|
|
Line 24: |
Line 24: |
|
|
|
|
|
== removal. == |
|
== removal. == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{hat|This debate isn't making progress. Just... let it go.}} |
|
Decided to be BOLD and nip a potential off-topic debate in the bud. I suppose it'll cause another debate here, but better here than on the "reader-facing" page. |
|
Decided to be BOLD and nip a potential off-topic debate in the bud. I suppose it'll cause another debate here, but better here than on the "reader-facing" page. |
|
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous&diff=424696821&oldid=424696085 Diff] |
|
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous&diff=424696821&oldid=424696085 Diff] |
Line 50: |
Line 52: |
|
|
|
|
|
:Cool out, guys. I have no idea what you're arguing about, because apparently somebody "redacted" all the context for this discussion. Frankly, I don't ''care'' what you're arguing about. [[Wikipedia:Wikibreak|Take a break]], relax, and when you're ready to contribute to the encyclopedia, we'll be glad to have you all back. [[User:Nimur|Nimur]] ([[User talk:Nimur|talk]]) 20:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
:Cool out, guys. I have no idea what you're arguing about, because apparently somebody "redacted" all the context for this discussion. Frankly, I don't ''care'' what you're arguing about. [[Wikipedia:Wikibreak|Take a break]], relax, and when you're ready to contribute to the encyclopedia, we'll be glad to have you all back. [[User:Nimur|Nimur]] ([[User talk:Nimur|talk]]) 20:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
⚫ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Removal of comments == |
|
== Removal of comments == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{hat|This debate isn't making progress. Just... let it go.}} |
|
I removed these two comments, one from Bugs and another from an anon that simply said "lol". [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReference_desk%2FHumanities&action=historysubmit&diff=425750343&oldid=425749708] |
|
I removed these two comments, one from Bugs and another from an anon that simply said "lol". [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReference_desk%2FHumanities&action=historysubmit&diff=425750343&oldid=425749708] |
|
|
|
|
Line 71: |
Line 75: |
|
Fully support the removal. Those kinds of comments have no place on the reference desk. [[Special:Contributions/82.43.89.63|82.43.89.63]] ([[User talk:82.43.89.63|talk]]) 20:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
Fully support the removal. Those kinds of comments have no place on the reference desk. [[Special:Contributions/82.43.89.63|82.43.89.63]] ([[User talk:82.43.89.63|talk]]) 20:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
:{{small|In an incredibly appropriate coincidence, the above IP's UK-based ISP is called "Virgin Media". ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 21:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)}} |
|
:{{small|In an incredibly appropriate coincidence, the above IP's UK-based ISP is called "Virgin Media". ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 21:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)}} |
|
|
{{hab}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Another question removed == |
|
== Another question removed == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{hat|This debate isn't making progress. Just... let it go.}} |
|
I have now twice removed a question posted on the science desk by an LC IP sock, in his usual M.O., obsession with the lower intestine. If anyone thinks that question should be re-posted, they can do so. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 22:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
I have now twice removed a question posted on the science desk by an LC IP sock, in his usual M.O., obsession with the lower intestine. If anyone thinks that question should be re-posted, they can do so. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 22:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
Line 122: |
Line 128: |
|
: I agree with that very sensible view point--[[Special:Contributions/78.150.228.185|78.150.228.185]] ([[User talk:78.150.228.185|talk]]) 07:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
: I agree with that very sensible view point--[[Special:Contributions/78.150.228.185|78.150.228.185]] ([[User talk:78.150.228.185|talk]]) 07:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
::Of course you do, LC. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 09:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
::Of course you do, LC. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 09:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
{{hab}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Light current == |
|
== Light current == |
|
|
{{hat|This debate isn't making progress. Just... let it go.}} |
|
All's I've been trying to do is enforce the rule that banned users cannot edit, and about all it's bought me is ''tsuris''. It seems like very few here care about that rule, so maybe it's time to throw in the towel. I'd like to see a list of registered ref desk regulars who want to keep the LC ban in place, those who would like to see it lifted, and those who don't care either way: |
|
All's I've been trying to do is enforce the rule that banned users cannot edit, and about all it's bought me is ''tsuris''. It seems like very few here care about that rule, so maybe it's time to throw in the towel. I'd like to see a list of registered ref desk regulars who want to keep the LC ban in place, those who would like to see it lifted, and those who don't care either way: |
