Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 29

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31→Archive 35

Wot Bot?

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

It is definitely erratic.
Only a few of these missing dates have been archived (by hand?).  --LambiamTalk 09:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know where the missing dates are? I've had a look for March 29 for Humanities, but with no success. Is there a RD version of the Bermuda Triangle? Clio the Muse 15:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 March 29. Although not listed on the "contents" page for the March archives, in this case the archived page itself is there (archived by hand by eric). Other ones can be found if you go back in the page history to the version just before the section for the date was cut out. I'm afraid these defects will have to be fixed by hand. As to April 9 having been missed out, the bot's owner Martinp23 said he'd rectify that tonight, bringing the bot back up to date.  --LambiamTalk 16:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
At this point I'm considering leaving the missing archives blank, the amount of effort required to restore them would be prohibitive. I will however create null pages containing only the date headers, if someone wants to look through the page histories and restore the missing days by hand, the date headers will be in place (in a few days anyway). So that way at least navigation templates will be consistent --VectorPotentialTalk 23:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Ouch - I've had a look at the pages now, and everything is in a worse situation than I expected. The cause was probably a missing date header, leading to spiralling errors - I can't fix the pages tonight, so I'm afraid that today's archive won't be able to take place. It would help me loads if people could put date headers in the appropriate places. I suspect that the missing text *may* be in the archive of an earlier date, though I've not checked this and am simply making it up, based on some of what I've seen the bot doing. Finally, it's easy for me to get the bot to catch up on archives on the main desks, so please don't bother yourself with doing that. From time to time, the manual archiving can cause the bot to screw things up (such as archiving far too much into one archive day) - however, if you want to do it, I have no problem with it, but I'd ask that you start from the *top* of the desk, and leave a transclusion. Thanks, Martinp23 23:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
All date headers are now up to date, and I found the missing days on the Entertainment desk, they're still on the desk :lol: VectorPotentialTalk 00:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
The bot seems to be up to date now - fingers crossed! Thanks everyone for your hard work. Martinp23 23:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
RefDeskBot did a number of very strange things tonight, but they've all been corrected, so from this point on, we should be up to date--VectorPotentialTalk 00:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed some of the weirdness! Thanks for all of your efforts. Clio the Muse 00:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Seems to have gone missing as well--VectorPotentialTalk 16:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Good Burger 2

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

I'm guessing it was seen as trolling due to the hoax contents of the repeatedly-deleted former article Good Burger 2 which was deleted yet again just today. Friday (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps, if the same I/P was used to create that article as the Ref Desk question. If so, I would have expected that to be mentioned in the deletion edit summary, however. StuRat 21:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Did you ask the editor who removed the content why he did so? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
That would be a good idea. In cases where I think someone might have more information than me, I usually ask for clarification before reverting. Friday (talk) 21:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
There was also a long spate of questions relating to Good Burger 2 a few months (6 months?) ago. The questioner would ask and re-ask the same questions on almost a daily basis. Dismas|(talk) 21:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
But do we know this is the same person ? StuRat 01:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

archiving

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

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

ok - if for the benefit of people on 'dial up' - I knew there must be a reason. thanks.87.102.84.170 17:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Also note that, since there is only one copy, seen in two places (not two copies), any change is immediately seen in both places. StuRat 17:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I myself have an issue with this because a question that I asked on the 10th got only one (non-constructive) answer and has already been archived. What's going on here? - AMP'd 02:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
We're finally moving toward our goal, which is to archive the future before it happens. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
The 10th hasn't been archived yet, on any of the boards, so people are still free to respond to it Ok, so apparently it has been archived on most of the desks, people are still free to respond on the archive pages, and you can always repost the question--VectorPotentialTalk 12:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
As far as getting an answer, it doesn't much matter if the question is in the archives, so long as remains transcluded on the main Ref Desk. Once the transclusion is dropped, however, further answers are unlikely. StuRat 15:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Shampoo

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

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

Pretentious, pedantic airs

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

I actually find this comment a bit lofty and condescending. --Charlene 20:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
That's fine. Vranak
I didn't see Vranak's post as lofty or condescending. But I do know exactly what he's talking about. JackofOz 22:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't (which makes me wonder if I am among the un-named few). If so, then perhaps it would be better if you were more explicit by what you mean, as how are people expected to drop them if they are unaware they are interepreted in that way? Rockpocket 22:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
"Think like a wise man but communicate in the language of the people." -- W.B. Yeats Vranak
With all respect, I don't consider that a particularly helpful response to a straitforward question. Yeats is hardly the "language of the people" today. Rockpocket 22:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Well then I'll set your mind at rest: I wasn't talking about you. And the problem has already been resolved. Vranak
Thank you. Rockpocket 23:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Religious taunting and trolling

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

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

Sounds fair. Vranak
Sounds more than fair. Clio the Muse 20:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Sounds more than more than fair. Vranak
XD V-Man - T/C 04:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Please let me ask my question

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

Don't bother asking why. If they did it, they did it for a reason. It's a lot easier to change your own behaviour than someone else's. Vranak
And what if the "reason" they had was that they just don't like you or don't like your opinions? What if there's nothing wrong with your behaviour at all, but rather the behaviour of the deletionist? I have to admit that I find the blind faith that you seem to be displaying concerning the motivation of those who engage in arbitrarily deleting others posts is remarkably naive. To further suggest that the deletion is invariably a clear sign that the poster is doing something wrong and should consider changing his or her behaviour is all the more naive, and an unwarranted indictment of the poster's behaviour, absent a shred of evidence in favour of either party, is, well ... I'm really not sure how to describe it except to note the extraordinary irony I'm feeling right now that you of all people were the one to question my logical sensibilities? Very strange. Lewis 20:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I think Vranak was being ironic. A.Z. 03:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Let's hope so. If not, we could also say "if someone reverts your deletions they did it for a reason. It's a lot easier to change your own behavior than someone else's". StuRat 04:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

I thought it referred to the last trolling question about the catholic church or the last shampoo question, neither of which could be construed as requests for information. I actually wrote an answer to the homosexuality/polygamy question but lost it in an edit conflict. That question at least did not seem like obvious trolling to me. The first quote that I was planning to put was the "Kill them all. God will sort them out." quote (in reference to the questions, not people) but decided we should try to be a bit more discriminating than that. Surely you see that some of the questions here are not requests for information, but attempts to provoke disagreement or soapboxing? alteripse 23:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Some questions may indeed be attempts to provoke disagreement or soapboxing. Most often I find they can be answered without acceding to the assumed agenda of the OP. I like to think I'm spoiling their day by not rising to the bait. --Tagishsimon (talk)

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

OK, so I'm a bit out of step here. Which question did you shoot on sight? alteripse 01:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I believe we are talking about this unilateral deletion: [4]. StuRat 01:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh. I shouldn't shoot from the hip when I haven't been paying as much attention around here lately. alteripse 01:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Stu, please take a look at 71.185.131.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)'s contributions. Also, i was not the first editor to delete this particular question.—eric 01:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually the talk page says all you need to know... Nil Einne 00:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I was one of the ones which deleted that. One of the reasons was because this editor quite clearly came here with an agenda as shown by the original variant [5]. While the later versions were better phrased, I personally felt enough was enough, especially with the way that he or she continued to add it without discussing first (and was eventually blocked for) Nil Einne 23:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

LEAVE! For the love of God LEAVE!

