Editor gives correct answer. You follow with unsourced and incorrect quess. What were you thinking? That lead to fights. You should pull it. --Justanother 14:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The first responder was unsure, as shown by the question mark. I was also unsure, as shown by my question mark. We both left it to others to track down which was the correct answer. You and LC did so. This is how things should work, by collaborative effort we have arrived at the correct answer. Now, if I were to state that it was Machiavelli as a fact, then tell anyone else they were wrong, that would have been an improper way to respond. StuRat 15:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no question mark in the first reposnse. He was giving the correct answer. So it looks like:

How much is 1 + 1?

2 --User1

Maybe 3? --User2

That was my only point. It seemed argumentative. But if you see it differently then OK. --Justanother 15:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Any way nobody can prove he didnt say it! 8-)--Light current 15:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

That is true. Machiavelli might have read Sun Tzu and said that all the time. Leonardo Da Vinci, too. --Justanother 15:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I didnt know The Sun was published in Machiavellis day 8-)--Light current 15:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Mona Lisa was the original "Page 3 Girl" --Justanother 15:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I see two question marks (my bolding):

Sun Tzu, the author of The Art of War ☢ Ҡi∊ff⌇↯ 13:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the second question mark is part of his sig, but not the first. If he was certain, then I wouldn't have added my suggestion, which could be expanded to "Perhaps it was Machiavelli, could somebody please look it up and verify whether it was or wasn't him ?". StuRat 15:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a font problem - his sig includes characters apparently not in the font you're using which only display as question marks (I don't see any question marks). -- Rick Block (talk) 15:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Font issue makes more sense (man, the story I could tell you about sending an email to a wacko gov't official in a font that he did not have loaded and WinDoze interpreted as wing-dings). I do not see any question marks either but in that light I see where Stu was coming from. --Justanother 15:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I see. That is problematic, then, as it made me think they were unsure. I even verified that the question mark existed, as best as I could, with edit, which uses another font. In any case, I will line-out my remark, rather than delete it, since there are already responses to it. StuRat 15:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please remove me from any lists you have me on

Hi StuRat, I'd like to politely request that you remove me from any lists you have on which claim to characterize my point of view on any subject. They are, shall we say, not nuanced enough for my tastes. Thanks, SCZenz 23:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I created the lists to be sure I notify the "proper balance" of people when calling for discussion on various topics, in response to accusations of "vote rigging". If I remove you from the list you will no longer be notified, is that what you want ? StuRat 00:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not just have a list of people who are interested in discussion on reference desk policy? If you don't leave any interested parties out, then that will indeed be the proper balance. -- SCZenz 00:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

In order to defend myself from charges of vote rigging, I need to be able to show I contacted people on all sides of the issue, and for that, I need lists of people on all sides of the issue. StuRat 00:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of anything so formal being required to defend anyone from "charges of vote rigging"; in the past, notifying everyone who's interested, as best you can, has always been enough. This is a new and bureaucratic invention you've made, one that requires reducing everyone's opinions to one "side" of an issue or the other. Please consider working through the wiki-process, as we are currently on the guidelines page, rather than calling for polls... but if you must poll, don't make lists of everyone's expected responses beforehand. I do not like being told I have to chose between being included in your "votes" and having my views pigeon-holed. I again request that you find another way. -- SCZenz 01:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Please note that StuRat was indeed accused of 'vote stacking' (whatever that is) and has tried to avoid that charge by considering fairly all sides of the current argument. It is not StuRat's job to 'find another way' just becuse you dont like his genuine attempt to be fair to all parties in representing their views. If you can think of a better way, please suggest it! 8-) --Light current 01:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

He should just include everyone. That's my suggestion. -- SCZenz 01:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Including everyone would still require having you on a list, and you said you don't want that. StuRat 01:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Having a list of everyone is great. Narrowly defining people into categories, reducing their views into your one-liners, is what I'm asking you to stop doing. -- SCZenz 02:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

SCZenz, I've removed you (lined you out), from the list, as you requested. Therefore, I won't contact you in an attempt to avoid the appearance of "vote stacking" to avoid being banned. Hopefully, I still have enough people on that list who disagree with me on everything to keep from getting blocked. StuRat 01:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

No, this is a bad solution. You're still broadcasting to the world your narrow one-line interpretation of my views, but now you're pretending I'm "off the list" and have promised you'll no longer inform me of any !votes you start. Please think about what I'm actually asking for—I'd like to be contacted, but I don't want to be categorized! Maybe you could have a separate list of people who are involved, but who don't agree to have their views categorized? -- SCZenz 02:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, that works. StuRat 02:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. :) SCZenz 02:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm I think over her we call 'em 'floating voters' 8-)--Light current 02:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: about my signature

Yeah, I had that fancy signature back in the days when it seemed like a nice touch. Been willing to change it for something basic for a while now, just needed something to break the inertia (like a complaint) :P

But it's a shame Unicode isn't so well supported. In any case, I'm back to the basic one. — Kieff 00:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Cool, much appreciated ! StuRat 00:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Addition to guidelines

Thanks for putting that in (saves me doing it). as you can see I'm busy trying to clarify the earlier version and put it into simple english. Any public or private comments to me about my edits ther are most welcome 8-)--Light current 03:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Your changes don't seem to be getting the immediate reverts my changes were getting, maybe they are all asleep now ? StuRat 03:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

No. Seriously tho Stu, have there been reverts? I have not seen any, nor any comment on the talk page!--Light current 03:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh I think I see. You are the black sheep (term) this week! Im the good guy! 8-)--Light current 03:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lists

