→More BLP nonsense: removed material that was defamatory per se |
|||
Line 509: | Line 509: | ||
==More BLP nonsense== |
==More BLP nonsense== |
||
This post wasn't even a question. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous&diff=455355539&oldid=455355135 Leaving it in place, even redacted, invites people to find the comment in the history and serves no other legitimate ref desk purpose. [[User:Medeis|μηδείς]] ([[User talk:Medeis|talk]]) 11:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC) |
This post wasn't even a question. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous&diff=455355539&oldid=455355135 Leaving it in place, even redacted, invites people to find the comment in the history and serves no other legitimate ref desk purpose. [[User:Medeis|μηδείς]] ([[User talk:Medeis|talk]]) 11:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC) |
||
:Accusations of criminality are defamatory per se. Under no circumstances should we be serve as a forum for them or entertain the need to provide advice that should come, if anywhere, from an officer of the court. see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous&diff=455473275&oldid=455470180. |
|||
==Question about the end of Look Japan== |
==Question about the end of Look Japan== |
Revision as of 02:45, 14 October 2011
[]
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.
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 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Legitimate question or not?
Was this deletion justified? The question might have seemed like a rant, but it is also a legitimate question. A lot of people don't understand why hypersexualization occurs in some media. If they want to do something about it, like organize a boycott of advertisers, they have to understand what's going on. I propose that the question be restored. 69.171.160.139 (talk) 23:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- What "question" would that be? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- "Why is "Univision" always use "All" their women with the breasts protuding?" Maybe the question is based on false premises, I have no idea (well I have a tiny inkling that it is not, after performing some research), but, anyway, that's what the question would be. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- If the question survives, the OP's apparent assumption that a lady who has large breasts, or appears thanks to the skill of her couturier (read: padded bra) to have been so blessed by the Hand of an Almighty whose selective generosity in this matter is a doubly uplifting miracle, may reasonably be thought to be a "tramp" should not be left unquestioned. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- "Why is "Univision" always use "All" their women with the breasts protuding?" Maybe the question is based on false premises, I have no idea (well I have a tiny inkling that it is not, after performing some research), but, anyway, that's what the question would be. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- A question that starts "Why does/is such-and-such always..." strikes me as an inherently false-premise question, unless the OP or someone can present some evidence that it is literally "always" or at least "most of the time". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- If you take a glance at Spanish-language American TV channels, the blatancy of sexism might surprise you -- so there is some reason behind the question. But it really was less a question than an excuse for a rant, and there is no useful response that can be given, so I'm happy with the removal. Looie496 (talk) 15:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- Given the responses, if it was intended as a subtle advertisement for Univision, it worked! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- A problem is that the person asking the question provides no apparent follow-up. I'm assuming this is the only IP address under which that individual posted, but I could be mistaken. I think there is enough unclarity expressed by the respondents that a follow-up post was clearly in order. Without clarification from the person posing the question, any subsequent responses tend to deteriorate into speculation on potentially unrelated issues. But those breasts were really interesting that I located on a Google search on the topic. Bus stop (talk) 16:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- Who says the ref desk isn't educational? Basically the drive-by said, "This is terrible! Just look at it!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- Who says the ref desk isn't educational? Basically the drive-by said, "This is terrible! Just look at it!" --Belchman (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- Awk! Polly want a cracker! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- Interesting opinion, but it's not relevant to whether the question is legitimate. Do you deny that the questioner was trying to understand why the phenomenon occurs? 69.171.160.199 (talk) 23:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know what the questioner was trying to understand. Maybe you could ask him? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- Who says the ref desk isn't educational? Basically the drive-by said, "This is terrible! Just look at it!" --Belchman (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- Who says the ref desk isn't educational? Basically the drive-by said, "This is terrible! Just look at it!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I restored the question without any of the irrelevant commentary from the questioner or others. Now might be a good time to remind people of the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines#When removing or redacting a posting. Missing the question is an excuse for removing it, but not a legitimate reason for removal. 69.171.160.131 (talk) 06:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- The commentary was every bit as relevant as the so-called "question" was. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Question deleted
I noticed that my question about what still makes America the greatest country on earth has been deleted. It was a sincere question based on research and observation, but you all know what's best. If my question has offended anyone in the Wikipedia community, I apologize. Willminator (talk) 23:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- I don't like this trend. If whoever deleted the question thought its assumptions were flawed, it would have been better to have said so than to have violated the guidelines. 69.171.160.131 (talk) 06:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- Here's the diff of the question's removal, and I don't like this trend either. Even the most opinionated questions, and even those questions clearly seeking opinions can be addressed with notable references, as has been discussed and demonstrated many times on this talk page and at the desks themselves. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe a separate desk is needed to handle questions like this, which are essentially invitations to debate rather than factual questions. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- There is a desk designed for those questions right here. -- kainaw™ 12:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- Should that perhaps be the standard response to these types of questions? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- It won't matter much. It is still September. It is almost October. By November, the new kids who show up every fall and try to the Reference Desk into Yahoo Answers will be interested in other things and all will go back to normal. -- kainaw™ 13:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- I fear we may never see October again. DMacks (talk) 08:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- It won't matter much. It is still September. It is almost October. By November, the new kids who show up every fall and try to the Reference Desk into Yahoo Answers will be interested in other things and all will go back to normal. -- kainaw™ 13:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- Which is better, that we all remove questions we believe are illegitimate without discussion or the required notices, or that we all follow the guidelines and explain to the questioner why we believe their question is inappropriate? Is anyone smart enough to always agree with your personal judgement about whether a question is legitimate? That's why the guidelines say what they do. 69.171.160.237 (talk) 19:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- The standard guideline is to remove the question first, post a notice here, and then have it reinstated if the consensus is that it shouldn't be removed. Of course, that is all pointless because there a handful of vocal users who oppose absolutely all deletions - even if the person posting the "question" states that he did it strictly as vandalism because he hates Wikipedia. Then, there are vocal users who want every question to be a clear request for resources and nothing else. Because these two extremes will never come to agreement on anything, there is no consensus about what should or should not be allowed. -- kainaw™ 19:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- "In general, you should leave a note on the Reference desk page explaining your edit and the reason behind it." -- Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines#When removing or redacting a posting. 69.171.160.237 (talk) 20:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I have already apologized for asking that question in case I may have broken some rule, because my question may have been interpreted the wrong way, and because I see that I may have offended some people here. I wasn’t looking to start a debate. That was never my intention. The intention of my question was to ask why people here in the U.S where I am and, even many people overseas, still consider America to be the greatest, or should I say the best, country in the face of the earth when we as a country are starting to lag behind on many things where we used to be number 1. My personal opinion as someone born in the U.S is that America is still the greatest country on earth, but now I wanted to know why the U.S still has that title because that title is becoming harder and harder to defend. I just wanted answers. People overseas have the impression that the U.S has the longest, largest, highest, and best stuff in the world because they’ve heard so many times that the U.S is the greatest country on earth. I’ve been overseas long enough and enough times to know this. Again, I apologize for asking that question. You did what you thought was the best thing to do. Willminator (talk) 20:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- Your detailed explanation is a much more acceptable question, although the US-bashing nonsense posted below ain't much of an answer. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- How was the original deleted question inferior? It had the same explanations. What do you think the answer is? 69.171.160.237 (talk) 22:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- Your detailed explanation is a much more acceptable question, although the US-bashing nonsense posted below ain't much of an answer. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- It's a legitimate question and I wish you would replace it. The answer involves cultural imperialism, and foreign jingoism-like psychology. 69.171.160.237 (talk) 20:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- The way the question was framed made it potentially a very provocative one. A better wording would have been....
- Why is America still claimed by some (maybe many) Americans to be the "greatest country on earth? (Or something along those lines.)
- Obviously a lot of people around the world, perhaps even some Americans, were going to feel challenged by what could have seemed on the surface to be a silly, arrogant assumption behind the question. The original explanation that followed was good, but by that time too many readers will have been provoked. As already said above, it's a topic worth discussing. Want to try again? HiLo48 (talk) 23:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, I'll try again tomorrow. Willminator (talk) 00:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- Give it a try. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, I was able to try again. It is quite long this time, but it was actually longer when I wrote it down in Word, and I did my best to shorten it. How does it look now? Let me know what you all think. Willminator (talk) 17:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- I gave the question a try as I've been told to do. Give me some feedback. How did I do? The answers have been very helpful and informative so far by the way. I simply asked out of curiosity, and out of concern for my country. Some of us Americans like to beat the world in every accomplishment and feat so that we could feel proud and good about ourselves. Since the U.S is my home country, I instinctly like to see people overseas getting wowed about the accomplishments and feats about my country. Willminator (talk) 21:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Ask yourself how you would feel if another country's citizens made such a conspicuous deal about it as yours do. Most people understand that if, largely as a result of natural resources, you have enough money to throw at a given field, you will likely excel in it: this does not seem to many people to be grounds for immoderate boasting. It makes you seem immature, insecure and irritating. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.66.70 (talk) 13:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- I noticed that America was lagging behind in the world in more things than it used to where America was number 1 in them. I’ve seen how some poor people react only about America overseas. The well-known title claimed by some about America being the greatest country on earth seemed to be harder to defend. So, both out of concern and curiosity, I asked my question, and the answers that came thereafter were insightful, informative, and helpful. I know understand how my concerns have been misplaced. It was a legitimate question as some have said here. I'm not looking to start a debate here. Forgive me if I gave you the false impression that I'm arrogant and I apologize for making you seem that I’m immature, insecure, and irritating. Willminator (talk) 14:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Apologies for carelessly giving the impression that I meant you personally; I was using "you" (after my first sentence above) in the sense of Americans perceived as a whole, and of course broad-brush perceptions do not necessary apply to any given individual: I should have been less ambiguous. As an active SF fan I have made the acquaintance of many US authors and readers who, being an atypical selection who are arguably more educated and internationally oriented than the average, do not fall for the shallow-minded and ultimately meaningless shibboleth of a country being some undefined general "greatest." {The poster formerly known as 87.81.2301.95} 90.197.66.70 (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well, you seem more literate then most 49ers fans I know. Googlemeister (talk) 16:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Apologies for carelessly giving the impression that I meant you personally; I was using "you" (after my first sentence above) in the sense of Americans perceived as a whole, and of course broad-brush perceptions do not necessary apply to any given individual: I should have been less ambiguous. As an active SF fan I have made the acquaintance of many US authors and readers who, being an atypical selection who are arguably more educated and internationally oriented than the average, do not fall for the shallow-minded and ultimately meaningless shibboleth of a country being some undefined general "greatest." {The poster formerly known as 87.81.2301.95} 90.197.66.70 (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- I noticed that America was lagging behind in the world in more things than it used to where America was number 1 in them. I’ve seen how some poor people react only about America overseas. The well-known title claimed by some about America being the greatest country on earth seemed to be harder to defend. So, both out of concern and curiosity, I asked my question, and the answers that came thereafter were insightful, informative, and helpful. I know understand how my concerns have been misplaced. It was a legitimate question as some have said here. I'm not looking to start a debate here. Forgive me if I gave you the false impression that I'm arrogant and I apologize for making you seem that I’m immature, insecure, and irritating. Willminator (talk) 14:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Ask yourself how you would feel if another country's citizens made such a conspicuous deal about it as yours do. Most people understand that if, largely as a result of natural resources, you have enough money to throw at a given field, you will likely excel in it: this does not seem to many people to be grounds for immoderate boasting. It makes you seem immature, insecure and irritating. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.66.70 (talk) 13:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Give it a try. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, I'll try again tomorrow. Willminator (talk) 00:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
What the heck?!?