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

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

But this time, I had to speak.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lewis, you've announced that you're "defecting" from the Ref desk. You say "Should the required [Ref desk] issues be dealt with, I'll be more than glad to return, without hesitation". Urging others to leave as you have is hardly the way to allow issues to be dealt with. Please either be true to your word, or come back. You can't have it both ways. JackofOz 04:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Jack, it's only because I see you as a member of the "logical and intelligent" minority here I was speaking of that I'm willing to respond to your comment. You say that "[I] can't have it both ways". How inappropriately logical of you! The very theme of this whole page seems to be based on the illogic inherent in the fact that so many are allowed to "have it both ways". The logically challenged I was speaking of somehow seem to see some sort of perverse logic in the fact that they're allowed to attack others with impunity, while any attacks upon them are utterly unacceptable. Is that not the very essence of "having it both ways"? I must admit, though, Jack, that I'm a bit disappointed in you for not seeming to recognize the glaringly obvious double standards I'm speaking of. I believe you to be an intelligent guy, so I'll just assume that you indeed do see them, yet consciously choose not to comment upon them. However in the unlikely event that you're actually completely oblivious to these double standards, something I can't hardly imagine, then perhaps you're indeed not the astute observer of human behaviour I had always assumed you to be.
It's my honest belief that should the intelligent and logical among us just leave, the remaining logically challenged will be left with no one to pick on. Dazed and confused, and having lost all sense of purpose, they too will leave. Only then can the intelligent and logical return to begin the task of rebuilding this place into what it should be, a talk page dedicated to the improvement of the RefDesk. To be blunt, this page is in desperate need of an enema.
However for the meantime, as they say, "if you can't beat'em, join'em!". With that in mind, I too have decided that here and only here, I'll throw my logic out the window and instead opt for the illogic of "having things both ways". I therefore make the following announcement:
I, Lewis, hereby promise never to return here again, EVER! Except now and then when I feel like it. Lewis 12:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
There's really nothing in the foregoing that's worthy of any response. JackofOz 12:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
How very kind of you to say that, Jack. Good to finally know the truth. Apparently you too don't take any of my grievances seriously. Perhaps you believe that I'm some sort of lunatic who sees this whole thing as one big joke, and that my purported grievances are mere insincere pretexts used to excuse my otherwise purposeless disruptive behaviour. Or even worse, perhaps you do indeed recognize that I've been wronged and hurt and that these issues have indeed caused me great deal of distress, but you just don't give a shit. Thanks. Lewis 14:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Maybe. I continue to maintain that a) one of the main reasons discourse turns into mutual diatribe of opposing camps here is that b) there is no consensus about what the reference desk IS, and thus c) it is premature to discuss how to improve it. But I also agree that the desk works (slightly) more often than not, and chose instead other than this tiny note to leave the talk page discussion, rather than the desks themselves, until folks are willing to talk on a more fundamental level than "which policies apply", and the ever-too-premature "is this more like an article space or a talk page". That said, I am not prepared to leave the reference desks themselves, as I believe even without consensus about function and purpose, there is still more good than harm in my presence, and further believe there is stil a majority of us here who do more good than harm. Ironically, if those of us who actually listen to each other listened to this urging to leave and DID leave, it would leave a space populated only by those who refuse to listen to others -- a poor volunteer pool, indeed! Also, I'd rather teach than not teach. Jfarber 15:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I actually agree with you, J. I just think that you may be misundestanding what I proposed above. I'll explain with a personal example. Two of my brothers were heroine addicts (at different times). At first we had no idea how to react and kept feeding them, caring for them and providing them with a roof over their head, thinking that our love would be their best hope at kicking the habit. Of course this didn't work. So the rest of the family, including myself joined one of those "support groups" for the loved ones of drug abusers. We learned a great deal there. One of the most important things we learned was that in caring and providing for them, we were actually doing more harm than good. We were, what they termed, only further "enabling" them to continue their drug habits. We were told that in the vast majority of cases, those who recovered from addiction only did so after having, as they term it, "hit bottom". Basically, what that meant is that as difficult and heartbreaking as it was, in order to help them, we had to quit enabling them, lock them out of the house, and let them sink to the lowest depths they can tolerate, be it living on the street in a cardboard box, going hungry because they spent all their money on drugs and couldn't afford food, or whatever. Only then, when they finally "hit bottom" and got fed up with their miserable lives could they then finally realize that they absolute MUST quit, and stay quit, as, should they consider returning to their old ways, they'd immediately associate the needle with that image of starving in a filthy cardboard box, and with that miserable image in their minds, they'd make sure to stay as far away from drugs as possible.
Some of you may find the analogy to be a bit of a stretch, but I honestly see one. I "defected" from the RefDesk because I finally felt that in trying and trying and trying to improve things, I was only enabling it to survive in its horribly dysfunctional state. Instead I chose to leave, and urged as many of the best contributors to leave as well, because I felt that the only hope for the RefDesk to recover and return to the amazing place it was just a year ago, was to let it "hit bottom". Call the analogy silly, or melodramatic, or an incredible stretch, whatever. You're probably right anyway. I can only speak for myself.
I've been contacted by many fellow editors, (some of whom I'd never even heard of and had no idea they actually enjoyed reading my posts,) be it on my talk page, or via email, all basically saying the same thing over the past few months: "Loomis! What the hell's happened to you? You used to be such a great contributor! Articulate, intelligent, knowledgeable, passionate, at times a bit cranky and hot-headed, but generaly a real joy to read (despite being overly lengthy at times!). What's happened to you? The quality of your contributions has dropped dramatically, and all you seem to do lately is keep picking fights with Clio for no apparent reason...what the hell's going on?" What happened was that in desperately trying to get it through to people that the RefDesk was in serious trouble for a variety of reasons, and if nothing would be done soon it would eventually go completely to pot. Yet no one seemed to listen, which just got me all the more frustrated, harming the quality of my contributions to the point that they became virtually useless. So that's basically my story. The atmosphere at the RefDesk has become so stifling that I just can't contribute anything of use anymore. Should the atmosphere finally change for the better, I'd love to come back. I just don't see it happening anytime soon.
But I get your point Friday. Quit with the diatribes and replace them with positive suggestions. Fair enough. I strongly suggest that the admins urgently and with all due haste commit themselves to put in every possible effort to enforce WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL as fairly and as equally as is humanly possible among ALL contributors. IMHO, if this simple issue were to be finally adressed and corrected once and for all, a great deal, if not all of the constant bickering, name calling and incivility would cease. It's so plainly obvious that certain members realize that they can be as insulting and incivil as they wish, without any fear of reprimand. Knowing this, they freely insult others, inevitably provoking their targets to insult them back. The whole thing then ultimately descends into a flame war filled with nothing but diatribes and demagoguery. If only the admins would redouble their efforts at enforcing WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL as fairly and equally as possible, mark my words, you wouldn't believe the extent to which the quality of discussion on this page would improve. The answer seems so simple, yet no one seems to be willing to even give it a try. Are you? Lewis 15:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Enforce? How do you propose we enforce such a thing? There's no way I know of to MAKE people be civilized- all we can do is complain at them about it afterwards when they're not. I don't see that the problem is as bad as you make out, but maybe I've missed something. Friday (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, my choice of the word "enforce" was obviously a poor one. Perhaps I should have used the phrase "issue warnings and threats to block". I must have been issued at least a dozen if not more warnings and threats that if I don't clean my act up, I'll get blocked. Yet looking at the talk pages of those users who so viciously attacked me on so many occasions, I see nothing. Not a single threat to be blocked, not a single warning, and not even one single friendly suggestion such as "Listen, maybe you lost your temper or something, but those things you said about Loomis were pretty nasty. I know you're better than that. As a friendly suggestion, please stop doing it, it's not right." Not even that. Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Lewis 16:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Well.. If you're looking for Wikipedia to be "fair", you're in the wrong place. Justice and fairness and similar concepts are not an essential ingredient to making encyclopedia articles, so we don't worry about them much. That said, things ideally should not be gratuitously unfair, either. My only suggestion is to put personal disagreements behind you. Making things personal never helps make the encyclopedia better. Friday (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Lewis. The Admin bias against inclusionist here is quite obvious and severe. Whenever I complain about it, I get no response at all, as here: [6]. StuRat 17:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