Including me in your list above of users who "oppose use of supermajorities to determine Ref Desk consensus" is not exactly accurate. What I actually oppose is using quick trigger polls, advertised on only the RD talk pages, and calling the result consensus or implying the result is consensus by calling it a supermajority. I suspect the other users you've included in this list have similar objections. The specific labels you've used above are kind of inflammatory as well ("against heavy-handed Ref Desk removals and blocks"? - does including me in the adjacent list but not this one mean you think I'm for heavy-handed Ref Desk removals and blocks?). I'm sorry I didn't notice these lists when you first started them (I was traveling on business for about a week and had little time for Wikipedia). I'm not sure what your intent is in keeping these lists, and the "e/f/r" notations are kind of curious. Care to explain? -- Rick Block (talk) 05:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Key: e = email enabled, er - error using e-mail, f - female (so I use the proper pronouns). StuRat 10:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I have seen one other editor make lists of wikipedians based on his perceived viewpoint of their position but I think Stu's labeling is a bit much. You would be better just to label them "tending to support less control" on the RD vs. "tending to support more control" on the RD. I do not think those labels would be any more accurate but I do think that they would be less insulting. Or just make one list: "interested parties". I have myself considered keeping track of the editors in my own area of interest but have decided that I pretty much can remember where they stand. I think if I did make a list it would not be here (I have a computer available for my own use where I can store things like that). I mean, why piss people off when you do not have to? Choose your battles and piss them off over something you believe in. --Justanother 06:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I want the lists here so they are pickable to get to the user's talk pages. I don't see how any of the titles are insulting, they all seem to say good things about the people in the list. And, not being against heavy-handed deletions and blocks doesn't necessarily make you for them, you might just not have any stance on them, or an unknown stance. StuRat 10:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Unknown only to you, I think. No matter, though. Carry On! --Justanother 13:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The reason why I made this edit (which I admit, was to make a bit of a point) was to point out that your pigeonholing of editors is actually harmful on a number of levels.

Keeping a list so that you can avoid accusations of 'vote stacking' isn't a good idea. We have the Village Pump, Requests for Comment, assorted talk pages, and personal watchlists to keep editors up-to-date on issues which might be of interest to them. You don't need to send spam out to a list of editors for every proposal; there's already a healthy level of interest and discussion in the Ref Desk, and interested parties can follow the discussion without receiving regular notices. I'm glad to see that you haven't used the list to spam editors recently, and I imagine that you understand why it's not a good idea.

A major concern that I have is that the lists are needlessly polarizing and divisive. For one thing, people may consider terms like 'deletionist' to be insulting, or at the very least pejorative. (All kidding aside—you know you mean it that way.) It doesn't advance the debate to try to divide people up into categories this way.

Finally, the headings are inaccurate. I am opposed to 'heavy-handed' removals of content from the Ref Desk, though we might disagree on where to draw that line, or how to deal with repeat offenders. I happen to believe that a substantial supermajority can be an indicator of consensus, but that it is just one measure, and (per Rick Block's comments above) that the quick polls you were performing didn't allow sufficient time for comment or misrepresented and ridiculed the positions of people you perceived as opponents. Frankly, I suspect that most of the people on your list would prefer my section heading to the one you've assigned them, and kind of resent having you put words in our mouths. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I only intend the contact people on the list for critical issues, where not enough people show up to form a consensus. StuRat 23:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

If you have time, I'd appreciate it if you could address the second and third parts of my remarks, which (to my mind) are the most important. You've had your fun and made your point, but do remember that you're trying to build a consensus with everyone, yes? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't for "fun", it was for a very specific purpose, as I've already explained, many times (avoiding charges of "vote stacking"). However, I've now deleted the list from the talk page, as I'm sick of talking about it. StuRat 13:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Something must change

Your combative attitude is not helping the reference desk. Sam Clark had some helpful things to say, and he appears to have been so put off by you that he's staying away now. You have got to understand something very important: Wikipedia is not here so that you can win fights. Hell, it's not even here so that you can engage in fights. If you like debate, there are forums specifically for this. Check out this one. Wikipedia is not for fighting. Friday (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to get Sam to treat other editors in a respectful manner, he chose to leave instead. That is his choice. Your continued suggestions that I leave Wikipedia are not appreciated, and neither is your insistence on only seeing things from one POV, or your use of your Admin powers to attempt to enforce that POV on others. StuRat 16:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

THen why do you Friday, exhibit such a combative attitude?--Light current 23:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I've suggested that you leave- I am only suggesting that things go in their proper place. You can easily contribute to Wikipedia while also engaging in debate elsewhere. Friday (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

And did you also make the same suggestion to Sam ? StuRat 00:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

And is it your belief that I engaged in debate with Sam, but Sam did not engage in debate with me ? StuRat 17:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

...because, otherwise, I'd expect you to make the exact same suggestion to Sam, that he go find a debate forum somewhere, assuming that you're unbiased, of course (which, admittedly, is a rather dubious assumption). StuRat 23:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AGF and BITE

Hi StuRat. I think this comment assumes bad faith and is rude to an anonymous user to boot. (Constantly, and derisively, calling people who disagree with you "deletionists" is uncivil as well, but that's small potatoes compared to the other two.) Please remember WP:AGF and WP:BITE, and perhaps reconsider what you said. -- SCZenz 00:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks like a sockpuppet to me; it's an anon I/P, which apparently has quite a knowledge of the Ref Desk, how to edit, etc. It also has only been used for 2.5 hours before making that comment, and every edit was on the Ref Desk: Special:Contributions/83.100.158.248. How much more evidence could I possibly have of a sockpuppet ? StuRat 00:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe that user has a dynamic IP. Maybe they lurk a lot. It could be a regular editor who's at work logged off—but who cares, as long as the comments contribute? I don't know, and you don't know either. Just because you believe you have all the evidence you "could ... possibly have," does not mean you have enough evidence. Accusations of sockpuppetry are very rude to throw around lightly, and it's entirely inappropriate to level them at any new person who disagrees with you. That approach forces the reference desk into a mold of "Us vs. Them," with a conflict that people are trying to win by any means necessary; that's just not true, and your insistence on that model gets into the way of compromise. -- SCZenz 00:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it's a sockpuppet. Duh. To paraphrase Hipocrite and Friday, maybe the people who are not good at detecting sockpuppets should just let those with more experience detecting sockpuppets handle them! -THB 13:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm certainly hes a quick learner for a new editor! 8-)--Light current 09:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Please explain to me, if that isn't enough evidence that we have a sockpuppet, just what is ? StuRat 00:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Similar editing patterns. Similar writing styles. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. A habitual pattern of expressing the same views as the puppet master in straw polls. That's what characterizes a sockpuppet. -- SCZenz 00:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Remember, when you call someone a sockpuppet, you're not just accusing someone of editing under an extra account, you're accusing them of doing so to deliberately exert an unfair influence on consensus building. I don't see any justification for that in this case... do you? -- SCZenz 00:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, I do. They are complaining about excessive chat, in an attempt to make it appear that the consensus is "we have to do something to limit excessive chat", when this hasn't been much of a problem recently, at all. StuRat 00:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