69.171.160.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
69.171.160.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
69.171.160.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Someone please tell me this is pertinent. I'm not happy with Medeis, who has been deleting my attempts to communicate from their user page[1][2] and now this?!? 69.171.160.45 (talk) 08:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Per WP:UP#CMT people are entitled even if discouraged from deleting messages on their own talk page, it's taken as a sign they read them. With regard to the first message, if they deleted it we can take it that means they are aware of the discussion and choose not to participate, it doesn't seem that vital they participate, they didn't AFAIK do anything about the restored question. With regards to your second comment, you are free to open an RFC/U since they didn't give in to your ultimatum. However, although they may not have communicated on the issue, my feeling is any RFC/U is likely to be shot down if the removal of the question, and their refusal to discuss the removal is the only thing you bring to it. (On a personal level, I find a lot of Medeis's comments disagreeable but they aren't the level an RFC/U is needed.) As for that particular comment at WP:RD/M I personally felt it wasn't very pertinent or appropriate but again, it doesn't really seem something to make a big deal about. Nil Einne (talk) 14:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- I do think the original diff is quite offensive and that Medeis should either clarify that it was a very stupid joke or remove it. It's trolling at the very, very least. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Medeis was satirizing the old "conspiracy of Jewish bankers" stuff. If the OP is going to file a complaint (which will likely go nowhere), I wonder how many IP's he'll use in the course of it? He's used at least 3 of the Colorado-based IP's just in this one complaint. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- If it was satire he did a lousy job. There was no way for anyone to know he was joking, and considering the subject that was in incredibly poor taste. Regarding the OPs IPs, are you sure they are not just on a dynamic IP? --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- A bit too subtle, perhaps. And I assume it's dynamic, yes. I'm just saying that if he posts an official complaint, he had best make it clear that he's just one guy each time his IP changes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Clarification would be good, yes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- General FYI: Medeis is a she, not a he. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- That clarifies it. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- General FYI: Medeis is a she, not a he. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
This is the closest thing I got to an explanation from Medeis, who clearly doesn't feel the need to explain himself.[3] I asked a followup question and he deleted it without comment, so that's a pretty good indication of what we're dealing with. I'm sure he'll eventually get the boot, but it might take awhile. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)- Either way, may be worth remembering you were just told Medeis is a 'she' (and must have read it because you replied to the comment before this post) Nil Einne (talk) 14:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- My apologies to Medeis for my incorrect statement above. I thought I had asked a followup, but either did not do so, or failed to hit "save" and it never posted. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Either way, may be worth remembering you were just told Medeis is a 'she' (and must have read it because you replied to the comment before this post) Nil Einne (talk) 14:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Remove?
I'm thinking the "How to find a girlfriend?" thread on Miscellaneous should be collapsed or removed or something. It's not asking for references, and all the replies are opinions and OR. 82.43.90.142 (talk) 03:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- In some sense, that kind of question is similar to asking for legal or medical advice. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Really? I was not aware that giving dating advice required licensing like legal or medical advice. Googlemeister (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- It has nothing to do with the reasoning behind legal or medical advice. It is, however, a topic that is prone to ridiculous and useless anecdotes and generalizations. But at the moment I'm pretty tolerant of that sort of thing, as long as those kinds of questions are the minority of what we do around here. Just ignore it if it bugs you. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's more similar to asking for advice or opinions, which is discouraged but still common (most often for tourist destinations but also books, films, songs, brands of liqueur, etc). The guidelines don't exactly prohibit asking for or offering opinions, only saying it's "better" to ask elsewhere. There may be some factual answers to the question, e.g. scientific research on the best way to find a girlfriend, or even statistics like X percent of people date people at their workplace/at college/etc, X% of Americans find their spouse on eHarmony.com, etc, but nobody's mentioned any yet. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- The funniest answer from someone was suggesting to the OP that he open himself up to bisexuality. Given the state of STD's in the world, that idea was pretty close to giving medical advice. Although Woody Allen once said, "Being bisexual doubles your chances for getting a date." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what bisexuality has to do with STDs, Bugs. That's kind of an ignorant point of view you seem to be cultivating there. The advice is stupid, to be sure, but not for the reason you seem to think. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm lumping AIDS in with the other STDs. Although being strictly straight still allows ample opportunities. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- One's sexual orientation has nothing to do with whether one will contract STDs or AIDS. One's use of condoms and other methods of effective preventatives does. Plenty of straight people get STDs and AIDS. Heterosexuals of both genders need to be just as careful about that sort of things as homosexual males. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- AIDS is primarily a "gay disease", at least in America. To paraphrase Woody Allen, being bisexual doubles your chances for a date and for STD's. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- Bugs, that isn't even close to true. Relieve your ignorance with some facts. There are multiple vectors for AIDs in the United States, with male unprotected homosexual sex being one of them, but only one of them. Be aware that the phrase "gay disease" is considered to be fairly offensive. HIV is a virus and it infects a lot more than just gay males — it infects heterosexual females, children, etc., even in the US. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- I don't do PC. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- You're view is clearly flawed. If the question asker was female then they were already apparently gay or perhaps bisexual. For them to date males may have in fact increased their risk of getting HIV, but it would be because they were in a opposite sex coupling, not because they were in a same sex one. Also if you want to go there, I expect the far riskier thing for the suggestion you mentioned was it appeared to include all nominally available males including those in places where HIV is very widespread like parts of sub-saharan Africa. (Not to mention the question asker didn't say anything about sexual contact anyway so if you're raising the issue and it wasn't something they were considering then you're suggesting riskier behaviour regardless of the sex of the people involved.) Nil Einne (talk) 09:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- "You are view"? Where's Cuddly when we need him? Be that as it may... Instead of griping to me for my
satiricialsatirical comments, how about griping to the bozo that suggested dating men in addition to women. That's far more offensive than anything I've said here. Unless he was also being satirical. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)- I already pointed out one flaw of the suggestion in the actual discussion Nil Einne (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- When Nil Einne posted I was being gagged by the predatory admin who finds my contributions dispensable. I find no fault in Nil Einne's statement because "You're view" is clearly flawed and correctly stated to be so. It may be corrected either to "Your view" or to "Yaw view" but the latter while grammatical seems unnecessarily dynamical. But "satiricial" ? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yikes! I'm not even sure how to pronounce "satiricial". However, I blame a faulty keyboard rather than the possibly more obvious explanation: failure to proofread. :( "Yer view" would also work. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- When Nil Einne posted I was being gagged by the predatory admin who finds my contributions dispensable. I find no fault in Nil Einne's statement because "You're view" is clearly flawed and correctly stated to be so. It may be corrected either to "Your view" or to "Yaw view" but the latter while grammatical seems unnecessarily dynamical. But "satiricial" ? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- I already pointed out one flaw of the suggestion in the actual discussion Nil Einne (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- "You are view"? Where's Cuddly when we need him? Be that as it may... Instead of griping to me for my
- You're view is clearly flawed. If the question asker was female then they were already apparently gay or perhaps bisexual. For them to date males may have in fact increased their risk of getting HIV, but it would be because they were in a opposite sex coupling, not because they were in a same sex one. Also if you want to go there, I expect the far riskier thing for the suggestion you mentioned was it appeared to include all nominally available males including those in places where HIV is very widespread like parts of sub-saharan Africa. (Not to mention the question asker didn't say anything about sexual contact anyway so if you're raising the issue and it wasn't something they were considering then you're suggesting riskier behaviour regardless of the sex of the people involved.) Nil Einne (talk) 09:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- I don't do PC. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- Bugs, that isn't even close to true. Relieve your ignorance with some facts. There are multiple vectors for AIDs in the United States, with male unprotected homosexual sex being one of them, but only one of them. Be aware that the phrase "gay disease" is considered to be fairly offensive. HIV is a virus and it infects a lot more than just gay males — it infects heterosexual females, children, etc., even in the US. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- AIDS is primarily a "gay disease", at least in America. To paraphrase Woody Allen, being bisexual doubles your chances for a date and for STD's. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- One's sexual orientation has nothing to do with whether one will contract STDs or AIDS. One's use of condoms and other methods of effective preventatives does. Plenty of straight people get STDs and AIDS. Heterosexuals of both genders need to be just as careful about that sort of things as homosexual males. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm lumping AIDS in with the other STDs. Although being strictly straight still allows ample opportunities. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what bisexuality has to do with STDs, Bugs. That's kind of an ignorant point of view you seem to be cultivating there. The advice is stupid, to be sure, but not for the reason you seem to think. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- The funniest answer from someone was suggesting to the OP that he open himself up to bisexuality. Given the state of STD's in the world, that idea was pretty close to giving medical advice. Although Woody Allen once said, "Being bisexual doubles your chances for getting a date." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- One of the issues is the OP provided very little info. They didn't mention their age, sex, location, experience or even really what they're looking for other than a girlfriend. Where Americans find their spouse may not be particularly useful to the OP if they live in Germany. Nil Einne (talk) 12:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
"My app doesn't work"
Do we really need to entertain discussions over why a particular "app" doesn't work for a few hours, per this thread? How does this benefit Wikipedia? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- The question isn't just "Why doesn't this app work?" The question is "Is there a well-known reason that this app doesn't work?" For example, what if Blackberry just got into a dust-up with Facebook and they mutually agreed to not work with each other anymore. A well-referenced response could explain so and provide links to news articles about the whole situation. Further, why should it benefit Wikipedia? That makes no sense. The purpose of the Reference Desk is not to benefit Wikipedia. The purpose of the reference desk is to provide references for those seeking information. -- kainaw™ 17:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)If you look through the archives of almost any of the RefDesks, you'll find examples of threads that don't directly benefit Wikipedia: typical examples include, "What's the film called where such-and-such happens?" "How do I remove a wine-stain from a white tablecloth?" "When is the next time comet XYZ will be visible from London?" and, "Why are most country's Israel embassies in Tel Aviv and not Jerusalem the capital?"