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

You say "Justice and fairness and similar concepts are not an essential ingredient to making encyclopedia articles, so we don't worry about them much." If you're indeed correct, and "Justice and fairness and similar concepts are" indeed "not an essential ingredient to making encyclopedia articles. Why do we even bother with such unnecessary policies as WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL in the first place? I change my suggestion. I say we scrap WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL altogether, as they apparently serve no purpose. Lewis 17:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd just like to make one final point clear. The central issue here is not fairness itself, it's the detrimental effect that unfairness inevitably brings about that I'm driving at. Sure, I'm insulted by being treated unfairly (interestingly, Friday actually seems to openly concede that fact), but it's not any insult to me that matters, it's the damage that this type of unfairness does to the RefDesk that's at stake here. Look around! Look at all the bickering, the hostility, the anger, the diatribes and the demagoguery. It's so simple. Unfairness breeds resentment, resentment breads anger, anger breeds hostility and hostility ultimately leads to diatribes, demagoguery, incivility and personal attacks.
In short, I consider fairness to be EXTREMELY important, but many of you seem to be misunderstanding just why I consider it to be so important. Fairness is not the end that so many of you seem to think I'm searching for, rather it's the means that's necessary to ensure decorum and high quality discussion. Does anybody understand at all what I'm talking about or am I merely wasting my time once again? Lewis 18:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I understand, and agree. StuRat 18:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Lewis, you seem pretty hot under the collar. You want to talk about logic when you're ranting? Vranak
I for one see no relation whatsoever between being logical and being calm. A.Z. 02:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh really? Pftt. Vranak
Yes, Vranak, really... A.Z. 05:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Alright, does calm and rational work better for you? Calm and reasonable? Calm and sensible? Calm and understandable? Calm and agreeable? Vranak
Vranak's remarks seem to be a great example of yet another logical fallacy. Perhaps Stu would no the more accurate term for it, but it would seem to be a variation, or perhaps a subset of what's commonly known as the ad hominem attack.
Basically, the logical fallacy goes something like this: Since empirically speaking, the more emotionally charged an argument tends to be, the less likely it is to be a logical one; Therefore, emotionally charged arguments are invariably nothing more than illogical rants.
From this fallacious reasoning, if I were to make a completely logical argument, yet in an extremely emotionally charged manner, the argument, which would otherwise be considered a logical one, is deemed to be illogical, based solely on the nature in which it was presented.
For example, if someone were to make the bizarre assertion that those pretty, pink wading birds known as flamingos are in fact not forms of animal life at all, and if I were to respond with an argument such as the one below, phrased in the coldest and most dispassionate of manners, it would clearly be considered a completely logical one, and a rather simple means of refuting the original assertion that flamingos are in fact not forms of animal life:
"Whereas, if it is accepted that: All flamingos are birds;
And Whereas, if it is also accepted that: All birds are animals;
It is therefore logical to conclude that: All flamingos are animals".
Seems like a rather logically airtight argument, wouldn't you say?
Now say I would express this very same logical argument in the most emotionally charged of manners:
"Look, Mr. Doe, your assertion is absurd. Flamingos are indeed animals. I really don't get why you can't seem to understand my glaringly obvious point. Perhaps you're limited mind is simply incapable of understanding the obvious logic of it. Or perhaps you do understand it, but you're too pig-headed and so incredibly insecure and lacking in humility, that no matter how obvious the logic and truth of my point is, you just don't have the strength of character to admit that I may be right about anything. Whatever the case may be, I'll repeat my argument one final time in one final attempt to get through to you: All flamingos are birds, right? Can you at the very least acccept that one? Have you ever heard any flamingo that wasn't a bird? I can't imagine you have, but if somehow you're aware of some flamingo that indeed isn't a bird, please tell me about it, as to the best of my knowledge I've never known of any flamingo that wasn't a bird. However, if you're simply unable to present me with an example of a flamingo not being a bird, would you then finally prepared to agree with me that I'm indeed correct when I assert that all flamingos are birds? Now, all birds are animals, right? And please don't play any semantic games with me concerning any alternate slang definitions for the word bird, (or flamingo, or animal for that matter,) I'm fully aware that the English sometimes use the word "bird" as a slang word to describe an attractive young woman. However in using the terms "flamingo, bird, and animal", I'm referring to them in their most obvious, scientific sense. That being said, would you not agree that all birds are animals? Every bird that I've ever known to exist was an animal. Of course I'm completely aware that many artificial aircraft, such as for example the blackbird spyplane, as well as artificial aircraft in general, are often referred to as "birds". But again, when I say "bird", I mean it in the most literal scientific sense, not in any metaphorical sense as referring to artificial aircraft or young English women. That understood, are you aware of any exceptions? If so, once again, please inform me of any possible exceptions, as I'd be genuinely curious to be made aware of some species of bird that, unlike all the rest, is indeed not considered to be an animal. If you can't think of one, would you be willing to agree with me that the assertion that "all birds are animals" is indeed true? If you are, why is it so damned difficult for you to accept the logic of my assertion that since we both agree that all flamingos are birds, and we both agree that all birds are animals, it therefore logically follows that all flamingos are aimals, and that your assertion that flamingos are in fact not animals is entirely false? But like I said, this is my last attempt at getting through to you, if you still can't understand my argument, well, I give up."
Well sure, unlike the first version, by contrast the second version was extremely emotionally charged, harsh, angry, filled with irritation, frustration, incivility, personal attacks, etc. To be short, it was quite the rant. But was its central argument, that being that all flamingos are birds, any less logical? Not at all. The logic of it is just as airtight as it was in the first version.
Vranack observed: "Lewis, you seem pretty hot under the collar. You want to talk about logic when you're ranting?" To that I'd suggest that Vranack may be watching a bit too much Star Trek. Strong emotion is not the enemy of logic, as both Mr. Spock and apparently Vranack would seem to believe. Losing one's temper is not equivalent to losing one's mind, or one's sense of rationality and logic. In fact, I actually believe that there are even some times when excessive calmness can indeed be an obtacle to logic.
So in answer to Vranack's question, sure, I don't have the slightest problem with talking about logic when I'm ranting. Though my emotions may negatively affect my sensibilities, my tone and my civility, they never distort my logic. My mind is far too logically centred for that.
There seems to be a rather annoying pattern going on. I make an emotionally charged, yet logically airtight argument, and it's dismissed as an emotionally charged rant. And since it's a rant, it can't possibly make any logical sense, according to the logical fallacy I referred to above. But this is no more than an obvious cop-out. If you believe my argument to be illogical, rather than take the easy way out and dismiss it as an emotionally-charged-and-therefore-illogical rant, how about for God's sake actually reading the thing?
For example, how about rereading my last three previous posts of April 10th above, beginning with the words "You say "Justice and fairness..." and ending with "Does anybody understand at all what I'm talking about or am I merely wasting my time once again?". Only this time, rather than dismiss it as yet another "emotionally-charged-and-therefore-illogical-rant", how about taking the bold step of actually reading it and pointing out to me exactly where my logic is flawed. If the logic of it is flawed, it's flawed. I'd still like to have some idea of exactly where and how it's flawed, rather than have the whole thing dismissed as a "rant", and not even worth reading in the first place.
Then again, I suppose what I've just written here, as completely logical as it is, rather than be taken seriously, can once again be casually dismissed as "rant", saving anyone from actually bothering to look for any actual specific logical flaws within it. Nah ... just take the easy way out, dismiss the whole thing as yet another rant and move on. Lewis 19:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