|
|
|
|
Line 161: |
Line 169: |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Based on an admin's off-wiki advice, I'm done defending the ref desk against LC. He's all yours. Enjoy. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 10:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
:::Based on an admin's off-wiki advice, I'm done defending the ref desk against LC. He's all yours. Enjoy. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 10:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
{{hab}} |
|
== [[User:X sprainpraxisL]] == |
|
== [[User:X sprainpraxisL]] == |
|
|
{{hat|This debate isn't making progress. Just... let it go.}} |
|
{{userlinks|X sprainpraxisL}} |
|
{{userlinks|X sprainpraxisL}} |
|
|
|
|
Line 195: |
Line 205: |
|
::You really think a troll is fed by a straight ''answer''? No, a troll is fed by discussions like this. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 12:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
::You really think a troll is fed by a straight ''answer''? No, a troll is fed by discussions like this. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 12:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
:::Yes, and your feeding of the troll in that way has been substantial. Congratulations. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 12:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
:::Yes, and your feeding of the troll in that way has been substantial. Congratulations. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 12:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
{{hab}} |
|
== Welcome to the Wikipedia Reference Desk Talk Page == |
|
== Welcome to the Wikipedia Reference Desk Talk Page == |
⚫ |
|
|
|
This is the talk page for the Wikipedia Reference Desk. The purpose of this page is to discuss ways to improve the operation of the Reference Desk. Disruptive behavior, ''including long, pointless meta-debates,'' does not contribute to our objective here, and will not be tolerated. [[User:Nimur|Nimur]] ([[User talk:Nimur|talk]]) 16:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
This is the talk page for the Wikipedia Reference Desk. The purpose of this page is to discuss ways to improve the operation of the Reference Desk. Disruptive behavior, ''including long, pointless meta-debates,'' does not contribute to our objective here, and will not be tolerated. [[User:Nimur|Nimur]] ([[User talk:Nimur|talk]]) 16:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
{{hat|This debate isn't making progress. Just... let it go.}} |
|
:But apparently Light Current ''will'' be tolerated. Good for you. :) ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 16:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:Who decides which disagreements will eventually benefit the reference desk and which will not? -- [[User:Kainaw|<font color='#ff0000'>k</font><font color='#cc0033'>a</font><font color='#990066'>i</font><font color='#660099'>n</font><font color='#3300cc'>a</font><font color='#0000ff'>w</font>]][[User talk:Kainaw|™]] 16:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
:Who decides which disagreements will eventually benefit the reference desk and which will not? -- [[User:Kainaw|<font color='#ff0000'>k</font><font color='#cc0033'>a</font><font color='#990066'>i</font><font color='#660099'>n</font><font color='#3300cc'>a</font><font color='#0000ff'>w</font>]][[User talk:Kainaw|™]] 16:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
- Wikipedia Reference desks
[]
This page is for discussion of the Reference desk in general.
Please don't post comments here that don't relate to the Reference desk. Other material may be moved.
The guidelines for the Reference desk are at
Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines.
For help using Wikipedia, please see
Wikipedia:Help desk.
Archives
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133 |
RD Guidelines
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
This debate isn't making progress. Just... let it go.
|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
|
Decided to be BOLD and nip a potential off-topic debate in the bud. I suppose it'll cause another debate here, but better here than on the "reader-facing" page.
Diff
APL (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have also BOLDly removed the triggering comment, <redacted>. That comment is every bit as off-topic as my comments which you removed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ... and I was BOLD and removed an inflammatory (likely) mischaracterization of the comment. Let's keep it civil, people. -- 174.21.254.3 (talk) 17:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- <redacted> OK, <redacted> OK, we'll give him the benefit of the doubt. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been BOLD and removed part of Bug's previous comment. Partially because it's his usual bashing of Anon users, but mostly for comedy value. APL (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The usual double-standard among the ref desk clique - anon's can take shots at anyone and seldom suffer any slings and arrows. Maybe I should start editing via my IP so I could get the clique to defend me if I act like a drive-by. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If the IP had tried to start a political debate, or to "get in the last word" after it had been made clear it was inappropriate I would have deleted the comment outright, instead of deleting part of it for comedy value.