It's a service we provide. It's helpful. It helps people to learn their way around Wikipedia. It does no harm. People are happy to volunteer to do it. These are all decent enough reasons. ╟─TreasuryTag►Subsyndic General─╢ 17:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Just a note: From his edit history, it appears that this is the first time User:The Rambling Man has used the Reference Desk and very well may have many misconceptions about the purpose of the Reference Desk. -- kainaw™ 17:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Cool, interesting. Yes, I've rarely been to these areas before, and yes, I may have "many misconceptions"[citation needed], but I've certainly experienced apps that stop working for a few hours, and never felt the need to start a conspiratorial thread on Wikipedia about it. There are half a million apps for iPhone now, some of them will probably glitch for one reason or another. This, and these discussions are wasteful on our resources. The point, I thought, of reference desks was to actually attempt to enhance the knowledge base on WIkipedia. If we need to ask a primitive question like "why does my app stop working for a few hours" just to add "some apps don't work perfectly all the time" then we really are heading downhill fast. So don't worry, I'll not be back here again in a rush, I'll focus on building the encyclopedia, not chatting about apps that stop working temporarily... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- I've certainly experienced apps that stop working for a few hours, and never felt the need to start a conspiratorial thread on Wikipedia about it. I'm not sure why you bothered including the word 'conspiratorial' (not least since it's completely meaningless in that context), but I daresay you've often forgotten the name of a film, wanted to know when a comet will be visible from your city and needed to clean tableclothes yet not started a thread about of it. Fine. Others may wish to do so, and you aren't required to engage with that if you don't want to.
This, and these discussions are wasteful on our resources. What resources? Do you mean the Wikimedia server resources? Because WP:PERF applies. I really hope you that the resource you mean isn't editors' time, because (and this will perhaps come as a surprise to you) the RefDesks are very actively staffed by volunteers who chose to help people, and I see no reason to stop this altruistic activity just because you consider it too trivial. ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 17:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)- See above: what if Blackberry just got into a dust-up with Facebook and they mutually agreed to not work with each other anymore. And yes, I get the concept of "volunteer". I've been one for six years and do it every day, not just on-wiki. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- I saw above, and I still don't see how the word 'conspiratorial' applies, but suit yourself. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 17:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Conspiracy: Facebook/Blackberry not working with each other any more. Nonsense. The app failed for a few hours. That's life. Anyway, thank you, indeed I will suit myself. I trust we have agreed to disagree, you can carry on with your self-declared altruism etc and I shall do what I do. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- I think you'll find that I never mentioned FB and BB not working together. Someone else did. So the thread itself was nothing to do with that. (Incidentally, how can two organisations not working together possibly be a conspiracy?) ╟─TreasuryTag►Regional Counting Officer─╢ 17:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- I think you'll find the indentation of both of your and your colleague's comments was the same. And the point being that someone enquiring why Facebook doesn't work would equate to Blackberry not working with Facebook is way too WP:OR for words. That's the stuff of conspiracy theory. And as I said, good luck with you ongoing altruism, I shall do whatever it is I do from now on and not darken these threads again. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- I think you'll find that I never mentioned FB and BB not working together. Someone else did. So the thread itself was nothing to do with that. (Incidentally, how can two organisations not working together possibly be a conspiracy?) ╟─TreasuryTag►Regional Counting Officer─╢ 17:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Conspiracy: Facebook/Blackberry not working with each other any more. Nonsense. The app failed for a few hours. That's life. Anyway, thank you, indeed I will suit myself. I trust we have agreed to disagree, you can carry on with your self-declared altruism etc and I shall do what I do. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- I saw above, and I still don't see how the word 'conspiratorial' applies, but suit yourself. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 17:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- See above: what if Blackberry just got into a dust-up with Facebook and they mutually agreed to not work with each other anymore. And yes, I get the concept of "volunteer". I've been one for six years and do it every day, not just on-wiki. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- I've certainly experienced apps that stop working for a few hours, and never felt the need to start a conspiratorial thread on Wikipedia about it. I'm not sure why you bothered including the word 'conspiratorial' (not least since it's completely meaningless in that context), but I daresay you've often forgotten the name of a film, wanted to know when a comet will be visible from your city and needed to clean tableclothes yet not started a thread about of it. Fine. Others may wish to do so, and you aren't required to engage with that if you don't want to.
- Cool, interesting. Yes, I've rarely been to these areas before, and yes, I may have "many misconceptions"[citation needed], but I've certainly experienced apps that stop working for a few hours, and never felt the need to start a conspiratorial thread on Wikipedia about it. There are half a million apps for iPhone now, some of them will probably glitch for one reason or another. This, and these discussions are wasteful on our resources. The point, I thought, of reference desks was to actually attempt to enhance the knowledge base on WIkipedia. If we need to ask a primitive question like "why does my app stop working for a few hours" just to add "some apps don't work perfectly all the time" then we really are heading downhill fast. So don't worry, I'll not be back here again in a rush, I'll focus on building the encyclopedia, not chatting about apps that stop working temporarily... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, Rambling Man. This is the Wikipedia:Reference Desk. On it, we answer questions that people might have. It's been going on for awhile. We have some guidelines as to what sorts of questions we won't answer, but they're generally fairly limited. You can see them in the header on the Reference Desk pages. Asking about computer apps is completely germane to the policy. If you are bugged by this, you're welcome to ignore said questions, or use your Wikipedia-browsing time in some other way, but unless a question is seriously disruptive, violates the rules, or is just meant to be trolling of some sort, we generally don't remove questions. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hello Mr. 98, thanks for your useful and kind response. I found the idea of a long-term user asking here on Wikipedia why a crappy app had stopped working for a few hours somewhat laughable, perhaps my mistake as I thought anyone who was reasonably used to the way modern technology works would be accustomed to the odd glitch and not seek the wisdom of Wikipedia to explain why. I also don't really get how this particular thread would ever benefit Wikipedia. But as I said before, I clearly don't get it. The use of other pages for "chat" like this is generally discouraged, my mistake to stumble upon this after 6.5 years of being here. In any case, good luck to you and whoever else finds it rewarding to respond to questions like this without any direct relevance to the charity-funded project we're all trying to promote. Perhaps The IT Crowd would help, usually it's just a BSOD; switching it off and on again may help.... Standard. God speed. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Potential benefit to the main body of articles is not the primary goal of the reference desk. (Though, happily, that certainly happens.) The reference desk serves the encyclopedia by being another channel through which users may gain knowledge. Like a library's reference desk, it's here to supplement and be a value-add for the community. APL (talk) 21:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hello Mr. 98, thanks for your useful and kind response. I found the idea of a long-term user asking here on Wikipedia why a crappy app had stopped working for a few hours somewhat laughable, perhaps my mistake as I thought anyone who was reasonably used to the way modern technology works would be accustomed to the odd glitch and not seek the wisdom of Wikipedia to explain why. I also don't really get how this particular thread would ever benefit Wikipedia. But as I said before, I clearly don't get it. The use of other pages for "chat" like this is generally discouraged, my mistake to stumble upon this after 6.5 years of being here. In any case, good luck to you and whoever else finds it rewarding to respond to questions like this without any direct relevance to the charity-funded project we're all trying to promote. Perhaps The IT Crowd would help, usually it's just a BSOD; switching it off and on again may help.... Standard. God speed. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- There definitely is a benefit to articles in at least two ways:
- When responders try to link to the appropriate article and section on Wikipedia, they may find the information missing or out-of-date and improve the article
- And it is a recruitment and retainment tool. The more that people see and use Wikipedia as a valuable resource, the more likely it is they will decide to become productive editors, and many sustain their interest by answering at the desks as a sideline to their article and project work.
- For these reasons, the RefDesks are generlly a more tolerant place than much of the rest of Wikipedia. Franamax (talk) 23:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- There definitely is a benefit to articles in at least two ways:
- If I may pipe in here with a dissenting opinion, it has been argued that our purpose is in fact to improve the encyclopedia first, and to help people second. —Steve Summit (talk) 23:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- I see a few problems with that:
- ideally, we should answer every question by citing an existing Wikipedia article: Implies that those people asking questions aren't really all that bright. They can't find an article about a topic that interests them, but the RD volunteers will be able to.
- if an existing Wikipedia article doesn't answer it adequately, .. the right thing to do, theoretically, is to .. add that finely-wrought explanation to the appropriate article, and then link to it.: Wouldn't that be nice, you want an article, ask for it and a few days later it's there. Like a library that writes books on demand. I see a few problems, the editors here are not necessarily expert on the topic in question; people don't want to wait days or weeks for an answer; You'll be running out of available editors pretty soon if answering one question involves that much work (and one question could impact more than one article, maybe even a whole category); wikipedia already has a lot of "to do" lists, like Wikipedia:Requested articles, Wikipedia:Translation, Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check, Category:Articles tagged for deletion and rescue ... And let's not forget the biggest of them all, WP:BACKLOG, a category the helpdesks may join if those proposals would become policy.