So the user disagrees with you, and agrees with me (there was a problem in the past day or two that I recall off the top of my head). How does taking a position on an issue constitute manipulation? -- SCZenz 00:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

These socks always seem to support the deletionist POV, making it appear that it has far more support than it really does. StuRat 00:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

By your logic, any user who prefers anonymous editing and has a dynamic IP, who expresses a view that disagrees with yours, is automatically a sockpuppet. That's what makes it grossly uncivil (and newbie biting, because they could be a new user). -- SCZenz 00:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

If that a new user, Im a Dutchman (Im not but Dirk is 8-))--Light current 09:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes they register. Like User:RDWarrior 8-(--Light current 01:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

In that comment, StuRat was querying , not accusing. Also, if it is a new user, he is unlikely to know what a sockpuppet is.--Light current 09:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Yea, he knew where to go to make comments, knew how to sign, apparently has been on Wikipedia for a while from his comments, etc., all indicating that he's not a new user. Also, if he had a dynamic I/P, we would expect to see earlier contributions from other users on the same dynamic I/P. The AOL dynamic I/P pool all has multiple contributions from different people, going way back, for example. StuRat 11:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Consider that it was simply a regular user that did not log in just so that they could use blunt and crude language ("fuck the question") that they might not want to use in their known persona. Why not just take it as what it was; one user's input to the process. Who cares who it was - I have not seen it put that way before and I thought that it was a good exposition of something that has occurred and will likely accur again. --Justanother 15:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate for a regular user to show up under another ID (including an anon I/P) and use bad language to support their side of a debate. I've only seen that argument from a small group of people, who I could refer you to, had I not just deleted the list from this page. StuRat 15:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

But it should not be a debate and there should not be a side. You agree with what the IP said, right? So what is the big deal? Just take it to mean that whatever policy/guideline we develop should clearly address that issue. Take the point as a point and move on. --Justanother 16:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with what they implied, no. I don't believe that jokes and irrelevant side conversations have choked the Ref Desk, thus making it unusable, and that the cure is to pass strict rules against those things and give everyone the power to unilaterally delete anything they don't like. StuRat 17:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Then that is the important underlying assumption that needs working on as it is the elephant in the room. If the consensus is against you on that will you still be able to continue helping to draft policy? --Justanother 17:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

If the real consensus is, sure, but not the consensus of a bunch of sockpuppets, no. I've already conceded a number of points when drafting the supermajority rules, like no jokes until a serious answer, etc. StuRat 17:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Unilateral deletion should never be allowed.--Light current 17:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for considering

Thanks for considering my comments. I did not mean them to be private. We are in an open forum here. I did mean for you to delete them if having them here on your talk page was upsetting to you. They were meant as "food for thought" not "points to debate" though I appreciate your response. If I can be so presumptuous as to give you a bit of my life experience, it is this. What people are yelling at you about is almost never what you are really doing wrong. It is their opinion of what you are doing wrong. But I have learned to take the fact that I am being yelled at as a sure indication that there is something I am doing that is upsetting them and, unless upset is the specific goal, then I had better rethink what I am doing. That was my main message. Food for thought. --Justanother 15:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Consider that if somebody does something wrong, and you object, that will upset them. Does this mean you should not object to people doing things wrong, because you "don't want to rock the boat" ? I think that's a very bad idea. StuRat 15:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I only mean that it should not be about debate, not be about sides. It is about consensus and what can we agree on and if we cannot agree on something then it is about why aren't we able to reach agreement, is there some underlying assumption that needs to be changed or whatever. I can agree with you and I can agree with SCZenz and I can agree with Light and I can agree with Friday on many points and on many important points. I can disagree with any of you on specific actions taken in supposed conformance with principles we allegedly agree on. But I still think that we can come up with a policy that we can agree on. If we just take it easy on fractional divisive actions (and that applies to all of us) like deleting questions or biting anyone, if we do that we will have more time and keypresses to actually work on the policy. --Justanother 17:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, let's all hold hands and sing a song of love and peace and joy and harmony. (That's a Steve Martin ref, BTW.) StuRat 17:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. Group hug!!! --Justanother 17:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't hug me too tightly, I've been eating beans. :-) StuRat 18:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Restoration of inappropriate comments

Hi StuRat. I never said those remarks on the science ref desk were disruptive, I just said they were potentially offensive and didn't help the ref desk; nobody, not even you, disagreed with either of these statements. This being the case, restoring them is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. You made the page worse to illustrate your belief that my use of the wiki-process to improve the page was incorrect. I'd like to ask you to reconsider your edit.