- If you take offense at my light-hearted attitude feel free to say so, but if your problem is that you weren't allowed to make tangential political jibes, then frankly I believe that, as a long-time named ref-desker, you are getting deferential treatment that an IP editor would not receive. If the number of politically charged snipes, off-topic remarks, and jokes that appear as though they might be legitimate answers to anyone who doesn't 'get' them, came from a consistent IP address, I'd be here advocating that it simply be banned and save everyone the trouble. I suspect you'd be right behind me on that. (Of course, I always advocate the Scientific Method. You've got your hypothesis. Now try an experiment! Anyone can log out for a week and edit as an IP.) APL (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The other editor chose to make an off-topic political statement, and I chose not to let it stand unchallenged. But don't be so sure of what I actually do take offense at, nor of what my complete views on capital punishment are. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I got even BOLDer and removed the rest of it, again partially for comedy value, but also because I'd hate to let Bugs provoke a political debate by trying to "get in the last word". APL (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Concur with APL's removal. Concur on the content of Bugs' counter-removal, disagree on Bugs being the one to make that removal, definitely not happy that it was a stealth edit to the comment. That misrepresents what User:Marco polo posted and is heavily frowned upon here, as I'm sure the participants are aware. — Lomn 17:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How does it misrepresent his statement? The factual part remains. The editorial comment has no relevance to the factual part. I could have removed the "proud" part and merely left the comment that he lives in one of the 14 (as do I, by the way), but even that has no particular relevance to the fact. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You did not note that you had altered his signed comment. However, I now find your repeated willful continuance of poor behavior and/or judgment during this issue to be the item of greatest concern. You should not have removed MP's words yourself (it looks bad, given that your comment had just been removed). You should not have removed MP's words without specific notice of having done so (per widespread RD and WP consensus). You should not have dragged your longstanding feud with IP editors into this discussion (see dead horse, thataway). You should not have continued your baiting comments regarding MP, who's not even in this discussion, below. And I shouldn't have to lay this out, because you've been here for years and shouldn't need this sort of babysitting. There was a very simple solution to all this when you saw MP's original comment, and that is to redact the "proud" bit and make a note of "let's please avoid the political aspects of capital punishment, thanks" or the like. You chose a course of action bearing no resemblance to a simple solution. — Lomn 19:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No one notified me, either. I merely happened to see it here. Nor did anyone else seem interested in removing the equally-off-topic comments of Mr. Polo. Thanks for demonstrating, once again, that the clique's double-standard is alive and well. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This may sound like a radical idea, but how about if Marco himself speaks up instead of everyone here speaking for him? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What?!? You've tried to speak for him twice in this thread alone. It was deleted both times. APL (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- < Three Times! --apl > I would like to hear what he has to say on the matter, though. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You keep deleting my comments. Do they hit too close to home for your comfort level? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No. APL (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Then there's no logical explanation other than the old "I don't like it" argument. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool out, guys. I have no idea what you're arguing about, because apparently somebody "redacted" all the context for this discussion. Frankly, I don't care what you're arguing about. Take a break, relax, and when you're ready to contribute to the encyclopedia, we'll be glad to have you all back. Nimur (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
This debate isn't making progress. Just... let it go.
|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
|
I removed these two comments, one from Bugs and another from an anon that simply said "lol". [1]
I usually avoid removals from a page like this, but the combined effect of these two comments, as a comment on the institutional raping of virgins so that they could be executed, actually made me feel nauseous. This is not the face we want to show the world.
If other's disagree, I won't argue it: I'll just have to take a wikibreak for a week, and we all take wikibreaks from time to time. 82.24.248.137 (talk) 01:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No hay problema. And the IP was a one-shot from Paris, so it's unlikely you'll be hearing anything from him. It's just that the premise of an executioner raping a virgin just so she wouldn't be a virgin and he could go ahead and execute her, seemed darkly funny, like something from a Monty Python sketch (as with the "Bring out your dead!" segment in Holy Grail.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I'm here, and I found the thought of a girl being raped so she could be executed funny too, which is why I posted "lol" to you comment. They were in small tags so I don't see the big deal, but if some people can't take a joke then fine remove it. Whatever. 90.10.246.125 (talk) 19:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The sub-thread started by AnonMoos is close to being off-topic, it cites no source and looks like someone writing down something he has been busting to write down for ages. I responded - see diff. Dolphin (t) 03:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that's an interesting point. It would be good to see a source. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For what an anonymous IP's anecdote is worth (not much, I expect) I too have read of an example of the practice AnonMoos mentioned in an Ancient Roman context - it might have been in Graves' I, Claudius, and/or in other generally well-researched fiction set in that milieu. The particular instance I recall involved the pre-pubertal daughters of someone executed for treason or a similar (possibly trumped-up) crime. I'll skim the book, which I have to hand, but it may take some time and I may have mistaken the source. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.175 (talk) 01:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Me again. The event I had partly remembered from I, Claudius (Chapter 27) concerns the virgin daughter of Sejanus, and is also mentioned in the Wikipedia article on him, here, but I'm fairly sure there was a similar instance involving two girls who were publicly raped on the roof of their family house, which I have evidently seen in some other work. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.175 (talk) 02:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your contributions are worth just as much as anyone else's, don't forget that no matter what anyone else says. But when you decide to contribute anecdotes about medieval rape when the subject of discussion on this talk page is not seeking your completely unsourced and unreliable opinion, expect to be judged as an anonymous editor who likes talking about how women and girls have been raped in the past. That is the precise measure of your contributions here. In any case, I collapsed that part of the thread as it was wholly off-topic and wholly unsourced. Franamax (talk) 03:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "likes talking about how women and girls have been raped"? Bugs said he'd like a source for AnonMoos's contribution, which I recalled as being semi-relevant to the original topic, perhaps mistakenly. I provided a source, from a well known respected historical literary work (recently re-broadcast on BBC Radio 4, incidentally). I deprecated its/my reliability partly because I could not initially remember the reference with certainty, and partly as a tongue-in-cheek allusion to Bugs' well-known attitude to IP editors. That I happened also to remember a distasteful historical fact previously mentioned by one regular editor, and provided another regular editor with the corroboration of it that he had requested, does not in my mind warrant the highly offensive suggestion that I "like" talking about rape. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.175 (talk) 08:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fully support the removal. Those kinds of comments have no place on the reference desk. 82.43.89.63 (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In an incredibly appropriate coincidence, the above IP's UK-based ISP is called "Virgin Media". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
This debate isn't making progress. Just... let it go.