- I see a few problems with that:
- If I may pipe in here with a dissenting opinion, it has been argued that our purpose is in fact to improve the encyclopedia first, and to help people second. —Steve Summit (talk) 23:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- BTW, "I argued" is shorter and more to the point than "It has been argued" ;-) DS Belgium (talk) 03:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- I fixed your category insertion. Generally, category links should have a : (Colon) before them, so the page isn't added to the category by accident. ~ Matthewrbowker Say hi! 21:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- BTW, "I argued" is shorter and more to the point than "It has been argued" ;-) DS Belgium (talk) 03:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Bravo Ummit, and Sluzzelin for preserving it. That's a few months "before my time" and I'd never read it 'til now. That perfectly matches my own understanding of the value of RD vis-a-vis the WP project and is consonant with my own post just above (I think). Read with the explanation of the ways in which those goals are not fully attainable in the real world, it makes perfect sense to me. Franamax (talk) 01:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's true that these kind of places can feel like a "chat" sort of atmosphere, but at its best it is more like a library reference desk. Computer problems are quite common here (hence an entire desk for them) and range from the totally technical to the "really you should just reboot it and it'll fix itself." Generally we don't discriminate on the basis of something being a stupid question, mostly because 1. perhaps there no truly stupid questions (as the aphorism goes), and 2. the person on the other end might be a child, or someone elderly, or just befuddled. Frankly I'm not sure what it is about the app question that bothers you so, but anyway, it's just a tiny ripple in a much larger pond of knowledge. The Ref Desk has been the start of many an article improvement, and is, I think, a fairly strong resource for Wikipedia to have. Not every question is edifying, I'd be the first to admit, but even if the rate was only, say, one out of every twenty questions, that's still a pretty high return on something that takes up a negligible amount of resources. Anyway, I don't think it's worth getting worked up about. The Ref Desk qua Ref Desk goes back a long, long time — to the earliest days of Wikipedia. One of the first questions was by none other than Larry Sanger, whose edifying question was "why do dogs eat other dogs' poop?" So there you go: a less than illustrious history, but more likely a productive one than a harmful one. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- To RamblingMan, regarding your most recent sign-off: "You don't want to use that phrase, dude."
Question restored
I have restored this question as I didn't see what rule it violated so clearly as to be removed without discussion here. It's certainly not the best RD question ever asked. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- And I have deleted it again, as it is extremely offensive and very likely trolling. Looie496 (talk) 01:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- (after ec) I can't see any way in which this "question" is anything except trolling, and racist trolling at that. Black men are either in jail or marrying white women? Outrageous Bielle (talk) 01:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- We don't need a specific rule (WP:BURO) to delete obvious trolling that will in no way improve the project or its reputation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- The odd thing is that it came from Canada rather than, say, Indiana. But it looks like a race-baiting question. It's of the "why is/does [something] always..." type, i.e. a gross exaggeration. It would be like asking, "Why are all the obscenely wealthy white guys in jail?" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the question first, without warning or any note on the RD talk. I don't know if you have to post a note for every question removed. For obviously trolling, I find it better not to feed the troll. Quest09 (talk) 13:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- ...and no, it is not necessary to post a notice to the talk page for every thread removed. Posting a note is only recommended (not required) if the removal is likely to be controversial, or is best supported by more explanation than will fit in your edit summary. (As you may have gathered, posting an explanation here can also preempt the unfortunate restoration/deletion cycle that took place here—but it can be difficult to guess sometimes what an isolated editor might not realize is trolling.) In general, we try to discourage any practice that makes it more work to remove trolling than it is to put it in. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
removed question
Is this legal?
LightCurrent trolling |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
- - I really wish you'd have mentioned what this was before linking it. I saw it was youtube and thus assumed it was work safe, but clicking on it was greeted by the title page "Dog semen collection" which I closed imediately. Just a warning for anyone else thinking about clicking the link. I didn't watch the video but collecting semen from animals is legal in most countries (as far as I know) and is an important part of modern Animal Husbandry 192.84.79.2 (talk) 10:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC) - -
- - -
- - - - -
- |
- - What's that? A reliable source you say? Preposterous. Buddy431 (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
-
- The first responder's complaint was that the link was not work-safe, thanks to LC's little ruse. But if you've provided a reliable source, maybe LC won't ask that question again. And if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. Some assembly required: File:35wbridge2.jpg ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above was placed at the bottom of the page by 92.28.82.8 (which geolocates to Liverpool, the birth place of the Beatles, but also of LightCurrent). I'm removing it, since it got enough attention yet and is disturbing other discussions. Wikiweek (talk) 11:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for not letting me know on my talk page that you removed my post. I really appreciate it when the helpful information I provide, entirely in line with the purpose of the reference desk (to provide references) is deleted, but I am especially happy when nobody feels the need to tell me this. Buddy431 (talk) 20:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- ...and no, it is not necessary to post a notice to the talk page for every thread removed. Posting a note is only recommended (not required) if the removal is likely to be controversial, or is best supported by more explanation than will fit in your edit summary. (As you may have gathered, posting an explanation here can also preempt the unfortunate restoration/deletion cycle that took place here—but it can be difficult to guess sometimes what an isolated editor might not realize is trolling.) In general, we try to discourage any practice that makes it more work to remove trolling than it is to put it in. Wikiweek (talk) 21:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- Look, it's bad enough when editors delete other folks' contributions that were made in good faith, and in line with RD guidelines. But when you do it to me, I'm going to demand that, at the minimum, you let me know, and I'm going to complain about it. Because, you know, I do put thought and effort into my responses, and I don't like it when other people unilaterally decide that they don't deserve to be seen, just because some of the people in the thread might not be acting in good faith. Buddy431 (talk) 00:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your continued contributions to feeding the troll. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Look, it's bad enough when editors delete other folks' contributions that were made in good faith, and in line with RD guidelines. But when you do it to me, I'm going to demand that, at the minimum, you let me know, and I'm going to complain about it. Because, you know, I do put thought and effort into my responses, and I don't like it when other people unilaterally decide that they don't deserve to be seen, just because some of the people in the thread might not be acting in good faith. Buddy431 (talk) 00:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- ...and no, it is not necessary to post a notice to the talk page for every thread removed. Posting a note is only recommended (not required) if the removal is likely to be controversial, or is best supported by more explanation than will fit in your edit summary. (As you may have gathered, posting an explanation here can also preempt the unfortunate restoration/deletion cycle that took place here—but it can be difficult to guess sometimes what an isolated editor might not realize is trolling.) In general, we try to discourage any practice that makes it more work to remove trolling than it is to put it in. Wikiweek (talk) 21:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- Look Buddy431: it's an established procedure here: if removing trolling would cost us much more time than producing it, the troll has won. In this question there was not just "some of the people (...) not be acting in good faith." It was more like the question was annoying from the beginning. Wikiweek (talk) 12:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's hardly established procedure. It's what a few editors believe, perhaps, including yourself. I disagree. I believe that if you remove or modify somebody's signed comment, it's just common courtesy to let them know. Buddy431 (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Why do you want to feed the troll? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm starting to get tired of hearing the constant refrain of "why do you want to feed the troll". Nobody here has any idea what feeds the troll. Maybe he likes seeing the condescending remarks handed out to anyone who has the temerity to complain that their good-faith content has been removed without notification. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- And I'm well beyond tired of hearing excuses justifying feeding the troll. Anyone who has paid attention knows what feeds the troll: It's the back-and-forth about it. When something gets deleted and no one comments, he doesn't pop his slimy head in here. When you and others insist on arguing about it, he loves it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- I have never argued against the removal of a question. I am arguing against being a dick about it. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 18:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- You're arguing toward the wrong users. You need to point that vulgarism at the enablers, i.e. the ones who argue against the deletions. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Bugs, why do you want to keep feeding the troll?
- (Also, why do you hate America?)
- This kind of rhetoric only works on bumper stickers. Just as no Americans hate America, they just have different ideas of what's best for it, nobody wants to feed the trolls, they just have different ideas of how not to. In my mind you're one of the worst offenders in this area (Specifically regarding this troll in particular.), but I'm sure you don't think of yourself as a "troll enabler", you just have a different opinion on how to deal with the troll.
- Pretending that people intentionally want trolls to continue trolling, only makes yourself look like a complete catch-phrase spouting idiot. I'd like to believe that's not really the case, but it gets harder to believe every time you try to shut down a discussion by shouting a catchphrase like that. (Also bad: trying to shutdown a discussion of a particular question's relevance by saying "Oh yea? Then what's the answer? Huh?")
- You really need to keep in mind that a difference of opinion on how to combat a problem does not mean that everyone who disagrees with you secretly wants the problem to continue. It's possible for someone to disagree with you, but not be evil. (Except on cable news! Zing!) APL (talk) 01:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- It has been explained to you and your fellow enablers, time after time after time. It's not "a matter of opinion", it's that you and your fellow enablers don't care. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- I can't speak for User:Buddy431, but I do care, and firmly believe course of action you keep espousing is a exacerbating the problem. I've explained my position before but you seem to always assume that it's a disingenuous justification for allowing the trolls to win, so I won't bother again.