If you continue to be a divisive and uncompromising force in discussions on the reference desk, the usefulness of discussion will eventually come to an end. You need not worry that I personally will use any of my administrative buttons in regard to your actions, but there certainly other possibilities for handling the situation. All things considered, I'd prefer to talk... but you have to be willing to compromise. -- SCZenz 17:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I came by to leave you a similar message, but I see it's already here. SCZenz is right. You were given the opportunity to state your case about whether these remarks were helpful. Your reply did not address that issue in any way at all. This was a classic case of WP:POINT. Please do not do that again. Friday (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

We need policy for such deletions. I think the sub-thread should be moved to the talk page of the editor that started it and they can continue there. Perhaps a note left in the question mentioning the move. Group hug!! --Justanother 17:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, we do have a policy... see m:Foundation Issues, point 3. But if you think it's better to move it to the talk page, go ahead and do it. If that works better, I'll do it in the future also. -- SCZenz 17:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Your removal of a comment, without consensus, was disruptive, not my restoration of that edit. First, you didn't leave your comments on the talk page long enough to reach a consensus, and second, you didn't even have a consensus among those who had already commented, myself included. Now, if you can convince the original authors to remove their comments, that's fine. StuRat 17:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't need a consensus to improve the page according to its agreed-upon purpose. This remains a wiki, no matter how many times you assert otherwise. -- SCZenz 17:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

If you don't need a consensus to remove other people's edits, then I don't need a consensus to improve Wikipedia by restoring edits. StuRat 17:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is an example of my continuing a joke thread on a user page rather than the desk (hint hint). --Justanother 17:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

So explain how your re-addition improved wikipedia; that's what I asked for before I removed the remarks, and nobody gave one. -- SCZenz 17:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've explained this many, many times before, yet you and others profess ignorance of my position every time we discuss things. Here it is, yet again, for those of who still claim you don't understnad:

[edit] Deletion

Unnecessary escalation is both rude and nonproductive. The proper procedure should be followed:

1. First, mention the post on the author's talk page, politely list your objection, and request that they remove it.
2. If they refuse, and if the comment is so outrageous as to warrant further action, then bring it up at Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk, again politely.
3. If a consensus is reached there to remove it, then the author can again be given the opportunity to remove the comment. At this, point, however, once community consensus exists that it should be removed, other members of the community may delete the comment, if the author refuses.
4. If, and only if, the author replaces the comment four times, should an Admin be summoned, via a WP:3RR violation complaint.

There are also grounds for a "speedy deletion" by anyone, such as death threats, etc., but only the most severe cases of disruption warrant such actions (see WP:DIS). And, even in these cases, the author should still be notified of the deletion (on their talk page) and the reason (policy violations) given. An exception exists for anonymous I/P users, where notification is not required.

We should also discuss the reasons to do things according to the above procedure:

a) To be polite. Politeness goes a long way.

b) To avoid "revert wars". (If a comment is removed without consensus having been reached to do so, then the author is entirely justified to disagree with the opinion of the person who removed it and restore the comment.)

c) To avoid a POV bias in the removals. For example, a politically liberal editor might tend to delete any slightly off topic politically conservative comments, and vice-versa, even though they would leave such comments in if they were more in line with their political ideology. This could escalate to having all liberal statements removed by conservatives, and vice-versa, even if entirely on-topic.

d) To avoid personal vendettas in the removals. That is "you removed my post, so I'll remove yours". If a consensus is required for such removals, this type of petty behavior is unlikely.

To summarize, our goal should be to "limit the total offense given". While the comment may cause offense, the removal of another editor's comments is virtually certain to cause offense. And, since the author feels those comments are appropriate and the would-be deletor does not, we have a "tie". Thus, at least one other editor who is personally offended is required, and quite possibly more, to form a consensus for removal. StuRat 17:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

---

I would argue that an editor that writes a flippant comment is probably quite aware that it could be deleted. Why would an author think that off topic comments are appropriate? Do you have any examples of deletions that you think really did add to the discussion? If not then we may not even have a problem here. David D. (Talk) 17:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to long section above

I was polite. I am not revert warring—you are, when you chose to make the page worse by restoring comments that hurt the page. There's no "POV bias" that's possible when the comments I removed didn't help with the question. And I assure you I have no personal vendettas, only an unflagging will to improve Wikipedia pages. The section above remains a rejection of the wiki-process. -- SCZenz 18:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

You were not polite. A nice request on the author's talk page that he remove the joke, and then giving him time to do so, before bringing it up at the Ref Desk talk page, would have been polite. You performed the first revert, thus starting a revert war. Your general "anti-joke" POV is supported by this deletion. StuRat 18:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, my pro-keeping-the-page-to-its-purpose-most-of-the-time "POV." And my anti-misogyny POV too, no doubt? I didn't remove this simply for being a joke, I removed it for being offensive, and because it did no good to offset its offensiveness—a claim you have yet to counter. -- SCZenz 18:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, all your issues are procedural. You've not made an argument that your re-addition of those specific comments improved the page. Doing something that hurts a page, in order to illustrate a more general point about process, is the precise definition of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, which is forbidden by policy. -- SCZenz 18:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I reject your assertion that it hurts the page. Allowing anyone to delete anything they don't like, without consensus, on the other hand, most definitely does hurt the Ref Desk. StuRat 18:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes and it can also upset any newbies who may be watching! 8-)--Light current 18:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

More than blatant sexism? I doubt that very much. -- SCZenz 18:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

StuRat, even you agree that that comment doesn't help anything... so the only reason to re-add it was to make a procedural point. That is not how we do things on Wikipedia. -- SCZenz 18:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I think it causes less total offense, to the author and audience, to leave it in than it does to remove it, and, as I've said many times, my goal is to minimize the totality of offense. StuRat 18:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

OK newbies must be more sexually aware then i am and looking for that sort of meaning in the post. Is that meaning what the author intended? --Light current 18:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

If you insist on being offended by the wiki process, and insist on imagining that others will be also, I can't help that. This is Wikipedia... it's not SCZenzipedia or StuRatipedia: the wiki process is an inseperable part of the website, and those who choose to edit here have to accept it. My goal is to minimize policy violations and keep pages useful for their intended purpose. Being rude to new users is a policy violation; removing unhelpful material that interferes with a page is not. -- SCZenz 20:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, being rude to new users is only a guideline violation. And, of course, that joke was not an example of WP:BITE, in any case. Yet another example of you making up policy violations to get your way. StuRat 21:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

SCZenz, accusing anyone who disagrees with you of Wikipedia policy violations, in order to "win", is inappropriate, especially for an Admin. StuRat 18:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that would be inappropriate. Thankfully, that's not what's going on here. StuRat, you would do well to consider the real issues being raised here, rather than responding with ruleslawyering and unfounded accusations. Friday (talk) 19:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