|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
|
I have now twice removed a question posted on the science desk by an LC IP sock, in his usual M.O., obsession with the lower intestine. If anyone thinks that question should be re-posted, they can do so. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's the link [2]. As usual, I disagree with the removal of questions that can easily be answered with reliable sources, but I won't revert. Buddy431 (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You enjoy feeding the LC troll, eh? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We feed trolls by removing their questions and arguing about it [3]. We feed trolls by turning the reference desk into a general forum [4]. We feed trolls by making crude jokes about serious subjects [5]. We don't feed the trolls by answering simple questions with reliable sources. Buddy431 (talk) 16:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So stop arguing about it already. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey Op here/ Why does Bassbal bug keep rubbing my question. Its important to me that i get an answer. my freind has just had her lwer intestine removed (serious op). She wants to know how much weight this will lose as she is also trying to lose weight with slimming club. I just cant understand why you keep deleting my question.--92.29.195.245 (talk) 00:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's a discussion group on this operation: [6]. From browsing through it, it seems like some weight loss is expected initially, but, in the long term, most patients gain weight. I suspect that this is because the food goes through more quickly, and this leaves an empty stomach, which triggers hunger. Here's an alternate explanation: [7]. StuRat (talk) 05:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem with the removal. I endorse this product and/or service. Why do things get removed? One reason is trolls. Sorry if you are being unfairly caught up in this, but we have an ongoing problem at the Desks and this is an adequate solution. There are many other places on the interweb where you can get this answer. Franamax (talk) 02:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To 92.29.195.245: This is a dumb question - what is the weight of an adult colon! Being an organ from the human body the colon will vary in size, volume and weight, depending on the size of the adult. We can't tell you the weight of an adult colon any more than we can tell you the height of a human adult - we are all different! You will find your question will remain on the Reference Desk, and you will get a sensible answer, providing your question is a sensible one. To get a high quality answer you must first ask a high quality question! Dolphin (t) 02:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's not a "dumb" question. It could be answered in many ways, such as by giving the average for an adult male and female. The normal range could also be given, say between the 10th and 90th percentiles. I don't see anything wrong with this question at all. What's the proof that it's from a known troll ? StuRat (talk) 04:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it's not from a Tiscali IP address, and it doesn't smell like LC to me, either.
- Perhaps it's Bugs being trigger-happy. —Steve Summit (talk) 19:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I vaguely recall that Lc may have discovered the joy of open proxies, but not sure on that. As with any duck test, there is always a possibility of a false positive. An IP OP who is quickly able to navigate to this page, yet has never ever edited en:wiki before, coincidentally happens to go after out most IP-challenged editor - yeah, I'll settle with Bugs' judgement on this one, whilst still recognizing the possibility of collateral damage. The obscure nationalistic and/or moralistic removals that Bugs does sometimes, no I disagree with those and he's had a caution on that stuff. But Bugs is not all that bad at spotting socks on the wiki in general and I'm satisfied that he near enough hit the mark here. Anyway, StuRat heroically stepped in and provided a response under adverse conditions, right here on this talk page, so all seems to be well. Franamax (talk) 03:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There have been some Liverpool-based LC-like socks in recent times. As I look at other science-desk entries from this specific subnet, it's possible it was a legit question that unfortunately happened to fit the LC MO. The question was restored by someone else here, and there were attempts to answer it, so I let it be. I'm not entirely convinced it wasn't LC, but one gripe in the past has been to not remove questions once there's been an attempt at answering them. So I didn't. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's have a look at the question. Firstly, a relatively bland question about the weight of an adult large bowel when empty. Then the OP joins the discussion above and writes My freind has just had her lwer intestine removed (serious op). (To call this a serious op is an understatement!) Then the OP goes on to explain to all those gullible enough She wants to know how much weight this will lose as she is also trying to lose weight with slimming club. So the poor lady wants to know how much weight she has lost. That is extremely easy - she just steps onto the bathroom scales! But no, our OP explains that he is going to find out for her, not by providing her with convenient access to a set of bathroom scales, but by asking the question on the Science Reference Desk! And just to add a little extra authenticity, in case there is a skeptic like me hanging