You are boring. Vranak
Lewis, you seem to enjoy writing. While I have a lot of trouble putting my thoughts into words, you manage to do that just fine. I would like to add to what you said that another very dangerous consequence of this fallacy happens when people believe that someone is right only based on the calmness and emotional control and beautiful well-chosen words of this person, not even bothering to look for any true argument and logic behind all that endless rethoric. A.Z. 23:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Any chance you could provide an abridged version of that rant tutorial in logical reasoning? Rockpocket 00:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Who are you talking to? (and you seem to be proving Lewis's point precisely, as if he had talked you into doing this as to give a perfect example of "dismissing it as 'rant', saving anyone from actually bothering to look for any actual specific logical flaws within it.")A.Z. 01:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • You're entitled to disagree with an established policy, in which case you're entitled to do what you can to change it, within the established procedures for policy evolution. And I'm equally entitled to agree with a policy, without being subjected to the kind of criticism that you dished out. It's not your right to dictate to others how they might contribute to a debate - including your insistence on support being what you call "logical" - as long as they don't breach any agreed Wikipedia guidelines or policies. WP has many examples of a position being arrived at by a vote; many users explain why they vote the way they did, but many simply add their names to the "Support" or "Do Not Support" lists without any explanation. Do you deny their right to make such posts? (And if your answer is "yes", then my response is "tough!". And if you think that doesn't meet your standards of logical argument, I still say "tough!") -- JackofOz 03:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • "I'm equally entitled to agree with a policy, without being subjected to the kind of criticism that you dished out". How come? You had the right to state your position! And I don't have the right to state my position, i.e., that I disagree with you? And don't I have the right to say why I disagree with you, even if it's based on non-provable assumptions? I mean, I at least gave a full explanation of my position to other people! They can judge for themselves, including you, whether it makes sense or not. Why to censor my opinion? I completely agree that you CAN and SHOULD come here and say whether you agree or not with Rockpocket. I am the one defending your right to do that, to say what you think WITHOUT PROVING IT! And it is not irrational to say: I believe this and I can't explain why. It is perfectly rational. And it is acceptable. As is you saying "I agree" and I saying "I think you're wrong because I think you are trying to marginalise my opinion and take me out of the discussion, instead of arguing with me, but I can't prove it". A.Z. 03:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • You certainly have a right to state an opposing position, but you certainly don't have the right to accuse someone of acting in bad faith, without any kind of evidence. Now, you agree and defend my right to state my support for an existing policy without having to give my reasons, but before, you described that very statement as "harmful" and "acting in bad faith". It seems you've done a complete turn-around - but thankfully you're now facing in a more reasonable and civil direction. I acknowledge this, and thank you. (For the record: I commented on Rockpocket's post with my short sentence (6 words, I believe) without any further explanation, because he said it better than I could have. I was almost going to reply with "I couldn't have put it better myself, Rockpocket" but I chose a conciser way of saying the same thing, and one which eliminated any unintended nuance of competition, with him or anyone else. There was absolutely no intention to marginalise your opinion or take you out of the discussion - that would be virtually impossible. You're entitled to think that was my intention, but, with respect, I think that says more about you than it does about me. It was a shame that that effort on my part to be non-confontational was met with such an aggressive response. But that's all behind us now, I hope.) JackofOz 04:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I am sorry I have been so aggressive, JackofOz. I did not think that statement of yours was bad. I think an appeal to majority is unspeakably harmful, but I care about what you think and I was back then trying to defend your right to say that. I don't know whether you were trying to harm Wikipedia or not, but if you were I would like to help you. And if you were just saying your opinion so we all could know what you think, I would like to talk to you about you and your opinion as well. I just thought that you had just given you personal opinion, an opinion that agreed that you were forbidden to give your personal opinion. I tried to explain why saying that you had agreed with Rockpocket's policy of "comment on the contributions, not on the contributors", but I wanted to comment on your contribution and your contribution was only about you, it was not about the content of his post! You were just talking about Jack, not about the merits or dismerits of what Rockpocket had said. You just said your opinion. You had just brought a person into the discussion, and Rockpocket was trying to send people out of the discussion and leave only the arguments so the arguments would debate with one another, as if we were not all people with feelings that actually matter. I am sorry for not being clear then and for not being clear now. I have a lot of trouble both speaking this language and understanding clearly what it is that I would like to say. But I do have something to say. A.Z. 05:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Once again, "comment on the contributions, not on the contributors" is not my policy. It is "an official policy on the English Wikipedia. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow". Please desist from personalising my request that you adhere to our core principles. Thank you. Rockpocket 06:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't know whether you were trying to harm Wikipedia or not - where for the love of God did that come from? Me harm Wikipedia? The only possible explanation as to how such a thought could ever have entered your mind is your admitted trouble with clearly understanding English.
  • ... an opinion that agreed that you were forbidden to give your personal opinion" - again, Huh?? Rockpocket was talking about commenting on contributions, not on the contributors themselves, which is what I agreed with. Comments on contributions will almost always include personal opinions. Time for a short English lesson: "Personal opinion" does not mean an opinion about a person, it means an opinion held by a person about something. That something, in this case, refers to contributions from other users. Granted, opinions are always personal, so the expression "personal opinion" is a bit of a tautology. But it's a commonly used idiom and you're going to have to learn to live with it. I think this linguistic problem may be where you've come unstuck. You obviously have a high regard for logic, but English isn't always logical.
  • You were just talking about Jack, not about the merits or dismerits of what Rockpocket had said - true, I did not discuss the merits or dismerits of what he said; but to say I was just talking about myself is not correct. That charge could be laid against anyone who starts a sentence with "I think that ...". Yes, it is their personal opinion that they are stating, but the subject of the opinion is not themself.
  • I understand that your fluency with English is not as high as you would like it to be, which is a strong argument for being particularly careful about making potentially inflammatory statements, especially those that impute bad motives to others. This cuts both ways - not only are you less able to express yourself accurately compared with a native speaker, but also you are less able to fully understand what others are saying. So, the risk of misunderstanding them is greater in your case than it might be in mine, for example. Therefore you have to temper your desire to respond on the basis of what you think someone has said, with the knowledge that it may not be accurate. If you're offended by something, it's far better to ask them what they meant, or "did you mean X?", than simply accuse them of committing some error. That approach will get you into hot water around here, guaranteed. You do indeed have something to say, and I welcome your continued involvement, if you bear the above in mind. Some of what you have said on these pages has been described by others as "disruptive" - I don't necessarily share that view, but I can certainly see why they might come to that conclusion. If there's anything you'd like to discuss further, I think it's best to come to my talk page and let the others get on with the topic at hand. Best wishes. JackofOz 06:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
People may also admit that they care more about how many people agree with you than about whether you're right or not:

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

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

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

A.Z. 02:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
My response is: the logical merits of your position notwithstanding, the entire critique based upon the suggestion that "we scrap WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL altogether, as they apparently serve no purpose" is not relevent to this talkpage. As I told A.Z. if you wish to change such well established, Wikipedia-wide core principles, then propose a policy to do so. Soapboxing in protest here is completely pointless. Also, please don't misrepresent my position, A.Z. I have my opinion of the merits of policies I uphold, but whether I think they are right or wrong does not effect my choice to adhere to them. I've made my feelings about policies known in the appropriate place and then I accepted the consensus, irrespective of whether I agree with it or not. This is how Wikipedia works. Either you can accept that or try and change it through the appropriate channels, but of you simply choose to agitate here in protest, you will eventually find yourself sanctioned by the community for being disruptive. Rockpocket 03:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
It's always good to remind what we're discussing in the first place: whether people can criticize other people on this talk page or not, because of Lewis's post.
I don't think the policy is wrong, I think the policy is nothing. And therefore you may stick to the policy or not; it makes no difference. I'm readind WP:CIVIL right now and it contains a bunch of vague statements that people can interpret as they wish. And, guess what, I don't think that saying someone is acting in bad faith is a personal attack at all! I mean, it only depends on how I define personal attack and how I define bad faith and good faith. The policy is unstickable to. I wish I could explain it better: it actually says that you should forgive other people! Come on, Friday doesn't even believe we are people, how is he or she possibly gonna stick to that?
This post was not supposed to prove to you that the policy is nothing, I'm just telling you on what wrong premise you've based your response above.
I hope now you understand why my argument is relevant to this talk page: because you are saying people can't criticize other people based on the fact that you think that criticizing other people somehow conflicts with some policies. And I can say in my opinion it does not, because I don't think criticizing other people is, for instance, a personal attack. And then you will say "I disagree" and I'll say "based on what" and you'll say "based on my feelings" and you'll have to make me feel like you do to make me agree with you. A.Z. 03:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
This position depends on the assumption that your interpretation is the correct one ("I think...", "how I define...") There happens to be a broad consensus among the community about what WP:CIV does and does not mean and that consensus is that assuming bad faith is a bad thing. That is very easily stickable too. There are also experienced editors, administrators, who are asked to enforce these policies when the encyclopdaedia is being disrupted. If you are having trouble following how the community interprets these polices, then ask a few other admins. That I what I am trying to tell you here: I'm not stating my opinion, but my understanding of the consensus of opinion. So there is little point arguing with me over what is right or wrong. Rockpocket 03:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
You are appealing to the majority (or the qualified majority, whatever) and I'm having a déjà vu. A.Z. 03:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to ask a few other admins how should I interpret the policies, though I think the opinion of someone is not worth more just because the person is an administrator... A.Z. 04:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
My position is entirely based upon an appeal to the (super)majority opinion, since you get no consensus without taking into account some level of numerical support. And you are correct that the opinion of an admin is worth no more than any other editor, so ask widely and do let us know what they tell you. Rockpocket 06:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am archiving this section now, as its existance is doing now one any good. I invite those involved to create a new section to resolve any remaining issues, but this section has become a shouting match, and is degenerating into various levels of personal attack. I ask not to be reverted in my action here, unless prior discussion has taken place and deemed such a reversion to be neccessary. Lewis' first comment was somewhat questionable in civility, but as the discussion has continued, comments from all sides have gone across the boundry seperating "questionable" from "tangible", and it is clear that this discussion is going nowhere, with any tiny point being argued over. Thanks, Martinp23 16:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Personal opinion

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

I know that "personal opinion" means an opinion held by a person. Do you think that saying "opinion X about subject Y is held by person Z" is a comment on subject Y? I don't think so.
Then, what is it a comment on? Well, if you think that the fact that "person Z holds opinion X about subject Y" brings to the discussion any kind of truth as to subject Y, then you must think that the opinion of person Z somehow either expresses the truth about Y or causes Y to be something that it would not have been otherwise.
So, when you say that "opinion X about subject Y is held by person Z" and you also say that this fact has any impact on any truth related to subject Y (for instance, whether subject Y is good or bad, right or wrong), then you are expressing your opinion that what person Z thinks about subject Y is a fact of importance in the process of discovering the truth about subject Y. Therefore, your opinion is about a person, it is about person Z. Your opinion about person Z is that the opinion of that person is an important fact in itself. And it's obviously a personal opinion as well, but not on any issue we were discussing, rather on yourself: you made a comment on the contributor. A.Z. 22:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
A.Z., see Martinp23's comments above where he closed down this thread. Frankly, little or nothing in your contributions here has any bearing on the operation of the reference desk. Please take this elsewhere.—eric 23:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Moe of the same.