- However, I'd like to amplify my jab at the end there, your attitude on this, that you know the one and only way to deal with a situation, and that anyone who disagrees with you must therefore not want to solve the problem, is very reminiscent of the TV news, and is very clearly an error. APL (talk) 07:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- The issues I have with the enablers are (1) their frequent refusal to acknowledge the obvious; and (2) even when it is obvious even to them, their refusal to acknowledge that it matters. I have surrendered to the enablers' attitude in one way, in that I no longer request that LC's socks get blocked. The enablers have de facto un-banned him, and so have I. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- It has been explained to you and your fellow enablers, time after time after time. It's not "a matter of opinion", it's that you and your fellow enablers don't care. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- You're arguing toward the wrong users. You need to point that vulgarism at the enablers, i.e. the ones who argue against the deletions. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- I have never argued against the removal of a question. I am arguing against being a dick about it. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 18:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- And I'm well beyond tired of hearing excuses justifying feeding the troll. Anyone who has paid attention knows what feeds the troll: It's the back-and-forth about it. When something gets deleted and no one comments, he doesn't pop his slimy head in here. When you and others insist on arguing about it, he loves it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm starting to get tired of hearing the constant refrain of "why do you want to feed the troll". Nobody here has any idea what feeds the troll. Maybe he likes seeing the condescending remarks handed out to anyone who has the temerity to complain that their good-faith content has been removed without notification. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Why do you want to feed the troll? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's hardly established procedure. It's what a few editors believe, perhaps, including yourself. I disagree. I believe that if you remove or modify somebody's signed comment, it's just common courtesy to let them know. Buddy431 (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Look Buddy431: it's an established procedure here: if removing trolling would cost us much more time than producing it, the troll has won. In this question there was not just "some of the people (...) not be acting in good faith." It was more like the question was annoying from the beginning. Wikiweek (talk) 12:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
WikiProject members assisting
Probably every question posted on the Reference desks is relevant to at least one WikiProject, and some are relevant to more than one. For convenient reference, a weekly updated list of WikiProjects is found at Wikipedia:Database reports/WikiProjects by changes. They are categorized at Category:WikiProjects. A few times, I have left messages at WikiProject talk pages and requested assistance with such questions. If every Wikipedian had Wikipedia:Reference desk and all seven Reference desks watchlisted (and if question posers were more proficient in making section headings both brief and informative), then the answers could be better and more numerous. I propose the installation of a mechanism whereby editors can select one or more WikiProjects from the list, and generate a message on the talk page of each WikiProject selected, requesting assistance and including a link to the relevant Reference desk section, and also a permanent link for reference after the discussion has been archived.
—Wavelength (talk) 00:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Trolling question removed
I removed a troll post on the Misc desk. Please restore it if I was wrong, and let me know if I did it wrongly. --Psud (talk) 12:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- You're fine. The regulars all know exactly who that was, and it was a good removal. --Jayron32 12:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- By challenging the removal, you are feeding the troll. Way to go. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's the style and the topic (dog genitals and the like). The IP also geolocates to a specific location (Liverpool). I wonder which mental problem this guy has. Quest09 (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- The city is irrelevant, it's just where the ISP's servers are based. While I still dispute that there is any real evidence that this is LC, it's clearly the same person from that ISP that has posted all the other dog genital related questions over the last few months (or longer). --Tango (talk) 01:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's the style and the topic (dog genitals and the like). The IP also geolocates to a specific location (Liverpool). I wonder which mental problem this guy has. Quest09 (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Continual personal comments from JackofOz
I have reopened this discussion to retain context of my actual statements- μηδείς (talk) 02:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
goodfiath but preamture closing |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I'm BOLDly collapsing this thread, because it's clearly pointless. I apologise to those that have attempted to be constructive. If people wish to discuss the correct names of certain kinds of cooked potato, please do so in the relevant section of the ref desk itself, not the talk page. If anyone wishes to complain about the conduct of another user, please link to the relevant diffs and explain what policies those diffs violate and how. Vague, unsubstantiated complaints are not going to achieve anything, so don't make them. --Tango (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC) |
Can someone besides myself or 86:163:1:168 suggest to JackofOz that his continual personal comments about his opinion of me on the reference pages are not in comportment with their goals or the suggestion that we remain polite and refrain from personal attacks? I don't think anyone cares what his opinion of my ignorance is, or reaally wants to hear me respond to him once more. Given that I talk of events and facts and give links, and in response he talks of me and my faults in his eyes, I think some sort of advice that he lay off is in order. μηδείς (talk) 04:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC) [bolding added, μηδείς (talk) 02:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)]
- I have advised Jack here [5] that assuming he simply ends his comments this is all over so far as I am concerned. If her makes no comments here, on my talk page, or on the reference desk pages I will do the same. I am unwatching this page in the hopes that will be the case. μηδείς (talk) 04:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- And I have challenged Medeis here to substantiate these charges or withdraw them and apologise. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 08:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
potato diversion |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
reopened
I have reopened the above comments to restore the request that opened this matter. I don't think I should have to explain why constant ad hominem responses are inappropiate or prove they shouldn't continue. Here is exactly what I said on Jack's user page, after warning him to stop following me around making personal remarks, which he has conveniently deleted[6]:
You are quite aware one need not template the regulars. This is very simple. I am sick of your personal comments based on race, sex, sexual orientation, nationality, native tongue, and your opinion of my knowledge, ignorance as an American, etc. It can all stop now with your doing what I shall do--refraining form further comment in public space. I am unwatching this space. Don't comment here and don't make personal comments on the ref desk spaces and this all ends now. μηδείς (talk) 12:14 am, Yesterday (UTC−4)
Note that none of this amounts to a charge of "racism" or "homophobia" on my part. Only a desire that the personal/ad hominem comments cease toward me. Besides the side issue of this race joke made on the ref desk [7] "Alcock and Brown? Wasn't that Sammy Davis Jr's nickname?" (obviously meant as a joke and not directed at me, but nevertheless offensive to me, loved ones, and family) there are repeated incidents of ad hominem behavior towards me including such things as:
- Jack arguing that since I am not a native speaker of English (even if he knew this as a fact, which he doesn't, it is ad hominem) that there is no accounting for my opinions on English grammar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2011_July_8#Verbs_that_take_dative_.28in.29direct_objects
- Jack "explaining" in a thread above discussing gender and orientation http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk&diff=453966914&oldid=453965972 that my being female (even if he knew this as a fact, which he doesn't, it is ad hominem) explains my comments.
- Jack, once again, turning a discussion that has nothing to do with nationality into one about supposed American (and my) bias when the question is not even related to WP:ENGVAR (fries versus chips) but whether said potato food is described as "oven" versus "baked". [8]
This is a very simple matter. I am not asking for an apology, a cease to joking, that any editor be convicted of any sin, that there be a witchhunt across WP talk space, or that Jack in any way be punished.
I am merely asking that it be suggested to him by a third party that his personal comments toward and about me cease.
I am entitled to make contributions without constantly having another user make ad hominem statements and explaining myself on his (rather bizarre and largely baseless, if not entirely irrelevant) view of my personal identity. μηδείς (talk) 02:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- Oh really, or as my mother says "the camel only sees the hump of his brother, never his own". Near the beginning of your reference desk career the two of you must have rubbed each other the wrong way, and ever since we get to witness this mini-feud. If you want it to stop, make the first step by completely ignoring anything he posts that has nothing to do with you. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
In case wikipedia policy on adhominem is unclear: (See Wikipedia:No personal attacks
- Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream.[disputed ] An example could be "you're a train spotter so what would you know about fashion?" Note that although pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack, speculating on the real-life identity of another editor may constitute outing, which is a serious offense.
- I am sorry, Sluzzelin, what do you mean I should completely ignore anything he posts that has nothing to do with me? Is there some example of me butting in to comment on his personal identity? The oven fries thread is a perfect example of the problem. He was not involved. In a thread where it was clear that the subject was set in an American context, and the question was about the adjectives baked versus oven-, he leapt in arguing bizarrely that as an American I shouldn't be insisting that the word for chips is fries. (!) read the collaapsed section above, if you care.
- In any case your easy retreat to moral relativism would be helpful if you could show where I go around interrupting threads in which I have not been involved to say that silly Jack's comments are what you might expect from an Australian and a male. I seriously don't think I'll have a problem not using Jack's gender, nationality, or other matters regarding his personal identity to criticize his comments, but I promise not to do so nonetheless. μηδείς (talk) 03:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Medeis vs. Jack of Oz
The above thread got seriously side-tracked, leading to its premature closure. Thanks to Nil Einne for his support, but the issue has nothing to do with the names of cooked potato products in the USA or anywhere else.
The issue is, or the issues are:
- my alleged "stalking" of Medeis
- my alleged "continued personal comments" about my opinion of her
- my alleged failure to "remain polite and refrain from personal attacks"
- my alleged "baseless opinions and personal insults".
These alleged personal comments, attacks and insults have allegedly targetted Medeis's:
- race
- sex
- sexual orientation
- nationality
- native tongue
- knowledge, and
- ignorance as an American (her words, not mine).
Then there's:
- my alleged practice of making "racist ni99er jokes"
- my alleged lack of "a sense of irony or self-awareness"
- my so-called "school-marm tut-tutting", and
- my propensity to address personalities rather than issues.
Quite a litany of errors and character flaws there. Some of these allegations were made above; some on my talk page, but linked above.
Medeis sought to mollify me by saying she has no wish to see me banned. How nice and reassuring, coming from an editor who's been around for a few months, to one who's been a Ref Desk Regular for over 7 years but who has clearly lost the plot and is on the way out.
She further sought to appease me by telling me she occasionally finds my comments of more than average interest. How lovely. I haven't been patronised like that for many a long year.
Medeis has come out and made these charges, but refuses to discuss them. She has demanded I not reply on the Ref Desk or here on the talk page; she has demanded I not reply even on my own talk page (I've never heard of such impertinence), despite the fact she is not watching it anyway. That leaves her own talk page. I went there and challenged her to substantiate these charges or withdraw them and apologise. Her response to that was to remove my challenge, with an edit summary saying she would provide diffs to any third party who asks (but not, apparently, to me).
Now, even if I were guilty of everything she has accused me of (I'm not), I would still be entitled to know what the evidence against me is. It is unacceptable to make allegations and then refuse to back them up, refuse to withdraw, refuse to apologise, and refuse to enter into any dialogue at all with the aggrieved party.
If this were just a private disagreement between Medeis and me, we could work it out together. But it is no longer that. She changed that by raising my behaviour here. She must come to the party by producing the evidence I require. But I know she won't be able to do that, so she must therefore acknowledge her charges are as baseless as the opinions she accuses me of having. She must make that acknowledgement as explicit as the original charges were. And she must apologise.
I await her response with interest.