around, he explains why the lady wants to know how much weight she has lost as a result of this incredibly serious operation. It is because she is a member of a slimming club and, despite this life-threatening bowel problem and super-serious medical procedure, she is still focused on losing weight. However, despite being a member of a slimming club she is oblivious to the existence of bathroom scales and has never thought of using them to investigate her weight. And that is where our gallant OP steps in to help her by asking the Science Reference Desk to explain the weight of the lower intestine that his lady friend used to have, but has no longer. Seriously guys, before you go anywhere else have a look at skepticism. Dolphin (t) 06:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- IF you donr mind DOLFIN Actualy we were wondering how much of her weght loss at the slimming club since she had since the op was cos of the weight of the bowel, and how much was due to her being in hospital and not eating properly for 10 days. This was a proper question. you say you answer questions but its like too hard for me to get proper ansers cos of people rubbing questions thinking they are silly. what is this desk about anyway?--92.25.229.67 (talk) 08:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If your lady friend has recently had a colostomy she will be spending a lot of her time with doctors, surgeons, nurses and similar. Why not ask one of them? The Wikipedia Reference Desks don't offer medical advice. Dolphin (t) 08:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I was not after medical advice. I would not take any from someone who doesnt know that you cant have a colostom if you had the wholw bowel remove. I was just askin the weight of a part of an average bodey. tHe other thing i said was to show why iwanted to know. so dont attack me on that reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.229.67 (talk) 09:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure LC comes in on Tiscali IP addresses anymore, and Opal Telecom rings a bell as being an ISP that there's been some problems with (although there are also a lot of perfectly legitimate edits through Opal Telecom). And LC sometimes asks plausibly innocent questions that aren't particularly bad, and then follows up with one or more further posts that makes things considerably worse. This particular question to me looks a lot like a set-up for a planned potential follow-up question like "...and what about the weight of a colon that's full of shit?". And if you look at this edit which is undoubtedly LC,[8], you'll see that LC spells the word "can't" without an apostrophe, and often spells the word "I" in lower case, both just like in the post from 92.29.195.245 above. One spelling idiosyncrasy in common might be a coincidence, but sharing two spelling idiosyncrasies when comparing short bits of text seems unlikely. I don't know what all clues Baseball Bugs used to conclude that the question came from LC, but my bet is that he was correct. Red Act (talk) 08:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If the "two spelling idiosyncrasies" were independent events, I might agree, but those are both common to the same rather large group of "casual spellers". StuRat (talk) 18:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec) This is not the first time that abuse of the apostrophe reveals more than a writer feels comfortable about. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have been following the reference desks for a few weeks now and I am somewhat perturbed that one or two users seem to bee sole arbiters of what is and what is not acceptable to post here. In particular user:Baseball bugs seems to have a perverted interest in hunting trolls on the reference desks only to the exclusion of everything else. I mean, does he actually contribute to the Wikipedia at all, or is he just interested in finding skeletons in cupboards and ghost hunting? If so, i suggest he joins the police force or something similar. This is an encyclopedia, not a playground for BB to accuse every poster with an unusual question of being a troll. Grow up Bugs!!! --LiquidVisage (talk) 14:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Baseball Bugs does indeed contribute to Wikipedia articles [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And this is the kind of stuff LC contributes.[15] Note the Liverpool-based ISP. He just wants everyone here to have no doubts as to his
indemnity identity. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The IP just above, as well as Mr. Maturity three paragraphs above, have now been sent to Never-Never Land. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I missed some of this and it may be too late to fix, but in general, we don't need people removing questions, especially not based on made-up criteria and the infinitely adaptable criterion that someone "is a troll". I think most often, in life and on the internet, trolls are children wearing cute little plastic masks. The most effective way to deal with them is to answer their questions plainly and honestly. Hit them with stuff to think about and the confusion of thinking about it will stop them in their tracks. Wnt (talk) 06:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- LC is a banned user. Banned users are not allowed to edit. That's not a "made up criterion", it's a rule. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with that very sensible view point--78.150.228.185 (talk) 07:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course you do, LC. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
This debate isn't making progress. Just... let it go.