As would you and SCZenz. StuRat 19:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, of course. If I do that, feel free to let me know. -- SCZenz 20:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

You do, see above. StuRat 21:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I failed to properly differentiate between a very central guideline and a policy; the error was certainly not intentional, and not very large, but I do apologize. As for me "making up policy violations," I don't think that's accurate. When things appear to be violating policy and guidelines in my opinion, I certainly say so, and in some cases I take action that seems appropriate to me. In most cases, for example when I said you were violating WP:POINT by re-adding the inappropriate comments, other users tend to agree with me, which is to be expected given the amount of experience I have in Wikipedia policy/guidelines and the community's interpretation thereof. I'm not always right... but I certainly never deliberately falsify anything out of malice. I would like you to consider carefully the difference between good-faith statements/actions you disagree with and deliberate abuse, please. -- SCZenz 21:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The other users who agree with you are invariably part of your group, working for strict Ref Desk rules, so, it's no surprise that they support you. If I said my name on my talk page, and you said it was disruptive, they would all support you. StuRat 22:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I was speaking about my knowledge and reactions to my actions in a much wider context than the reference desk, but never mind that. Do you really believe that I can do whatever I want and my "group" will back me up? -- SCZenz 22:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much. BTW, that "years of experience" talk is just an argument from authority, which is a logical fallacy. StuRat 22:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you're both right. One of the unwritten rules of Wikipedia is the same as for Usenet: "do whatever you can get away with". Admins, it's unfortunately true, can get away with more. But, StuRat, you're not doing yourself or anyone else any favors by continuing to demonize "the admins" and accusing them of ganging up on you. Some of your detractors, it's true, have been pretty heavy-handed and obnoxious, and some of the arguments they've been making are bogus, but plenty of the arguments they're making are exactly right. There's been way too much inflexibility and didacticism on both sides of this whole, long debate; both sides are going to need to soften their positions and compromise a bit. That means you, too. —Steve Summit (talk) 22:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not accusing them of only ganging up on me, but on many people who differ with their opinion of how the Ref Desk should be run. StuRat 23:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

"Unnecessary escalation is both rude and nonproductive." Indeed. The comment in question should not (I'd say; I thought it was decently funny) have been removed, but once it was removed, there was no good reason to restore it. No one (who is not already a rabid inclusionist) is going to be convinced by that action that the deletion was wrong, and the people who were in favor of deleting it are certainly not going to be convinced. All it does is increase the tension and induce people to harden their already too-polarized positions. Choose your battles! —Steve Summit (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC) (P.S. Please don't anyone be offended by my use of the term "rabid inclusionist". Me, I'm already a pretty rampant inclusionist; "rabid inclusionist" merely means, "even more of an inclusionist than I am.")

The reason to restore it was to prevent the author from being offended by later noticing that his comment had been deleted. (SCZenz didn't even have the decency to notify him of the removal). StuRat 22:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I wrote it on the ref desk talk page, to which I had previously referred him personally. I'd say I informed everyone, him included. -- SCZenz 22:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

And it would have been too much effort to notify him personally, as I did ? StuRat 23:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

No, but no insult was intended by not doing it—it simply didn't occur to me, because I had already informed him of the situation on his talk page. I hardly think there was any lack of decency here. I do think you're just trying to demonize me, and I wish you would stop. -- SCZenz 23:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop demonizing me. StuRat 23:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

If you think I'm doing that—I'm certainly not trying to—I would encourage you to ask a neutral or uninvolved party look at the offending remarks and have a word with me about them. But I don't think that pointing out policy violations is quite the same thing as constantly and derisively labelling me a "deletionist," claiming I "didn't have the decency" to do something that I had actually done pretty well, or accusing me of heading a cabal to oppress you. -- SCZenz 23:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The list would be a good example of how I am constantly attacked here:

1) First I made a list of people who are opposed to heavy-handed deletions and blocks. Then Radiant! files a complaint about this on the Admin noticeboard, saying I was vote stacking.

2) Fine, I also add lists of neutral and opposing parties, so I can contact them, too, on critical items. Then people object to the name of the list, so I make it as innocuous as possible.

3) Then, you insist I make a special list of "people who refuse to be categorized". I do, and move you there.

4) But this still isn't enough, I still get hounded, so I have to delete the list entirely from this page.

Seriously, you treated it like it was a hit list. Chill out ! StuRat 23:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how various users objecting to you doing something they thought was of concern, and giving reasons for their comments, constitutes an attack. -- SCZenz 23:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It's the way that, after I addressed each complaint, a new complaint suddenly emerged. StuRat 00:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

(Reset indent) This happened either because your solution created new problems, or because what I thought acceptable (for example) wasn't ok with some other user. -- SCZenz 00:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Still, the net effect is that I was hounded into deleting it. StuRat 00:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I would say the net effect is that you realized that your list was of concern to a number of users, so you agreed to delete it. -- SCZenz 00:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

A very small, but very vocal and aggressive, minority, as always. StuRat 01:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Stu, without interjecting myself into this debate, which I have no opinion on, I just want to make the observation that if "as always" you mean that every position on wikipedia is held, asserted ,and defended, by a "very small, but very vocal and aggressive, minority" then you would be absolutely right, IMO. I have come to the conclusion that wikipedia is vast, intertwined, and overlapping, collection of "very small, but very vocal and aggressive," minorities. Carry On! --Justanother 01:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what was agressive about it. And I think it's a good thing to listen to even a few people who you're inadvertently offending... it means there may be more who aren't mentioning it. -- SCZenz 01:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Using that logic, haven't there been a few people who've complained about your deletions, blocks, and other actions at the Ref Desk ? Doesn't that mean there are many more who are offended by your behavior, but keep quiet, possibly out of fear ? StuRat 01:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

"Fear" is a bit overdramatic, but yes, at a certain point I made my approach less dramatic because it wasn't working. But I do persevere, despite the risk of users being offended, because my actions are guided by policy and common sense; the fact that following these causes offense is a problem I can't solve by ignoring it, only by trying to teach. -- SCZenz 01:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I see, so you recommend that I follow my common sense, and don't worry about who I offend ? Good advice. StuRat 01:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