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

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

Archival

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

I presumed the archiving was a bold attempt to cut through all the crap that was being spoken, diffuse the Ref Desk bickering and start on a new page, literally. Anyone can move a section back to the active page if they wished to add to the discussion, and the fact that no-one did seemed like a vindication of the archiving, in my eyes. There were plenty of other active sections that were archived at the same time, not just the one above. Was there a reason you re-activated that one, because you don't appear to have contributed to the discussion further? Rockpocket 02:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I was extremely mad when I realized that I didn't even get the chance to KNOW there had been such a thread only because I had not been here on the tenth of April. I think the original poster was trying to speak to the editors who come to this page maybe during a week or so, or a reasonable amount of time, and I think his post was not aimed to people who by chance happened to be here over a period of less than 20 hours.
I think, however, that the archival of this specific thread is really bad given that the original poster is actually criticizing people here. If it were a post about some silly thing, I would not think it would be that bad for someone to think it's OK to archive something so early, but archiving this specific thread just after it started looks like a bold attempt to make me stop assuming good faith. A.Z. 02:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, I can see why you might think that. For the record, it was User:VectorP who archived. [7] He/she does great work in the technical aspects of the desk, but has rarely commented in any of the ref desk philosphy type discussions, so I think we should assume this was done in good faith. Also, and despite the fact that seems to be the norm recently, this is not the place to criticize people or soapbox. So I think Vector was doing as all a favour in archiving a whole load of sections that had degenerated into personal bickering. Rockpocket 02:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
If the person who did it didn't even realize what he or she was doing, then that is a proper explanation for what happened.
I have to disagree that this is not the place to criticize people and to soapbox and I think it is not anything like a favor what VectorP did for me and for everyone here. This is exactly the place to criticize people that are harming Wikipedia and the reference desk. Deleting stuff that you don't like just makes this talk page look like (from my point of view) it has been taken over by a conspiracy of deletionists and makes people want to either vanish from here or never even come here in the first place, because what they say may be gone within twenty hours. A.Z. 02:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
While I don't agree with this archival, I suspect it was just an honest mistake on VectorP's part. He does a lot of archiving for the Ref Desk and probably just got the date wrong. (He's generally a decent person.) StuRat 04:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Talk pages are most certainly not the place to criticise people who you believe to be "harming Wikipedia and the reference desk". Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines:
  • "Assume good faith and treat the other person in the discussion as a fellow editor, who is a thinking, feeling person, trying to contribute positively to Wikipedia, just like you."
Also archiving, even if done in undue haste, is not deleting. Rockpocket 04:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
This is not an article talk page, so the first bullet doesn't apply at all. And the second bullet does not preclude criticisms of the actions of others. It is also quite possible that someone "trying to contribute positively to Wikipedia" is, in reality, causing it harm. StuRat 04:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Like for instance mad people and ignorant people and genocide dictators! A.Z. 04:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
The only positive thing people like Idi Amin did was to benefit themselves. To pick such an example seems to miss the whole point of assume good faith in the context of ref desk. David D. (Talk) 05:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

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

With all due respect, please read Godwin's Law, ah bah whatever mumble grumble huffle puffle, good night. Sluzzelin talk 04:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I can't say how sorry I am for the mumble grumble, but my appeal to Hitler was not fallacious. A.Z. 04:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
He shoots, he scores! (damn your nimble fingers, Sluzzelin) I'm sorry you think they make no sense, but thems the rules. Rockpocket 04:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
If Hitler annoys you two so much, I'll choose different words: telling people to assume that other editors are trying to contribute positively is the same thing that telling people to assume that other editors are trying to contribute. This is true because you haven't defined "positive" and it is a very defensible opinion the one that everything one does he does thinking it is a positive thing. A.Z. 04:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you should go back to your Hitler analogy. Or are you trying to confuse us, in the above sentences you appear to contradict yourself? With respect to Hitler, do megalomaniacs really think in positive or negatives terms with respect to their specific country? David D. (Talk) 04:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I am positive that I did not contradict myself. If you explain why you think that, I'll clarify to you what I meant. A.Z. 05:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
You wrote: "telling people to assume that other editors are trying to contribute positively is the same thing that telling people to assume that other editors are trying to contribute. This is true because you haven't defined "positive"". OK, I understand to this point. You then go on to say "and it is a very defensible opinion the one that everything one does he does thinking it is a positive thing." Here you seem to agree with rockpockets view of AGF, but I thought you were arguing against it? Regardless, I'm more interested in why you think Hitler thought he was doing something positive for Germany. Is this the general view of his actions? (this is not a trick question, I have no clue) David D. (Talk) 05:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I said "it is a very defensible opinion the one that everything one does he does thinking it is a positive thing". I was just trying to say that people could argue that anything is positive. If there were a rigorous definition of what "positive" means, there would be no such problem. And I used the example of Hitler because people could argue he was just doing what he thought was the best thing for him to do. And they could go further and argue that anything we do is precisely what we think is the best of all things to do at any given moment, and we just do wrong things because we don't have some information, but our intentions are the best always. Here is a text in Portuguese that I hope someone here translates (as I am a bad translator). This text talks about all the great things that Hitler did for Germany:

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

Translation by Babelfish and StuRat:

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


You could say based on the assume good faith policy: "Hey, don't declare war with Hitler! (don't say it out loud that user X is harming Wikipedia) He is just doing what he thinks is the best thing for Germany! (he is just doing what he thinks is the best for the Reference Desk) Try and talk to him instead! No personal attacks! No bombs!"
Here is something I wrote as a response to a question on the Humanities reference desk adressing this same issue:

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

A.Z. 05:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
And of course Neville Chamberlain did AGF. Clearly he was wrong in retrospect, but note that assume good faith does not have to be limitless and hence WII. This whole conversation comes about because you are defending the right to criticise other users rather than their actions. So to continue the anaology, did Churchill criticise Hitler or his policies? And which would be more effective at getting allies? I assume he went after the policies. David D. (Talk) 05:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not talking about effectiveness here, I'm talking about the right that Lewis has to say what he thinks of the people here, no matter whether it is effective or not at getting whatever it is that he wishes to get. I'm also talking about the right that we have to not assume good faith and to act as if the other person was NOT trying to contribute positively to Wikipedia. By the way, in my humble opinion, the fact that someone is doing damage and harming Wikipedia on purpose does not mean I have any intention of offending this person. I just want to be able to say "I assume you are acting in bad faith and I'll act according to this belief." A.Z. 05:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
And i don't think many would disagree with this philosophy in most cases. But you will find it harder to find supporters of such a view if said person is following implementing guidlelines in a manner than is not atypical. Whether one has the right or not to criticise other users, one thing that is plainly clear is that if this is the way one prefers to behave on wikipedia an implosion is more likely than a productive editing experience. And loomis is not the only example of this phenomena. So there are other good reasons not to pursue that style of criticism other than is it right or not. David D. (Talk) 06:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with your premises, but the way I see it they lead to a different conclusion than the one that Rockpocket is defending. I agree that there are good reasons not to persue that style of criticism, but I do not agree that this implies that the right thing to do is to forbid Lewis or anyone else to persue it. Instead, use reason and logic to explain to the person why your opinion is that what he is doing is not the best option he has to improve the reference desk. And, if he still disagrees, yet again do not tell him that the reason why he shouldn't do that is that it is forbidden. Argue with him instead. A.Z. 06:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a democracy, so we don't have a right to say anything, especially when it is non-constructive. Perhaps the best response to your to your interest in defending the right to assume bad faith is addressed in WP:AGF:

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

My interpretation of this is that there is nothing to be gained in doing so, but a lot to be lost, so don't do it. Rockpocket 06:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Of course we have the right to say things. I wouldn't be here if I didn't think I have the right to say things.
By non-constructive you mean your opinion of what is non-constructive.
Blocking people doesn't solve anything. People may need to be warned that another editor is acting in bad faith, when not all editors can realize that by themselves. A.Z. 06:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I honestly don't know what else to say, A.Z. You may think you have the right to say what you want, but you don't. If you say "I think Rockpocket is a bad faith editor and is purposely trying to wreck the project" enough times you will eventually be sanctioned, because you don't have the right to say whatever you want, even if it is your honest opinion. I don't know if that is a good thing not, or whether it is ultimately helpful or a hinderance to the project, but that is what would happen. All I can do it interpret our policies, try to stick to them myself and ensure others to stick to them also. Rockpocket 06:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
This isn't the place for a debate on the merits of our policies. I'll simply say that I may disagree with a number of your edits and I may think they are harmful to the project. As StuRat says, I may criticise your contributions because of that. But I should ultimately try to WP:AGF that your motives are the same as mine and therefore I shouldn't be criticising you for harming the project. Comment on contributions, not contributors. Rockpocket 04:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
From the time when someone, like you did, appeal to the policies like they had inherent merit, this page became the place where we were discussing the merit of the policies. You started it! Appealing to them implies that you think they have merits, so I had the right and the duty to continue the debate, as I perceived you to be acting based on the most wrong of assumptions: that those fallacious policies have merits.
As both I and StuRat already said, the fact that my motives are exactly the same as yours doesn't tell anything about whether any of us has any idea of what these motives look like (what they really are) or of which way is the best one to achieve them. A.Z. 04:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
What Rockpocket just said is exactly, precisely my view. JackofOz 05:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
What he said is that we should not give a damn to what your personal opinion on what he just said is. If you do that and we argue about you and your opinion, we will be doing exactly what he told us not to do, i.e., to comment on the contributors. This particular contribution of yours contains nothing more than the personal opinion of one person and is not a comment of merit on the merits of any argument here. A.Z. 05:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be missing the point. One example, the first i saw, of Loomis criticising people is this: "Yet looking at the talk pages of those users who so viciously attacked me on so many occasions, I see nothing." Is this what you trying to defend here A.Z.? David D. (Talk) 05:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
He is expressing a most legitimate concern of his! I surely defend his right to say that here! A.Z. 06:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Then why didn't you defend my right to agree with Rockpocket when he was supporting a Wikipedia policy, AGF? I strongly disagree with your paraphrase of what he said. Where was there any suggestion that we "argue about [me] and [my] opinion"? And since when was "the personal opinion of one person" worthy of such apparent contempt? You don't seem to be lacking in the personal opinion department, so why should others refrain from expressing theirs? JackofOz 06:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
If you had said anything new either in favor or against our arguments, then we could debate about this new argument that you'd have brought into the discussion. But you only stated "I agree" and I think that to just come here and say "I agree" is ridiculous and makes no sense. Now, why do I think that? Because it adds absolutely nothing to the discussion! But you didn't just say a nonsense thing that does not harm and no good. You actually did harm. What is my argument to support my opinion that what you said is harmful? I assume that you think your personal opinion is of inherent importance. I assume you are just coming here to "vote" and so you are saying "not only Rocpocket is saying that, there is one more person that agrees with him and I think this adds importance to his opinion." This is a fallacious appeal to majority. According to the philosophy of "Comment on contributions, not contributors", I would simply not be able to express my concerns about your comment, since they´re based on assumptions I have about you that are not explicit in your behavior, as someone could argue you were just talking nonsense and you didn't really intend to act in bad faith and appeal to the majority. (I'm going to sleep now, as I need to wake up in a couple of hours) A.Z. 06:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
The more people that agree with rockpocket the more marginalised your own opinon becomes. Hence voicing agreement with an opinion alone is warranted and nthing more needs to be said. David D. (Talk) 07:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
A.Z., what I did was support an existing Wikipedia policy, because it is one that is often ignored. Your remarks above come close to doing just that. Make any assumptions you like - and you're dead wrong about the ones you made about me, by the way - but to describe support for an established policy as "harmful" or "acting in bad faith" is absurd. Enjoy your sleep; it sounds like you really need it. JackofOz 09:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

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

I'm not sure I follow your argument, but I appealled to our policies and guidelines because, as an administrator, I am "expected to respect and be familiar with Wikipedia policy" whether I agree with it or not. Some policies I agree with, some I disagree with; but the place for that discussion is at the appropriate talk page. What I said is that they exist, and we should to stick to them even if we personally think they lack merit. Also, don't shoot the messenger because you don't like the message. If you think a policy is fallacious then don't just ignore it or refuse to accept it, but work to change it. Rockpocket 05:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
There's typically nothing wrong with the policies, they just are improperly applied to the Ref Desk, as you just tried to improperly apply a policy clearly written for article talk pages to this talk page. It is therefore, a red herring for you to tell someone complaining about your misapplication of a Wikipedia policy to head off to that policy page to complain. StuRat 05:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Then I'll work to change it, Rockpocket... As soon as I have the time. A.Z. 05:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Glad to hear it. If you need any help in making a proposal, just ask. Rockpocket 05:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

An idea

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

I wasn't aware that other sites redirect people to us. But that's a good thing, imo. It shows we have achieved a good standing and reputation. We're always going to get dumb questions. We have to learn how to deal with them. JackofOz 05:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
If we give boring answers, some folks will decide that trying to stir up trouble on the ref desk isn't much fun, so maybe they'll go away. Friday (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
To clarify, you mean boring but useful, I assume. David D. (Talk) 14:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Friday (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I think I can be very good at being boring. At least some of my students tell me this is so. ;) David D. (Talk) 14:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
On a good day I can put not only students, but myself to sleep with pedantry. Edison 07:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Purple??