|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
|
All's I've been trying to do is enforce the rule that banned users cannot edit, and about all it's bought me is tsuris. It seems like very few here care about that rule, so maybe it's time to throw in the towel. I'd like to see a list of registered ref desk regulars who want to keep the LC ban in place, those who would like to see it lifted, and those who don't care either way:
Lift ban
Retain ban
Neutral
- The user was banned before I ever heard of either that user or the ref desk. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Revert, block, ignore. It's pretty simple. Threads like this just feed the troll. 213.245.128.12 (talk) 10:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That approach doesn't work. I revert him, I get yelled at for it and the troll-feeders put the questions back. I'm getting tired of getting yelled at for trying to enforce the banned-user rules. So why even bother? They want him to edit. So let him edit already. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been on Wikipedia for a long time and seen many editors get frustrated with the project over things like this. Making a big song and dance about how you've given up and vandals should edit freely isn't helpful. Take a break for a while, come back refreshed. 213.245.128.12 (talk) 11:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't actually given up. I just want the Wnt's of this crowd to put up or shut up. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On what are people basing their conclusions that certain IPs are LightCurrent? They seem to jump to that conclusions based on one or two edits that could have been made by anyone. The IP addresses are from a large ISP, so you can't tell from that. I haven't been able to notice any particularly conclusive patterns in the types of questions asked or the writing style. What clues am I missing? --Tango (talk) 11:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on the types of questions LC always asks: about the intestines, and about screwing dogs. So, do you want to lift the ban, or leave it in place? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've seen a far broader range of questions declared as being from LC than that. So far, I'm not convinced that these questions are all from LC, so I don't consider LC's ban relevant. --Tango (talk) 11:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are the ones that come to mind. If you think it's appropriate to leave obviously trolling questions standing, then I don't what to tell you. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You didn't ask what to do with obvious trolling questions (the answer to that is: revert, block, ignore - the difficulty is that what's an obvious troll to one person is merely a misguided or ill-informed good faith OP to another); you asked what to do with LC's ban. That's a completely different question and not one that I'm convinced is relevant. --Tango (talk) 11:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- RBI DOES NOT WORK WITH LC. How many times do I have to tell you that??? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You still haven't provided any evidence that this *is* LC. As far I know, LC stopped editing years ago. --Tango (talk) 12:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You may not be keeping up-to-date then, scroll to the bottom. Lots of other stuff gets quietly vanished, as it's just routine admin work. I tend to think of these ongoing issues as "Lc-related cloud of disruption" so as not to conclude that it really is that exact person. It's always the same thing, it comes and goes like the tide. That's separate from Bugs' particular issue though, where my advice is generally if it's bothering you, then stop doing it. If you were right, someone else is going to notice. Franamax (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Bugs, I can't speak for anyone else, but my impression is that people aren't on you so much for reverting banned trolls, but for the zealousness and belligerence which you bring to it. I get the impression that you're deeply invested emotionally in this, and any disagreement or questioning is seen as a personal insult and attack, which causes you to "double down" on the subject. For example, take this thread. I have a hard time believing you're seriously fronting the proposal to de-ban LC, and from your comments it looks as if you're setting up a strawman - either Wnt et al. come out in favor of the ban, in which case you can claim to be vindicated and can tell him to shut up, or he comes out against the ban, in which case you can publicly ridicule him and tell him to shut up. It's perfectly understandable as an action of someone seeking validation, but it is not a course of action that's going to minimize LC-associated drama/disruption.
- You tend to take a very black and white, either/or approach to this, and my impression is that you don't give much time for considering the possible merits of viewpoints which differ from you. That's where I see these conversations continually going around in circles: someone makes a point, someone raises a counterpoint, counterpoint is ignored and original point is repeated more forcefully, counterpoint is rephrased in an increasingly exasperated tone in hopes that it'll be understood, point is reiterated now with subtext that the person raising counterpoint is an idiot for disagreeing .... Eventually the conversation dies out without any conclusion, only to be reopened again next time because nothing really has changed. Cynically, I'd say that consensus process on the RefDesk is not so much "a decision that takes account of all the legitimate concerns raised", but more "whatever, just shut up already" (or as recently put, "Just... let it go."). All this because we're consistently talking past one another, and trying to beat down the opposition, rather than talking to one another and figuring out why we (seem to) disagree, and if there's some course of action which can address all of our concerns.
- By the way, I should make clear that I completely support removal of inappropriate posts on masturbating dogs, etc. and fully support removal of any and all posts by banned users (while pointing out there's a difference between "posts by banned users" and "posts that editor X thinks are from a banned users"). I'll also point out that I'm not a "drive-by" in the sense that I've been posting both questions and answers (more answers than questions), and participating on the talk page here on the RefDesk for many years (I check these pages more frequently than is probably healthy). I've just done so via different ISP on dynamic IPs, rather than with an account. One of the things I originally liked about Wikipedia was the implication that the content of what people post is more important than who they are - that posts should be judged for their content, rather the poster's standing in the community. -- 174.31.219.218 (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In the past I have reverted a small number of edits from IP addresses that have been authoritatively linked to LC. My justification for doing so is the following postings by User:TenOfAllTrades. TenOfAllTrades has done a lot of good detective work to uncover the fact that LC now operates as a troll using IP addresses in the series 88.104.xx.yy. TenOfAllTrades has established that all postings from 88.104.xx.yy have been from LC. TenOfAllTrades has asked all Wikipedia Users to delete (on sight!) any posting to a Reference Desk from IP 88.104.xx.yy. See HERE 1 and HERE 2. Dolphin (t) 23:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, Dolphin, I'm not trying to pick a fight here (I'm actually trying to get to a point where we can defuse these things once and for all, however misguided that might be), but this is sort of what I was talking about when I made my comments about "talking past one another". Your post is indented as if it's a reply to my post, but I don't see where it addresses or touches on any of the points which I brought up. It completely ignores the main thrust