As long as you use as your starting point an understanding of Wikipedia's goals and core policies, that should work fine. The problem is, you've been using your vision of how the reference desk should work for so long, and spent so little time dealing with policy in other areas of Wikipedia, that you don't see how basic ideas like the wiki process and the goals of the encyclopedia are applicable to the desk. -- SCZenz 01:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but my common sense tells me you are trying to apply rules designed for articles to the Ref Desk, which is simply not appropriate. StuRat 01:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The wiki process is part of all of Wikipedia, and the notion of taking offense when one's contributions are removed for good cause is foreign to that process. That's a core value you'll never get around, no matter how long and hard you try. There's much room for debate—about how much certain comments really undermine the purpose of the desk, for example—but that's not the approach you're taking. -- SCZenz 02:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

There's a good example right there, the "anyone can delete anything, so long as they think it improves Wikipedia" rule is for ARTICLES, not TALK PAGES like the REF DESK. StuRat 02:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope no one minds me helping the wiki process along. -THB 02:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It was funny, but inappropriate, THB. I'm sure they would have let it slide if you were on the deletionist side and did it to me, but, since you're an inclusionist, they have had you blocked. StuRat 16:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Who's they? I asked for an uninvolved admin to look at the situation, and several of them did. -- SCZenz 16:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I will clarify my remarks: "I'm sure SCZenz would not have posted a complaint at AN/I, and Friday would not have seconded the complaint, had the same action been taken against me, or another inclusionist." StuRat 17:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

(Resetting indent) StuRat, the situation is more nuanced than one-liners on either side explain well. It's true that editing rules are more stringent on talk pages than article pages, but all of Wikipedia is a wiki. You might look at this comment I made on Steve's page for a more detailed, careful explanation of what guides when removing material from pages is appropriate and when it isn't. Also note again what the talk page guidelines say about off-topic remarks being subject to removal; I'm surprised, given what they say, that you keep insisting the ref desk is a talk page. -- SCZenz 05:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of THB editing comments and administrative response

[polite cough] Just like to point out to all involved that this sort of borderline situation is exactly why we need agreed guidelines (and quite detailed ones, not general principles) on when and how stuff should be deleted from the RDs. We need something that will help to avoid the unpleasant escalation of these essentially trivial episodes. I see this one has alreaday gone up to AN/I. Okay - said my piece - you can carry on now. Gandalf61 08:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

AN/I ? You've got to be kidding ! Do you have a link ? I absolute agree that a universal standard is needed. StuRat 08:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It had nothing to do with our conversation, StuRat, but rather with THB manipulating the words of one of the participants. See WP:AN/I#Editing_of_talk_page_comments_to_make_a_point_by_THB. And note that what he did is in violation of text that already exists on Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines—it's no borderline case at all. -- SCZenz 16:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

That it's a violation of that guideline is clear, but that it requires a complaint to be made on AN/I and a block is not specified, leaving the Admins free to vary the severity of the response, depending on who the "victim" was and who the "perpetrator" is. StuRat 17:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Admins are given extra buttons because their judgement is trusted; so yes, there is latitude for discussion and decision-making in how blocks for disruption are handled. But you've got not a shred of evidence that Bishonen was biased in his decision; if other admins thought so they wouldn't have let the block stand. I used my judgement to register my concern and exclude myself from making the decision, because I was personally involved and rather angry... I don't see how you can say I did the wrong thing. -- SCZenz 19:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Laws of Wikipedia"

You'all may find it interesting to take a look at the "Laws of Wikipedia" as outlined by someone that ran what must be the mother of all WP:POINT actions, over a year pretending to be a critic of Scientology and then getting caught shortly after switching to a sock to pretend to be a supporter of Scientology. Why? I have no idea, only guesses. Would she have continued as the supporter for another year had she not been caught? No idea. But her insights into the process here are humorous and insightful and somewhat trollish in themselves. A few of the points have direct relevance to what we are engaged upon. See User:Wikipediatrix and associated talk. --Justanother 18:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This might help

I see you're continuing to have a bit of trouble. There's an essay you should read, it might help: Wikipedia:Don't be a fanatic. Ned Wilbury 16:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I would ask the deletionists to read that. StuRat 16:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Dunno who these deletionists are, but I recommend that essay to everyone. I suspect most seasoned editors have read it a time or two. Have you read it, yet? There's some great stuff in there. Ned Wilbury 18:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A perspective

StuRat, I see trouble is continuing for you. I'll make no judgment about how or why this happens. I've noticed that you seemed reasonable and polite in your interactions with me, even when you disagreed. So, I know it's not just a case of "that jerk StuRat just wants to fight with everyone".

Yet, there's fighting going on, so there must be some explanation. Is it possible that you're thinking of some other editors as enemies to be defeated, rather than as colleagues to be collaborated with? There's a trick I've used sometimes in cases like these: try forgetting all your existing notions of other people. In fact, maybe you shouldn't even think of them as people at all. Read each comment, just for what it says- don't assume it really means something other than what it says.

I recommend trying this, EVEN on people who have, through their own actions, made themselves your enemy. If someone shows up here and says, "StuRat, you're disruptive", don't fight them about it. Instead, demonstrate your non-disruptiveness through your editing behavior, and the accuser will come off looking like they made an unwarranted accusation. Try doing this, and you may find that your enemies disappear completely. Ned Wilbury 19:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