PS. After I drafted the above, Medeis came to my talk page saying she would drop the matter if I promised to make no further comments on her personal identity. My incredulous response is there. I showed her a draft of the above and invited her to respond to it on my talk page. She has opted not to do that. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 05:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- I was going to suggest you remove this thread. Yes people should be willing to provide evidence or withdraw their claims but normally provided the respondent doesn't repeat the claim it's best to just let the matter drop even if you don't get a satisfactory response, particularly if the claims are made on your talk page so can be deleted at your discretion. But since μηδείς has suggested they would respond here, I don't see any harm in leaving this thread be for now. Nil Einne (talk) 10:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Most of these accusations are a matter of opinion. But being accused of blatant racism is a pretty serious charge that requires a response from the accuser. If it were me in Jack's shoes, I would demand that Medeis either give evidence, or a give profuse apology if there is no evidence. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that the Reference Desk's talk page is the correct place to hash out a dispute like this. Nevertheless, I have asked Medeis on her talk page to present diffs to support her charges, since she explicitly offered to do so here. If Jack has been engaging in sexist, racist, homophobic attacks, then obviously this is a matter which would be of interest and concern to Wikipedia's administrators. Contrariwise, if Medeis has been making unsupportable accusations of such attacks, her own conduct should be subject to very close scrutiny and possible sanction.
- I don't think that there is anything to be gained by further comment in this thread until Medeis has supplied us with the relevant diffs. (If other editors have relevant evidence to add, they may do so, but I would urge them to keep commentary to a minimum.) If no diffs (or other explanations) are forthcoming in the next day or two, then I would caution Medeis now that we will proceed on the assumption that such diffs don't exist. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- It seems highly unlikely that Jack would make a "homophobic" remark, but we'll see when/if Medeis presents the diff. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
It is entirely false that I have accused Jack of making homophobic, sexist, or racist attacks. My sole request (collapsed above and removed from his talk page) has been that he cease making ad hominem statements based on his surmises about my personal identity, which he has rejected, instead continuing this personal drama with this new section. But I am not about to respond to people's distortions of my statements while my actual statements are collapsed and deleted. See my original comments, which are limited and justified, restored above, with examples given of just a few of his comments about my person.μηδείς (talk) 02:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- I don't even know what's going on here, and I've read this several times now. It's probably better to just let it go at this point, since no one seems to be biting. 207.81.30.213 (talk) 03:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- You have accused Jack, quite specifically, of making "...personal comments based on race, sex, sexual orientation, nationality, native tongue, and your opinion of my knowledge, ignorance as an American, etc." You have further accused him of "stalking" you: [9]. Looking at the diffs/links above, as far as I can tell, you haven't even bothered to try to substantiate the extraordinarily offensive asserting that JackOfOz made any slurs based on race or sexual orientation. The three pieces of evidence you have offered for the other accusations is, frankly, less than compelling.
- The first discussion involves a question of English usage and grammar. I don't see Jack suggesting you aren't a native speaker of English; he only notes that the proper usage of certain verbs ("tell, say, and speak") is sometimes difficult for non-native speakers.
- The second diff, which you offer as evidence of Jack attacking you for your gender, isn't even a comment by Jack. It is an offensive and sexist and poorly thought out joke from Baseball Bugs (who ought to know better and whom I have cautioned that any further remarks in that vein will draw a block). Jack's comment which preceded it ([10]) merely identified your gender; he didn't comment on it, draw conclusions from it, or invite inferences based on it. His only purpose seems to have been a good faith attempt to ensure that the correct pronouns were applied to you while you were being discussed.
- While we don't want to encourage bickering, it is sometimes necessary to point out – for the benefit of people reading the Desk – when a response is erroneous, or when a person responding to a question appears to be following an unproductive, unconstructive, or overly narrow line of reasoning or discussion. In the third discussion you cite, JackOfOz noted that your response was from a U.S. perspective, and that your absolute answer didn't account for variations in English usage in other countries. When it was suggested that the term for oven-baked potato products might be different in other countries and that your response (and attempt to discourage further discussion by mocking other editors: "...why is this so difficult?") might not be helpful, you became belligerent, offering the advice that the other volunteers at the Ref Desk need "some sort of professional counseling" to help with their "apparent inferiority complex".
- I get that the two of you rub each other the wrong way. However, Medeis, you're reading insults that aren't there into the words that Jack is saying, you're responding with attacks of your own, and you're raising accusations which are offensive, disproportionate, and unwarranted. If you can't manage to be civil around Jack, then just stay away from him. Ignore his posts; don't respond to his comments. When you're about to fly off the handle because of something you've read, step back, take a deep breath, and re-read what was written to consider that ambiguous remarks might not always be intended as egregious attacks.
- With the above material, I'd say that you're on rather thin ice. Most troubling, however, is that in the last three days you've twice accused Jack of making "racist ni99er jokes" ([11], [12]). That's about as inflammatory a statement as one can make. You need to either substantiate that claim or withdraw it immediately, or you will be blocked. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
The issue is not insults. I have not claimed to be insulted. The issue is Jack's speculating about my personal identity (where did I out myself to him as a female or a non-native English speaker? Let him provide the link.) and making ad hominem comments about my arguments in violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Read that policy and the thread above this one where my own actual words are posted. I'll have no further comment here because this section says I have accused Jack of homophobia, etc., when I have done no such thing. Read my own words, please, and stop making threats based on what other people say I have said. I am simply going to assume at this point that Jack knows what he shouldn't do and won't repeat it. μηδείς (talk) 04:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- I found out you were (presumably) female when you identified yourself as a former waitress [13], an occupation title typically only applied to females (I remember that because I was somewhat surprised reading that, because I had, up to that point, assumed you were male as well). I also agree with Ten that I don't think Jack was intending to imply that you weren't a native speaker, but I can also see how it might be interpreted that way . I'll offer essentially the same advice that Ten is giving - you don't have to get along with someone, but it isn't acceptable to make offensive and disproportionate accusations against them.
- I'll offer a personal anecdote, that I hope the other person I mention doesn't object to and if he does, he has my permission to remove this section without asking or telling me. Goodness knows that I don't get along with user:Baseball Bugs particularly well - you can see some fallout on my talk page from a few months ago. Though I might have some choice words for him, and generally believe him to be a net-negative on the reference desks, I refrain from accusing him of acting in bad faith. At one point he did feel that I was getting into the personal attack territory, for which I apologized, and the issue was subsequently dropped. He and I both realize that, while we aren't obligated to like each other, we do, at the end of the day, have to learn to get along if we both want to edit these pages. Buddy431 (talk) 05:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well, not exactly. I do basically agree with the drop this suggestion above. But, First, Jack was referring to my female status (which I have never affirmed or denied) long before that post, and, I started off as a cook, remember? Well, people who began as cooks were mocked by the other cooks as becoming "waitresses" (pronounced waitrices, like matrices) regardless of gender if they switched to wait staff. In any case, the issue is not insult but ad hominem even if I am a Jewish male from Uzhgorod or a black waitress from Long Island or a bi mulatto from Woodbridge, NJ there is no reason for my statements to be criticized based on my personal identity, especially the fact that I am (I out myself) an American. Read Wikipedia:No personal attacks under ad hominem. Second, I have no problem with Jack personally, even though he seems to with me. Like I said, some of his posts are quite enlightening. I want him to keep posting. I don't, however, want to have to deal yet again with his bizarre speculation based on his notion of my personal identity. It's wikipedia policy that he not do so. μηδείς (talk) 06:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- On the advice that I drop this I am again unwatching this page. μηδείς (talk) 06:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well, isn't that great. Would it surprise anyone to know there are some responses I would like to make to what Medeis has had to say? It seems Medeis* won't be around to read them. Not until Medeis rewatches this page, as Medeis surely will in time. Medeis is aware of the time difference between Medeis's country and mine. I'm not sure how one would characterise the action of making a series of points in relation to an editor, and then vacating the scene before said editor has had a fair chance to respond. Some would call it cowardice; some would call it expediency. Me, I dunno. All I know is that the notion of natural justice that pervades Medeis's many appearances elsewhere on Wikipedia seems curiously denied to me. (* In line with Medeis's wish to protect Medeis's personal identity, I will never again use any personal pronouns to refer to Medeis.) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- On the advice that I drop this I am again unwatching this page. μηδείς (talk) 06:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- First let's be clear it was BB who said that being female explained anything. JackofOz just noted the fact most likely because some females dislike being referred to as 'he'. (And yes I've seen this on wikipedia.) With regardess to the 'waitress' thing, it may be that from your POV that did not imply you were female. However from my POV now that it has been brought to my attention (I had noticed the comment but didn't think of it at the time), it does. It's not that we don't have male wait staff in New Zealand, we do, it's just that we do not call them waitress(es) but waiters. It may be that cooks refer to them all as waitresses, I dunno. But I think most New Zealanders (or for that matter Malaysians) would assume when someone say they are or were a waitresses that means they identify as female. (Sadly in Malaysia if you say you are or were a nurse many people are going to assume you are female even though a male nurse is obviously going to refer to themselves as a nurse.)
- I'm not an expert on WP:Outing but I'm resonably sure if you've made a comment that is intepreted to mean you are female or male on wikipedia, it is acceptable for people who've read that comment and made that intepretation, to refer to you as that gender from that point forwards. And it is even acceptable for said people to correct others when they refer to you as whats said people believe is the wrong gender, unless you've specifically asked them not to. It is of course your pregorative to ask people not do so, you don't need to offer any explaination.
- This doesn't mean it's acceptable to make ad-hominem attacks nor to dismiss your views based on the assumption (or fact), but nothing I've seen from JoO could be interpreted in that fashion to me, and it seems I'm not the only one. The only thing JoO seems to have done is make a resonable inference based on some comments you made here on the RD and noted this fact when they felt was pertinent, i.e. when people were using what they thought was the wrong gender pronoun to refer to you. As I said elsewhere, if you don't want JoO to do so, the best thing to do would have been to make a simple request that they don't do so. (As for Bb, to be blunt he makes a lot of dumb comments, I felt his comment was dumb at the time and I still don't know what he was trying to say but it's best either to just ignore him or challenge him directly in the thread or on his talk page when it happens.) BTW you say JoO has referred to your female status long before the post about being a waitress, it may be this is the case but you haven't show this. The comment above was clearly after the waitress thing. If there are places where JoO has dismissed your views or made attacks based on you being female, you'll need to show us these if you want us to consider them.
- Nil Einne (talk) 06:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)/09:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- Next about the native issue. I will note I'm not sure if TOAT is reading the right comments, I presume the comment of primary issue is "There's no telling how non-native users of language can make serious errors in their choice of expressions. I assume good faith, naturally, but assumptions do not always reflect reality".