of my argument, and the bulk of the rest of it. The only point I made which I think might be related, and what I presume is the impetus for your post, is the "(while pointing out there's a difference between "posts by banned users" and "posts that editor X thinks are from a banned users")" bit. Which you don't really address or acknowledge directly, instead you just make the point, effectively, that the guideline you used for determining "posts by banned users" is "posts that editor X thinks are from a banned users", where X=TenOfAllTrades (or that's how I read it in context). So not only have you effectively ignored the main point I was making, but you've sort of sidetracked the discussion by bringing up a highly charged ancillary point (I've seen the rabbit hole that discussions of ToAT's directive leads down, and previous such discussion have informed the GP post), and have done so in such a manner where you haven't even really acknowledged the opposing viewpoint as presented (whether or not we believe that ToAT's guideline is a useful heuristic to follow, that doesn't mean that we're agreeing that "posts by banned users" and "posts that editor X thinks are from a banned users" are identical). To reiterate my original point, to get anywhere with these conversations, you can't just shout talking points at each other until the other side throws up its hands in frustration, you have to at least acknowledge you read and understood what the other person wrote, even if you disagree with it from the bottom of your soul. -- 174.31.219.218 (talk) 01:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- @174.31.219.218: No offence taken. My posting was intended to provide information relevant to the initial posting by Baseball Bugs, and to the general theme of the thread as it has evolved so far. My posting was not a reply to you, or a response to your comments. Often when we make postings that are directed at a particular editor we preface our postings with the @ symbol and the User's name or IP address, as I have done here. Dolphin (t) 02:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you all want to continue allowing LC's socks to edit, then so be it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Bugs, this is what I'm talking about when I said you tend to take an either/or approach to things. Just because people think you're being overzealous doesn't mean that people aren't in favor of removing troll posts. To blow an analogy to extremes, people can be opposed to death squads roaming the streets looking for terrorists without being in favor of another 9/11. Likewise, in a much, much, ..., much less extreme case, just because people don't agree with the tactics and attitude you've taken doesn't mean they're pro-Light Current. There is at least a possibility for a solution which addresses everyone's concerns, a solution where LC's posts are removed, but where we can assume good faith about IP edits and not have a week long argument every time someone asks a question about the colon. But we'd need to discuss it instead of getting offended that people disagree. -- 174.31.219.218 (talk) 01:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well said. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on an admin's off-wiki advice, I'm done defending the ref desk against LC. He's all yours. Enjoy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
This debate isn't making progress. Just... let it go.
|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
|
X sprainpraxisL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Out of interest, is there anyone other then Wnt who really wants this person's questionable 'question' (in light of their 'enlightening' followups) on the RD? I mean of course [16] Nil Einne (talk) 10:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The guy is either a troll or a moron, it's hard to tell which. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- His original diatribe says "Don't give me the 'race is a social construct' BS" and then "My question is do you think race is a social construct?". If he's only going to accept one answer, then there is no point in him asking the question. It should be removed. --Tango (talk) 11:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And idiot questions about screwing dogs should stay??? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No. I thought we already had gone over this before, and that these questions should be removed on sight. But it seems Wnt is on some militant AGF-mission, despite ref desk consensus, which is extended to even the most obvious of socks. This is, in my opinion, getting to be more disruptive than the trolls themselves. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We have been over it. Time and time again. But Wnt and some others here will not accept it. There is a rule that banned editors cannot edit. No exceptions, no compromise. But they won't accept that rule. I revert an obvious trolling question, they put it back, they yell at me for trying to enforce the rule. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I never said that. However, if you want my view on that particular question, I don't have a problem with it. If it is really from a banned user, then the usual policy applies, but if it isn't (and I see no evidence that it is) then we should just answer it. I find giving a short, simple, accurate answer to such questions works far better than acting all outraged at them. Trolls do what they do in order to get a reaction. Someone taking them seriously and answering their question in a polite and helpful manner isn't the reaction they are after. --Tango (talk) 12:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Questions about him screwing his dogs are OK, then??? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, what part of "Banned users are not allowed to edit" is escaping you??? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What part of "There is no evidence that this is a banned user" is escaping you??? --Tango (talk) 12:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't blame me for your lack of attention to editing patterns. We have been through this many, many times. It's in the archives. If you think it's OK for LC to post his moronic questions about screwing his own dogs, then unban and unblock the guy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please remind me, was the question about penetrative sexual intercourse (slang: screwing) with an OP's multiple canines or about mastrubating[sic] a single dog of unspecified ownership? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This does not look anything like LC to me. It's crude and offensive, and it may be revertworthy, but not because it's block evasion by a banned user, because there's no evidence that it is. —Steve Summit (talk) 00:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This particular question (by X sprainpraxisL) does not appear to be LC's MO. LC comes up in this section because of the debate on whether to remove junk on-sight. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Then please be more clear in your arguments, dude! If it's a debate on whether to remove junk on-sight, then why do you keep dragging in irrelevant arguments having to do with banned editors? —Steve Summit (talk) 02:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are actually forums, such as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, that deal with things like figuring out whether an IP is a banned user. The way I see it, it can't be obvious that an IP is a banned user, if he's not actually blocked. Either the admins blocked him for a finite duration, indicating either that his ban might have ended or that they aren't sure that IP will still be the same person - or else they have not blocked that IP, leaving no evidence at all. But if you think there really is evidence against the IP, then go to the proper place and get him banned from posting, instead of deleting question after question that people have already looked at and responded to, based on your theory that he's not a legitimate questioner.