PS. Just to be clear, it looks to me like some of the people you're disagreeing with have also come to view you as the enemy rather than a colleague- I don't mean to imply any one-sidedness here. All I'm saying is, you'll come off looking like the sensible one if you take the high road here. Ned Wilbury 19:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The trouble with that approach is that one can be accused of not responding to comments placed on one's talk page. Ive seen on AN/I this reason used a number of times as a deciding factor in whether to block a user. Also, any unrefuted claims get accepted by less than diligent editors and Admins alike. From there, its only a short step to being blocked (possibly by the original complainant). You may not have broken any rules, but if one admin thinks you have and the accusation appears undefended on your page, other admins are likely to agree with a block. Deletion of these posts can also lead to a block so the only answer is to archive the page (but not too soon- cos that can also lead to a block) Isnt it fascinating how the simple editor can never actually win an argument with one or more admins no matter what he does.? 8-) --Light current 19:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow- I've gotten a very different impression of how things go here. Has what you're suggesting actually happened? Where can I see this? Ned Wilbury 19:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I saw some of those very arguments used against LC on his recent block and Talk Page protection: [20]. StuRat 19:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes I was drawing on my own recent experiences. You may look up my block log etc.--Light current 19:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow. LC, I see around 10 blocks in your block log, for reasons like vandalism, 3RR, personal attacks, trolling, and disruption. I even see that the latest one involved an admin who unblocked you, then reblocked, saying that you wasted his good-faith unblocking. All these were unwarranted, or just one? Was it discussed at AN/I or anything? Does Wikipedia really block editors 10 times for no reason? That's just wrong, if that's what's going on. Ned Wilbury 19:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

See the discussion here: [21]. There were some reasons to block him, but, once they got into the "Admins good, LC bad" mode of thinking, everything he did or didn't do was used as a justification for further action. The most absurd reasons given were his countdown of the number of days remaining on the block and having lots of edits on his own talk page. StuRat 19:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

No the first couple were an error on the part of an Admin. THat was quickly corrected. All subsequent blocks resulted from my trying to defend myself from attack.(obviously in the wrong manner)--Light current 19:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah Ned, forgot to ask, how do you define disruption?--Light current 22:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah basically, once the feeding frenzy starts, its very hard to stop, then a block is almost certain. I feel StuRat is on the brink ATM 8-(--Light current 19:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, LC that's not a good block log. Appraently you have changed since the early blocks as I have not noticed outright personal attacks. However, I do note that you have a history with other admins that are not invoved in this debate. In response to StuRat, only the last three seem related to discussions here.

Furthermore, these blocks have occured over a long period of time. Of course people with habitual problems of interacting poorly with other users will be tolerated less. This is a case of 'make your own bed'. David D. (Talk) 20:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Well David, Im sure I dont need to tell you who writes the block log entries! (Hint: it wasnt me!) Do you believe everything you read in the papers? Also you are correct: only the last three are related to discussions here. --Light current 20:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It depends on how much research I do and there is always the issue of "smoke and fire". Regardless, in this case we are starting a fresh (and you have not used personal attacks here), so i'll ignore the log. David D. (Talk) 20:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC) (as an aside, an apology to sturat for litering his talk page with off topic stuff. i forgot where i was posting David D. (Talk) 20:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC))

Well, I don't see anyone saying "admins good, LC bad" but of course there's a lot to look at there. Looks to me like his talk page edits were used as a reason to protect the page, not as a reason to block, since he was already blocked at that time. Honestly, LC, I find it somewhat hard to believe that these 10 blocks were unwarranted. By the way, people DO try to judge the mindset of editors. So, if a blocked editors makes edits like "Fuck you all, I'll vandalise whatever I want!" on his talk page, this would be a legit reason to conclude he was here for no reason other than to cause trouble. I don't see how LC's description above is a very accurate picture of this block situation. I came here to say "think of other editors as colleagues, not enemies" and what I'm hearing in response is "We can't do that! Look at all the bad things our enemies have done!" I think this misses the point a bit. Ned Wilbury 19:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I think its pretty pointless to rake over ther old coals. Suffice to say that editors can be blocked just for digagreeing with Admins or arguing with them. (I think they call that disruption).--Light current 20:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

LC, you're making the same assertion again, but as the discussion here has indicated, your assertion does not look like it's warranted. Like I said, I came here to say "think of other editors as colleagues, not enemies" and what I'm hearing in response is "But look at the bad things our enemies have done." I still have seen no evidence that admins block people for disagreement. I asked for evidence, and none was given. By repeating this (apparently unfounded) accusation against admins, you sound like you're fighting for fighting's sake. What are you trying to accomplish? Ned Wilbury 20:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

ATM Im trying to defend StuRat, and warn others of likely ramifications by pointing to past events.--Light current 20:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saint StuRat

Jesus Christ, StuRat, you have the patience of a f**king saint. It's like a tag team boxing match except five of them against one of you. I don't see how you put up with it all day. -THB 20:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

If not here on ref desk? David D. (Talk) 20:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This is cyberspace. Not real life. He can stop any time he likes. --Justanother 21:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

That is true but at present there is a discussion and it seems to be productive from the perspective of getting an understanding of each others opinon. If StuRat wishes to disengage and archive the lot that is fine with me. I admit it must be hard with so many replies here. That orange thing must be driving him nuts. David D. (Talk) 21:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I get attacked by the vocal minority wherever I go. StuRat 21:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Who is attacking you? David D. (Talk) 21:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry theres two now. Ive just been let out of the 'sin bin'. THats why Im helping to field some of the sillier questions on Stu's page. I hope he doesnr mind. Maybe he'll let you help too! 8-)--Light current 21:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I had a list of who was attacking me, but was forced to delete it from this page, due to constant attacks. How ironic. StuRat 21:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, LC, five or six against TWO. I just got let out of the 'sin bin', too. I think I got let out late 'cause I was still blocked this morning. Do you think I'll get credit for the extra time served against my next block? -THB 21:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

No!8-( But its five or six against three now! Odds are improving! 8-)--Light current 21:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm very sorry that you think we're all attacking you, StuRat. I agree that some people on all sides of this issue have stepped over the bounds of polite and civil discourse, but I'm getting tired of being lumped in with everyone and being misrepresented and abused by you.

You weren't 'forced to delete' your list from this page. What happened is that you were asked politely – by at least three editors (see #Lists, further up this page) – to stop misrepresenting our views with narrow, polarizing, and pejorative terminology. I note that you retained the list of editors in your user space without any further complaint once you removed the rude and misleading section headers. I'm disappointed that you think of that list as a list of people who were 'attacking' you.