- However I still agree it doesn't seem clear JoO was trying to dismiss your views based on an assumption you were not a native speaker. Rather as with TOAT and Buddy, it seems to me he was simply noting some parts of the English language can be difficult to non native speakers. As with Buddy I can see how it may have been intepreted as suggesting you were not a native speaker and were therefore wrong, but unless there further evidence it was meant that way, there's no reason to think it's the correct interpretation.
- (Not that it really matter but I will note you were there first person to raise the possibility someone (Jack) may not be a native speaker in that thread, although I don't find what you said there very problematic.)
- Nil Einne (talk) 11:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Nil Einne's comments on potatoes, collapsed by NE for readibility
|
---|
|
- Medeis has finally indentified the "racist nigger joke" he has repeatedly attributed to JackOfOz. Apparently, Jack referred to this gag, which has been described as "the standard schoolboy joke" on the topic.
- Who made the first transatlantic flight?
- Sammy Davis Jr.
- No, it was Alcock and Brown.
- That's what I said!"
- This gag and its variants are a relatively standard part of British aviation lore. I just can't bring myself to equate a mild riff on an ethnic stereotype with one of the most potent and offensive ethnic slurs available in the English language—and Medeis should not do so either. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- Just as a note, μηδείς did identify the Alcock and Brown bit in their first explaination as the racist joke they were referring to [15], although it seems it was missed by some. I noticed it earlier and do agree that it's an ethic stereotype and can understand completely how it's offensive. In fact, before this reply I considered asking JoO for an explaination but decided to wait since I wasn't sure I understod the context (and I didn't). But if it is a common joke I also agree with TOAT that it's difficult to equate it with said slur. Nil Einne (talk) 14:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- As an aside, I did blow that one — I examined the bulleted points in Medeis' comment, but missed the original Sammy Davis reference. I take full responsibility for not catching it sooner, and I apologize to Medeis for mistakenly claiming s/he had not explained that allegation.
- I stand by my evaluation of Jack's comment, however. More broadly, comedians like Chris Rock and Russell Peters tell jokes involving ethnic stereotypes—does that mean that they should be labelled as "racists"? (I admit that Chris Rock isn't particularly funny, but that's a different conversation.) In the case of Jack, he told – well, repeated – a joke which relied on its audience being familiar with a mildly vulgar word, the ethnicity of a celebrity, and a stereotype often associated (particularly by comedians) with that ethnic group. I can't stretch that to be the same as "Jack told a racist nigger joke", no matter how hard I try. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's perhaps worth considering that standards and views surrounding jokes concerning ethnic or racial stereotypes vary between countries and cultures. My impression, and again I hope I don't offend anyone in any country by this, is that these are more acceptable in the UK and even more acceptable in Australia then they are in the US, particularly when told by someone who is not from said ethnicity/race and even more so if the person telling them is white (i.e. the majority population). (Of course not everyone agrees [16].) Also sensitivity towards different ethnicities or races varies. For example, because of the low black population and the limited direct history, there doesn't tend to be the same level of awareness about sensitive issues surrounding black people in NZ or Australia. For Australia, there is the infamous example of Hey Hey It's Saturday#The Jackson Jive and this KFC ad which IMO somewhat illustrates the point. I'm not saying this is much of an issue here, but I think it's always helpful to consider where someone is coming from. And just to be clear, I'm also not saying anyone is wrong to take offence at such jokes or comments, or the converse that people are always wrong to make them. For example, on a personal level I've always dislike the term gweilo (although admitedly not for reasons of race), when used to refer to me in Malaysia, which was fairly common in secondary school (although I don't care as much now as then), even though I know some embrace the term. On the other hand, I often describe myself as part pākehā even though I know some dislike the term (which I respect when they have decent reasons for). Nil Einne (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- I concur, I was about to say the same thing. Speaking very generally, in multicultural situations, I find that often the intention is more important than the words or actions. Even something as simple as eating dinner carries different, and sometimes conflicting etiquettes. Jokes, which hinge on cultural norms and values, would be even a greater problem - I would imagine both with people missing intended insults and with people finding insult where absolutely none was intended. I am not attempting to pass judgment with this post; I think it is something for all editors to at least think about. Do we have a WikiPage on working on Wikipedia as a multicultural project? If not, I might create one. Falconusp t c 15:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's perhaps worth considering that standards and views surrounding jokes concerning ethnic or racial stereotypes vary between countries and cultures. My impression, and again I hope I don't offend anyone in any country by this, is that these are more acceptable in the UK and even more acceptable in Australia then they are in the US, particularly when told by someone who is not from said ethnicity/race and even more so if the person telling them is white (i.e. the majority population). (Of course not everyone agrees [16].) Also sensitivity towards different ethnicities or races varies. For example, because of the low black population and the limited direct history, there doesn't tend to be the same level of awareness about sensitive issues surrounding black people in NZ or Australia. For Australia, there is the infamous example of Hey Hey It's Saturday#The Jackson Jive and this KFC ad which IMO somewhat illustrates the point. I'm not saying this is much of an issue here, but I think it's always helpful to consider where someone is coming from. And just to be clear, I'm also not saying anyone is wrong to take offence at such jokes or comments, or the converse that people are always wrong to make them. For example, on a personal level I've always dislike the term gweilo (although admitedly not for reasons of race), when used to refer to me in Malaysia, which was fairly common in secondary school (although I don't care as much now as then), even though I know some embrace the term. On the other hand, I often describe myself as part pākehā even though I know some dislike the term (which I respect when they have decent reasons for). Nil Einne (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- I don't want to beat any more poor horses, but I might just note the irony of Medeis being upset over the above joke, when the user in question had themselves just made some very curious remarks about Jews very recently, which were, apparently, some kind of reference to some old joke. See the "what the heck" section above for diffs and discussion. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- I wonder if there's still some confusion about what they were trying to say, μηδείς seems to refuse to offer any explaination. From what I can tell, μηδείς was suggesting the slavery thing is nonsense and is akin to other random conspiracy theories concerning Jewish people. See [17] if you haven't done so. I'm not defending the comment, it was a dumb thing to say particularly since when they replied you had already noted that the bank did have some limited connection to slavery and the bank themselves had acknowledged that (after required to by law). So regardless of whether people think it's a much ado about nothing or something significant, it's not the same thing as completely bullshit claims about Jewish people and for this reason can be seen as offensive to Jewish people even though I believe there intention was actually to 'defend' against anti-semitic nonsense. It's obviously also offensive to the OP and to anyone else with the same question to suggest their concerns had anything to do with anti-semitism. Nil Einne (talk) 19:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Some general observations by Nil Einne (talk)
Collapsed by NE since there is already a lot of stuff by NE
|
---|
I don't want to come across as dominating this thread even though it doesn't directly concern me so I'll just make one final comment. While researching some of my answers and trying to check some things I thought I read, I've seen stuff which may help those still struggling to make sense of this kerfuffle and hopefully also help to resolve some of the issues. I was aware of some sniping and comments between μηδείς and JoO (and others) in RD/M and RD/H, but it seems there has been a fair amount in RD/L. As I hardly ever go there I wasn't very aware of this and it does help put the dispute in more context. Another thing, it seems μηδείς has mentioned quite a few things which (seem to) reveal personal details about themselves on the RD.I think we need to be clear as with the gender thing, when someone mentions such details, anyone who noticed these comments may remember what (they think) has been revealed. I don't think this is a bad thing, most of us regard ourselves as part of a community and knowing more about each other often helps us understand each other. Also, although wikipedia isn't a social network, I think many do find it interesting and surprising to read stuff about their fellow contributors. As with the gender thing, it's not acceptable to dismiss someone's views or make ad-hominen attacks based on this, nor to raise it in an offensive way or where it's irrelevant (although plenty of people don't mind jokes based on these details). However people are normally free to raise or imply that info when they feel it is cromulent to the discussion, and this isn't generally considered outing or a personal attack. To use an example, above Bb suggested that it would be odd for JoO to make homophobic remarks. (I know μηδείς says they weren't making that accusation.) Bb didn't say why, but I'm pretty sure the reason is because JoO identifies as gay and has said so in the past. (It was something I was thinking.) Partially echoing what I've said before, if person A doesn't want other people to mention something about person A which they may feel germane, person A can politely request they don't and people should respect person A's wishes. But it would be better for person A to take care not to reveal such details since the general assumption on wikipedia and particularly the RD is it's acceptable to mention such details when it matters. Remember that even if people don't mention details about you, they may still know them. (Hopefully not influencing in a bad way how they react/behave.) My interpretation is this is the case for μηδείς, but I'm not sure, so I made the recommendation in general terms. P.S. Just to be clear, I wasn't stalking anyone, I was looking for threads I thought I'd read to confirm stuff, and also once tried to see if I could find anything about the gender issue and in the process came across various comments. |
OK. We've identified the problem, now lets focus on solutions
- μηδείς and Jack: are you equally fault? Is one of you an innocent party? Is one of you more sinned against than sinning? Please don't answer: we've identified the problem, now lets focus on solutions.
I would suggest that a "good enough" solution might be:
- μηδείς - who had offered to drop the subject - please just drop this.
- Jack - and see Wikipedia:What would Jack do? - please just drop this.