- As for the questions themselves, they surely seem worth responding to. I think some people, who haven't given the thought much consideration, would be surprised that it is common for professional breeders and some individual owners to masturbate dogs for economic reasons. And the nature of race is certainly deserving of discussion - I think racists survive largely because people are afraid to discuss these ideas more dispassionately. Wnt (talk) 03:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Look, there's too much black and white and not enough gray here for my taste. The moderate ground here is much better. The question about the Syrian president and his race seemed innocent enough (though ill informed) and has generated some good discussion. So it stays. However, I feel no need to preserve questions about jerking off dogs merely on the off chance that the question asker is trying to get into animal husbandry as an ernest business venture. No. Just no. We remove the shitty stuff, we answer the good stuff, and that's fine enough for me. We don't need to preserve AGF in the face of obvious trolling, and we don't need to remove questions which are not obvious trolling and which have generated enlightening discussion. In summation: Syrian presidential questions stay, canine wanking questions go. The next question, and everyone after that, will be adjudged on its own merits, and answered or deleted as needed. --Jayron32 05:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If AGF is going to be questioned, I have to wonder whether people are really more disturbed by the question, or by my sourced answer that in fact the practice is quite widespread and not regarded as unethical (at least if done by the 'right' people)? Wnt (talk) 09:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To the dog loving OP's credit, they used the correct word masturbate (albeit with a forgivable spelling typo) and did not indulge in vulgar synonyms such as screwing or wanking. BB and J may have different standards of decorum. However the question asked for an opinion and the only response needed is the standard if you need advice or opinions, it's better to ask elsewhere. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you read the other comments from the OP about the Syrian president, it becomes clear that they have some kind of white nationalist agenda and were just looking for a soapbox to rant about it, post links to hate sites, and so forth. The guy doesn't care about the answer to the question. That makes him a troll in my book. I have no problem with questions about the biology of race and so forth. I do have a problem with feeding trolls and giving them a soapbox to spout off purely racist claptrap. (I don't think all discussions of race are purely racist, but this guy is off his rocker.)
- And I fundamentally disagree with the assessment of "In general, if you let a little off-topic blather close off a thread, you make trolls more powerful than honest participants." It wasn't OT blather, it was the OP making it clear what their agenda was. It was entirely on topic as far as the OP was concerned — that's how you know they are a troll. Feeding a troll makes them more powerful, not shutting down their forum. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You really think a troll is fed by a straight answer? No, a troll is fed by discussions like this. Wnt (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and your feeding of the troll in that way has been substantial. Congratulations. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
This is the talk page for the Wikipedia Reference Desk. The purpose of this page is to discuss ways to improve the operation of the Reference Desk. Disruptive behavior, including long, pointless meta-debates, does not contribute to our objective here, and will not be tolerated. Nimur (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This debate isn't making progress. Just... let it go.
|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
|
- Who decides which disagreements will eventually benefit the reference desk and which will not? -- kainaw™ 16:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For now, I am acting unilaterally; when it becomes necessary, I'll just let an admin protect this page and block the appropriate users, as I do not have the account privileges to do so myself. Nimur (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oddly enough, when I've acted unilaterally and removed obvious trolling questions, I got yelled at. What makes you so special??? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Brevity. Nimur (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ha. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See, the problem is that when an obvious trolling question comes along, someone deletes it, and then some naive soul puts it back. The troll loves that. Every time you argue about a deleted question, you feed that troll. And blocking is a waste. He's got a dynamic IP. Unless you're willing to range-block the entire ISP (which might work - it worked for awhile when he was on that other ISP), you can't stop him with blocks. And you can't stop him with giving a bland and factual answer, as it will just make him try harder. All you can do is revert without comment, don't respond to his complaints, revert his reversions, and most of all STOP ARGUING ABOUT IT. That's the only way to put that moron out of business. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that when an obvious trolling question comes along, someone deletes it, and then some naive soul puts it back. The troll loves that. Every time you argue about a deleted question, you feed that troll. And blocking is a waste. He's got a dynamic IP. Unless you're willing to range-block the entire ISP (which might work - it worked for awhile when he was on that other ISP), you can't stop him with blocks. And you can't stop him with giving a bland and factual answer, as it will just make him try harder. All you can do is revert without comment, don't respond to his complaints, revert his reversions, and most of all STOP ARGUING ABOUT IT. That's the only way to put that moron out of business. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Who the H-E-double-hockey-sticks authorized you to be the owner of this page? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|