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

Does it have to be purple? --VectorPotentialTalk 15:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that is bright! Certainly no one will miss that one. One probelm with this colour is that the contrast on the link words is poor. Especially when the link is highlight by the browser history in a similar purple. David D. (Talk) 15:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I've lightened the purple to #F0C0F0 from #F090F0. Is that better? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
It is better on my monitor. David D. (Talk) 16:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Looks good to me ! StuRat 16:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

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

For comparision:

Background is #F090F0 with link to compare contrast
Background is #F0C0F0 with link to compare contrast




How about a nice orange ? :

Background is #FFDD00 with link to compare contrast

StuRat 17:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Never mind the building, what color are we going to paint the bikeshed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.111.70.68 (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC).
Indeed. --Sn0wflake 21:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the bikeshed is done. So quit smoking or snogging back there, pick your poison, and start lifting some weight. David D. (Talk) 21:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


How about a nicer mauve ? :

Background is #F0C0FF with link to compare contrast

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

the ref desk

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

Welcome! Enjoy. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
<trolling from banned user removed> Rockpocket 16:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Well that would explain a lot. In fact it makes me wonder, just how many of you guys are drunk? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loomis51 (talk • contribs)
</sarcasm> V-Man - T/C 01:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
The best aid to Wikipedia editing that I have discovered lately is a brand of beer called "Edison Light" with a picture of an antique lightbulb on each bottle. Six of them and I felt light headed enough to contribute here. Edison 07:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Miscellaneous & and the end of March

(Miscellaneous/2007 March 29)
(Miscellaneous/2007 March 30)
(Miscellaneous/2007 March 31)
(Miscellaneous/2007 April 1)

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

By you? I think you do amazing work here, VP, and I for one really appreciate you. Clio the Muse 14:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Seconded. Barnstar in the oven. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Then there's the "in the oven" barnstar, given out to pregnant Wikipedians: "Congrats, you finally managed to get yourself knocked up !". :-) StuRat 03:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal opinion

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

I know that "personal opinion" means an opinion held by a person. Do you think that saying "opinion X about subject Y is held by person Z" is a comment on subject Y? I don't think so.
Then, what is it a comment on? Well, if you think that the fact that "person Z holds opinion X about subject Y" brings to the discussion any kind of truth as to subject Y, then you must think that the opinion of person Z somehow either expresses the truth about Y or causes Y to be something that it would not have been otherwise.
So, when you say that "opinion X about subject Y is held by person Z" and you also say that this fact has any impact on any truth related to subject Y (for instance, whether subject Y is good or bad, right or wrong), then you are expressing your opinion that what person Z thinks about subject Y is a fact of importance in the process of discovering the truth about subject Y. Therefore, your opinion is about a person, it is about person Z. Your opinion about person Z is that the opinion of that person is an important fact in itself. And it's obviously a personal opinion as well, but not on any issue we were discussing, rather on yourself: you made a comment on the contributor. A.Z. 22:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
A.Z., see Martinp23's comments above where he closed down this thread. Frankly, little or nothing in your contributions here has any bearing on the operation of the reference desk. Please take this elsewhere.—eric 23:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
My contributions are all about the reference desk and this talk page. And Martinp23 invited us to create new sections to solve the remaining issues. I'm really sad you did not even pay attention to my post, because if you had you would realize that we are discussing what is allowed or not on this talk page, and people are interested in learning this, myself included. A.Z. 23:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
A.Z., according to your own argument, everything you've said above is a statement about yourself, and therefore irrelevant because you are not the topic here. JackofOz 00:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Jack, I am the one defending that comments on the contributors should be allowed... I have no problem saying that all of this is about me. It's OK. You and Rockpocket were the ones who said we should not comment on the contributors. I have no problem commenting on myself. I'm only saying: if you can do it, let me do it as well. A.Z. 00:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that this entire thread should be removed, as it's a transparent attempt by A.Z. to improve the quality of the RefDesk. Yet this is the RefDesk talkpage, and as such any suggestions regarding how to improve the RefDesk do not belong here, and should be taken elsewhere. Lewis 02:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Its a discussion on a discussion, on a discussion. I have no idea what the debate is actually about now, though from the amount my name is mentioned, I'm guessing that my request that WP:NPA be adhered to - and who agrees or not - appears to be an issue of contention. It appears to have moved to various talkpages now, so you can follow it more there. Rockpocket 06:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Ummm, thanks Rp (I think). ;-) ~ hydnjo talk 09:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Hydnjo, see the Archived discussion above for the background to this. -- JackofOz 11:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Who removed the guidelines templates ?

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

Is this a rhetorical question? In case not you can use the history function to see all recent edits. And why? This may help you. David D. (Talk) 20:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Since nobody has given a reason why the invitation was rescinded for Ref Desk users to participate in writing the Ref Desk guidelines, I have restored the offer. StuRat 21:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I thought the banner was removed because the page was changed from a proposal to a guideline proper. I don't care either way but I guess at some point, when the guidelines are stable enough, the banner should be removed again. Rockpocket 21:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
What ?!? When did this happen ? I didn't see any discussion or agreement that the guidelines had been finalized, or even notice for that matter. I was still discussing issues on the talk page, for God's sake, and many issues were still "open". StuRat 23:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I refer you to David D's helpful advice above. That History tab hides all sorts of goodies. Rockpocket 01:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Who chose green for the restored templates' background color? Though I personally like green a lot, and think it gets neglected far too often at Wikipedia, this shade wasn't selected by consensus. As a matter of principle, the green should be reverted back to fuchsia. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I was trying to find a color that showed the black text, blue link, dark blue previously selected link, and red border all clearly. I think it does. If you don't like it, feel free to change it, though. StuRat 03:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
K, nuff faux-naïveté Stu. Sorry, I was poking fun at your ratty incisors and pulling your rodent leg. Psychologically, green was a good choice. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I suppose that depends on if green means "go" to you or just means the bread has gone moldy. :-) StuRat 07:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I hope no one minds, but I've changed them back to
their original maroon and white color scheme
--VectorPotentialTalk 21:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The color change was for a reason, to grab the attention of Ref Desk readers and hopefully get them to participate in the Ref Desk guidelines discussion. Without that color, it just blends in with all the permanent stuff at the top of each page. So, I'm going to put the color back in. StuRat 05:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Russian interwiki

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

Done. Rockpocket 02:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
!! ---Sluzzelin talk 11:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

"jaja" and "xD" in answers

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

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

I believe that "jaja" and its cousin "jeje" are mistaken transliterations of "haha" and "hehe" by people who speak English as a secondary language. XD is, according to my sources, an emoticon of sorts. --LarryMac 23:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I believe jajaja is the Dutch version of hahaha. Vranak
jajajajaja is what Spanish-language chess players I play on Yahoo say to me after they beat me but before they realise the game was unrated. :D Anchoress 09:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I encountered 'jajaja' when I was in a Netherlands-based clan in Age of Empires III. Vranak
Sounds like a remarkably agreeable German. Edison 04:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
jajaja/jejeje are more or less memes now. They may have started as a mistranslation, but I know native English speakers who use them to be sarcastic/funny instead of using "lol" for example. xD/XD are emoticons, similar to :D gorffy 23:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Archive_29&oldid=1140243917"