I would urge you both to simply disengage, drop it, let bygones be bygones, water under the bridge, and any number of other cliches. As always, I am more than happy for better and wiser analyses and opinions than mine to be put forward. And hope they focus on solutions, not on the problem.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- i just happened on this argument - what seems clear to me is that medeis is full of rubbish - makes an immature anti-canadian remark and then pretends to be upset about gynophobia, homophobia, racism , whatever - utterly specious, - a grossly immature and inflammatory editor seems here to be insulting another editor for no reason and thats about all I can see here. Sayerslle (talk) 10:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- Not just racism against Canadians. Dualus (talk) 18:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- Canadians are a race? Eh??? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- Not just racism against Canadians. Dualus (talk) 18:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- Sayerslle, in light of the nature of this conversation, I would recommend taking care to cite all accusations at the time that you make them (and realize the potential for jumping right in the middle of a very large conflict). I would further recommend keeping opinions about the people involved here (and believe me, we all have them, of one sort or another) on the low burner for the next few days. Falconusp t c 15:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- i just happened on this argument - what seems clear to me is that medeis is full of rubbish - makes an immature anti-canadian remark and then pretends to be upset about gynophobia, homophobia, racism , whatever - utterly specious, - a grossly immature and inflammatory editor seems here to be insulting another editor for no reason and thats about all I can see here. Sayerslle (talk) 10:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- The first use of "she" in reference to Medeis may have been made by me, here, back in July. I can't say for certain at this remove why I thought then that Medeis was/is female, except that, not being a reader of Greek, I associate the user name with "Medea" who was definitely female. Medeis's self-referential "waitress", as linked above, would just have confirmed this in my usage. However, I will turn to neuter pronouns if this is a problem, however inadvertently begun. Bielle (talk) 17:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- Neuter? So we should refer to Medeis as "it" now? -- kainaw™ 17:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- Just as a general FYI, looking at that thead I can perhaps better understand μηδείς's complaints about the US-centrism and JoO. As I noted elsewhere, despite complaining about the issue myself, I do feel sometimes people go to far. I didn't want to name names, but HiLo48 was actually the only one I had in mind. However from my brief look through that thread, I can understand why they may have disagreed with JoO there. I do not want to discuss this, it's one of the reasons I wasn't aware, I mostly gave up on looking through those US centrism discussions as I started to find them boring on both sides. And it's mostly OT to this discussion anyway. I respect JoO and HiLo48 probably don't agree with my view, it's not a big deal to me, I'm just noting it since previously, I found it difficult to understand μηδείς's complaints but this helps slightly.
- Also I can understand Bielle's problem, I know at least one case where I made an assumption about an editor's gender based on their wiki-name but later found out from some external OR (i.e. I cannot name the user here so please don't ask) that I was mistaken. I think it also happened before when I found out I was wrong from their userpage.
- Nil Einne (talk) 18:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
removed BLP violation
This seems blatantly inappropriate [18]. μηδείς (talk) 18:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- Concur, I considered removing that myself but chickened out since I didn't want to get involved in any long discussion which unfortunately often seems involved any thread removal particularly if you don't notify everyone who responded. Nil Einne (talk) 18:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- I have gone and notified everyone who was involved, and I continue to believe that it is just plain rude to delete someone's good faith, signed comments without dropping them a note. It took like 3 minutes - I don't know why people aren't willing to extend this basic gesture of respect towards their fellow editors. Buddy431 (talk) 19:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- Honestly, I thought the question was being handled well, and I would have left it. The fact that Grandiose was actually able to find references related to this very question indicates to me that it's pretty pertinent at the moment. While we are not in the business of making baseless speculations, we are in the business of answering questions with references. The answer at the moment seems to be "nobody knows, but a lot of people are talking about it", and I think that's a fine answer to give - even if we can't answer the exact question asked, it's perfectly acceptable to reference what others are saying with regards to that question. Gandalf and Elan also brought up points that are, I believe, appropriate and relevant to the discussion. Buddy431 (talk) 19:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- We have a high threshold for a serious BLP issue such as this. I agree with removal of the thread. Speculation in blogs is not enough. Speculation in tabloids is not enough. There have been Parliamentary inquiries, but only into issues of how tax dollarswere spent, or maintaining security, not so much with respect to the specific issue raised by the OP. There have been many cases in the recent past of politicians being accused of hanky-panky of various sorts. When the politician discusses the issue at a press conference, or issues a press release, or if the specific issue is the subject of mainstream news reports, or legal action is taken, then we have included it in their bios in the past. Edison (talk) 19:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- (EC) Keeping with my above comment I'll keep this brief (yes the wonder!) I wouldn't accept those sources in any article involving that person as allowing us to comment on their sexuality so nor would I say they are acceptable on the RD as BLP applies everywhere. If you disagree and wish to reinstate the question, you are free to take this to WP:BLP/N or if you don't wish to do so yourself but still want to re-instate the question, ask me, and I will. Nil Einne (talk) 19:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- Sure, BLP prevents us from making un-verifiable assertions about other people, but I don't think it prevents us from making any mention of what other people are saying about other people. I understand that there's a balance between providing information and becoming a gossip rag, but to me, providing sources that talk about the recent attention (even if they don't pass muster as "Reliable Sources" for article space) is well in line with the reference desk's goal. And here's the critical part - we aren't commenting on his sexuality (nor should we). But that shouldn't prevent us from bringing up sources that do. Buddy431 (talk) 20:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- Actually we are, there's is no way you can ask the question without commenting, and that particular question was a rather egregious comment on the person's sexuality. It doesn't matter if it's in line with the RD's goals if it's a clear cut violation of BLP as the RDs goals are always going to be secondary to that. And BLP does basically prevent us from making mention of what other people are saying about living people, unless it relates to improving an article. There's usually some tolerance for commentary on highly notable people as well as generally commentary that is not likely to cause offence but we shouldn't push it too far since if it comes down to it, BLP is almost definitely going to win. Nil Einne (talk) 20:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- Sure, BLP prevents us from making un-verifiable assertions about other people, but I don't think it prevents us from making any mention of what other people are saying about other people. I understand that there's a balance between providing information and becoming a gossip rag, but to me, providing sources that talk about the recent attention (even if they don't pass muster as "Reliable Sources" for article space) is well in line with the reference desk's goal. And here's the critical part - we aren't commenting on his sexuality (nor should we). But that shouldn't prevent us from bringing up sources that do. Buddy431 (talk) 20:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- I don't mind whether it stayed or went. Personally I found no harm in pointing the OP to two sources by named sources with their own WP entries, neither of which appeared to show any bias. Having said that, it was becoming obvious that it could degenerate. I don't feel strongly. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I can see why one might be cautious and remove it it, although it is the subject of some documented speculation. I appreciate the heads up from Buddy431 Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- As you may deduce from my response I did not consider this an appropriate question because the very action of asking makes an insinuation, but neither did I want to make any ripples. I am pleased it has been removed. Thanks for the notification. Best to all. Richard Avery (talk) 22:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Why did Republicans block Obama jobs bill? - question removed
I came across this interesting quote on the BBC website and was curious if the same tone of reporting appeared elsewhere or if other media skipped that quote favour of a Republican view. Maybe, my question was poorly phrased, but I disagree with Shadowjam's assertion in the edit summary that it was a "pure political discussion with an intro and all. no way RD can realistically answer a question here, pure political question". I'll be happy to consider some rewording if my question could be reinstated. Thanks. Astronaut (talk) 11:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- I emphatically disagree with the removal of this question and have reinstated it. Just because questions involve politics does not mean we cannot discuss them. That is a ridiculously low bar for getting rid of questions. If the discussion does devolve into just arguing and soapboxing, hat the discussion. But preemptively removing questions because they involve American politics is ridiculous. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- The wording of the question is somewhat inflammatory, but I am not going to assume that it is soapboxing straight out of the gate. Only if the OP begins to engage in blatant soapboxing would I support removal. Googlemeister (talk) 14:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- The question is in good faith, and I think it is perfectly fine to use reliable sources to fact-check statements made by public figures. However, I do think that it will quite difficult to definitively answer this question in a neutral fashion. I don't think that there is general consensus on this topic right now, and most published material that addresses this type of question while the events are still happening tend to be opinion pieces. I don't know if those factors would lead to a satisfactory outcome here. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 15:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Politics is currently in the Humanities Reference Desk scope. For those of you who think political questions should be deleted, would you prefer a separate Politics Reference Desk? It's not like we've been overwhelmed with politics questions. If we ban them then trolls will just waste our time trying to pin down the dividing lines. Dualus (talk) 18:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- The problem with the question is that it implied that every single Republican voted against the bill and every single Democrat voted for it. If it left "Republican" out of it and asked if there was truth to the statement about "they", then it wouldn't be politically charged. Basically, it is nearly impossible to assume good faith with political questions because there is no room in politics for good faith. -- kainaw™ 16:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- How did the question imply that at all? He just said "Republicans", as in Republican senators in general. And even if it did, what's the problem with that? Fact of the matter is, 46 out of the 47 senators that voted against it were from the Republican party. Besides, the media is using the same language, so why should a question be viewed as problematic just because it isn't 100% neutral? This isn't article space, for goodness sake. —Akrabbimtalk 17:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- As I stated, there is no room in politics for assumption of good faith. This response clearly does not assume good faith in any way. I was attempting to explain why the problem wasn't a simple case of "this is a political question". Someone (not me) apparently read this as a bad faith slam against Republicans. -- kainaw™ 18:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- For legal and ethical reasons, volunteers at the Reference Desk cannot answer questions regarding current U.S. politics - such discussions have been linked to coronary disease, repetitive stress disorder, debilitating migraines, and chronic headdesking. If you suspect you are involved in an online argument over a Congressional filibuster, please consult your doctor immediately. SamuelRiv (talk) 00:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
More BLP nonsense
This post wasn't even a question. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous&diff=455355539&oldid=455355135 Leaving it in place, even redacted, invites people to find the comment in the history and serves no other legitimate ref desk purpose. μηδείς (talk) 11:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- Accusations of criminality are defamatory per se. Under no circumstances should we be serve as a forum for them or entertain the need to provide advice that should come, if anywhere, from an officer of the court. see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous&diff=455473275&oldid=455470180.
Question about the end of Look Japan
Does anyone know when Look Japan stopped publishing? Did a Japanese newspaper state this?
Also what was its corporate name in Japanese? WhisperToMe (talk) 15:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- I cannot find any issues after 2004. The last I can find so far is April 2004. -- kainaw™ 16:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- Alright. So April 2004 was the last.
- Do you know if there are any articles discussing the closing of Look Japan, or if the April 2004 issue says "we are closing - goodbye" ?
- Thanks,
- WhisperToMe (talk) 18:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- Folks, "The purpose of this page is to discuss Wikipedia:Reference desk". This question and its answers belong on either the Humanities or Miscellaneous desks. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 18:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- Alright - I'll move the last question onto the Humanities ref desk. Sorry about that... WhisperToMe (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- Folks, "The purpose of this page is to discuss Wikipedia:Reference desk". This question and its answers belong on either the Humanities or Miscellaneous desks. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 18:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
apparent trolling removed
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous&diff=455461813&oldid=455457845 μηδείς (talk) 00:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)