You continue to use the term 'deletionist' in discussions despite repeated, polite, emphatic requests to use a less-loaded term. You insist on characterizing your opponents as sockpuppet-wielding liars (See #Would you reconsider your remark?). You appear to be treating this entire discussion as an opportunity to smear good-faith contributors who work hard for this project. And you have the chutzpah to say we're constantly attacking you. I give up. I'm taking your talk page off my watchlist, and I'm going to ignore your remarks as much as possible in the future. I don't need the abuse, the insults, or the hypertension. Merry Christmas. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Too bad, you were one of the only deletionist Admins who tried to maintain a modicum of neutrality. StuRat 01:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It would seem that StuRat calls a spade: a spade. As I do. Saves a lot of confusion! Merry Xmas 8-)--Light current 01:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

How do you think this looks to other editors, when you sit around saying "Ha ha, I got blocked too. I wonder when I'll get blocked next.."? Whether you mean to or not, you come off sounding like troublemaking kids who enjoy making trouble for its own sake. If you want other editors to believe you're here to make productive edits, you may want to change your tune a bit. Ned Wilbury 21:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I take back what I said below. -THB 21:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I know a lot of tunes. Which one would you like! Also my edit count speaks for itself! 8-)--Light current 00:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Let old dogs lie

Just thought what is being said to me in private regarding my posts here might be interesting:

Don't you think you should drop this "I was blocked unjustly" routine? You were given another chance in this last block, and you blew that one. Are you just looking for amusement by seeing how many chances you can be given? Honestly, from the looks of your block log, and the way you continue to behave, many many people would get that exact impression. Ned Wilbury 20:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting to compare and contrast the different tones, isnt it?--Light current 21:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Remind me to never email you "in private" --Justanother 21:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

No I mean to my talk page!--Light current 21:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that's not private. OK. --Justanother 21:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Ned is quite pleasant compared to most of the rest of them. -THB 21:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Does this look like a threat to anyone?

The best thing you could do is: stop the kinds of behaviors that have gotten you blocked 10 times. I've read the discussions at AN/I, I don't see how more is needed. The situation looks pretty clear to me. Ned Wilbury 21:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Like what, replying to other editors on Stuys page, or telling jokes on the Rd or something else? ?--Light current 21:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

--Light current 21:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On a more collegial note

After a hectic day on StuRats talk page time to take a break. StuRat, I may disagree with you, but I respect your work here too. A critic does not have be an enemy too. Have a great Christmas, if you do that sort of thing. If not, just have a fun weekend. David D. (Talk) 00:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, and a Happy Festivus to you, as well. StuRat 01:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletionists won't "Break" me

I don't know if this situation is recoverable, but I do wish you a very merry Festivus and a happy New Year. Please remember that all this Wikipedia crap is something you do because you like to do it (or at least you used to like to do it). Although I realize your opinion may vary I, for one, do not consider you to be an enemy. I suggested some time ago seeking help from me or from the folks at Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates; you don't have to tough this out by yourself. If you're not thinking about taking a break, you might want to consider this (no slam implied). Take care. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but too many people have already been scared away by the tactics of the deletionists, if I go on break they will run rampant with heavy-handed deletions and blocks. But you have a merry Festivus and a happy New Year. StuRat 12:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed medical advice.

I have removed your comment which gave a diagnosis and medical advice on the Ref Desk. If you disagree with this removal, please take the matter up on the RD talk page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know and putting in the removal notice. However, if you don't need to go through a consensus process to remove a comment, then I don't need to go through such a process to reinstate it, either. I've modified it slightly, to take out any semblance of medical advice. Now it basically just says "see a doctor and don't do that again". StuRat 16:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC) StuRat 16:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

StuRat, you misunderstand. Just because Ten didn't go through the process you invented for removal of content, this doesn't mean anything. It's bad form to redo an edit someone else has undone. Rather than editing by brute force, you should have made your case on the talk page and waited for other opinions. Ned Wilbury 17:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it's bad form to delete somebody's edit from a talk page, like the Ref Desk, without first gaining consensus to do so. Restoring the edit is absolutely allowed under the "wiki process", and does not require gaining consensus first. Also, I didn't do a straight restore, in any case, but altered my response, as indicated above, to address any concerns. Calling it a "process I invented" is also rather insulting, as that process had widespread support when it was put up for a straw poll some time ago. StuRat 17:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

You put it back AGAIN and still have not engaged in talk page discussion? This is edit warring- see Wikipedia:Edit war. Please don't do that- it can even get you blocked from editing. Ned Wilbury 17:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I've only "put it back" once, as the first time I changed it substantially to address any concerns. As for edit warring, it takes two sides to edit war, and you and Ten have shown no willingness to compromise on the content of my post, while I have. Thus, you should be blocked, not I, for your uncompromising position and non-consensus deletions from a talk page. StuRat 17:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

You do know you violated longstanding tradition by giving medical advice, right? So, a reasonable person would expect that making such an edit is controversial. When you make a controversial edit, and someone disagrees strongly enough to remove it, you should NOT just put it back. This is when you take things to the talk page. This is basic editing practice. You've been around a long time, you should not need to have this explained to you. If you disagree with Wikipedia tradition, well, OK, make your case on a talk page. But going around defying it, knowing it'll cause trouble, just to prove a point? That's not OK. Ned Wilbury 18:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I deny that I gave medical advice, unless you consider "go ask a doctor" to be medical advice. All your arguments are designed to heavily favor deletionists. Arguments should be symmetrical, if no consensus is needed to revert an addition, then none is needed to put it back in, either. Also, you should know by my putting it back in that I "feel strongly about it", so your additional revert needed to be taken to the talk page, first. And I'm not trying to prove a point, I feel my answer is a good one, and should remain in. You, on the other hand, and Ten, can't possibly think my advice to see a doctor and avoid ear trauma could be harmful, so you must both be trying to make a WP:POINT. StuRat 18:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you missed this edit? I left a note on the user's talk page.EricR 13:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)