User talk:StuRat/archive3

R E D U N D A N T _ N O T I C E

Note that, if you actually have something new to say, rather than repeating the same old deletionist POV, I will be happy to listen and respond. However, any further repeats of the same arguments will be placed directly onto my "redundant" page and promptly ignored. This includes denial of my right to use the word "deletionist" to describe deletionists, telling me to not view deletionists as the enemy, calling my restores of non-consensus deletions a disruptive violation of policy, complaining about me adding rules to the guidelines page that were agreed to by supermajority, defense of deletionist sockpuppets/meatpuppets, blocks, etc. Notice that even things which sound friendly at first, like "why don't you take a break", become abusive when repeated dozens of times. To save time, you might want to post such negative remarks directly on my redundant page, from now on: User_talk:StuRat/redundant.

Hmm if you ignore it, how do you know its abusive. And if you read an abusive post, youve not ignored it! Problem! 8-(--Light current 01:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

About your abuse page.. Is this really what you want to be doing here? This page is divisive, and doesn't help in any way I can see. Will having a page like this, where you call people's messages to you "abuse" accomplish something useful, or only fan the flames? Ned Wilbury 18:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It will keep me from wasting time refuting the same, tired deletionist arguments. You argument above, that anyone can delete anything they feel needs to be deleted, without consensus, but that putting it back requires building a consensus, will be one for the list. Also, that repeatedly deleting things is not edit warring, while putting things back in somehow is. StuRat 18:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you're missing my point. If you do not remove this page yourself, I will probably nominate it for deletion for being divisive and unhelpful. Which way do you prefer it? Ned Wilbury 18:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I have nominated this page for deletion, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:StuRat/abuse. Ned Wilbury 19:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you are too late .. its gone or at least been replaced.--Light current 21:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Newbie biting discussion notice

Hi StuRat. Please see WP:AN/I#Newbie biting. I've asked others to look into your recent remarks to the anon IP on the ref desk talk page, which appear to me to be newbie biting, because I no longer think it productive to try to discuss them with you myself. -- SCZenz 01:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Witch hunting and harassment such as this and this is grounds for a block if you keep it up. This is a formal warning. Ashibaka tock 20:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a matter for the AN/I discussion. It is inappropriate for you to bypass that discussion, and warn me outside of the normal process. StuRat 00:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays StuRat! | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 01:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

May you and your family have a Merry Christmas, as well as any other Holiday you may celebrate. I hope that warmth, good cheer, and love surround you during these special days. May God bless you during the Holidays. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 01:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

File:Julekort.jpg

.

Thanks, nice Santa hat on the Wikipedia globe ! And a very Merry Festivus to all the Ref Desk volunteers ! StuRat 15:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. I found the Santa on the Commons. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 11:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

An admin removed the santa, saying it was unnecessary. Now, I have to add "subst" to all the cards I gave out, otherwise, the whole template will be deleted. :-( | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 11:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Those mean old deletionist Admins are real Grinches, aren't they ? "Bah, humbug !" StuRat 14:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Heavy water and lasers

Stu, you may wish to alter a couple of your responses given on the science ref desk. Our article on the production of heavy water at Vemork quite cleary states that electrolysis was the method employed. Also, the heavy water article mentions three general methods of production: electrolysis, distillation, and chemical exchange. If you have a source which states that centrifuges were used at Vemork could you please provide a cite, either at the ref desk or the article? Also, i suspect many will take issue with your answer to the laser question.EricR 15:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I saw that on a PBS show about Hitler's nuclear ambitions. The name of the show escapes me. If others want to post follow-ups claiming other methods were used, that's fine, but please don't remove my post. What was your objection to my laser answer (perhaps the simplification of a single frequency of light as "one color" ?). StuRat 15:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Your memory may have failed you on this occasion, if it was the PBS program which described the raid at Vemork then i remember clearly them showing the cascade electrolysis apparatus and recall no mention of centrifuges. I would never claim a more accurate memory than you (as i frequently find my own to be faulty) but this is one of the reasons that Wikipedia tries to use reliable sources. Our article states that electrolysis was the method employed, all the sources i've dug up say the same. The only thing i could find which comes even remotely close to supporting the claim that centrifuges have been used for any heavy water production is one which states that all methods of isotope separation could possibly be used for heavy water production.

OK, you may be right. StuRat 11:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as the laser question goes, isn't there more to coherence (physics) than monochromatic light?EricR 21:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, there is also the "pulse" part, which I believe I mentioned. I only wanted to give a very short summary here, with the article filling in all the details. StuRat 11:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

An apology

Hi StuRat. I just wanted to say that I owe you an apology for not speaking up about the anonymous IP's incivility. It is a hard thing sometimes to call people we agree with to account for their errors, but I usually do better and I will continue trying to do better in the future. Merry Festivus! -- SCZenz 23:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks ! StuRat 11:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, I didn't see you refute my assertion that your filing this AN/I against me 3.5 hours after I signed the Friday partition was an obvious attempt at retaliation. Does that amount to a tacit admission of guilt ? StuRat 15:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

No. Your assertions that I, and others, are seeking "retaliation" and "revenge" are examples of assumptions of bad faith. I remain quite concerned about your general pattern of incivility and confrontation, and I will continue to try to address it by whatever means I think are appropriate and likely to be helpful. My post on WP:AN/I, by the way, was not an effort to get you blocked (because I don't think that would help the situation)... it was, rather, an effort to find someone to talk to you about your rudeness to the IP who you might have listened to. My only error was not also aknowledging that the IP had been uncivil to you. In the future, kindly do not put words in my mouth; I don't do tacit admissions of guilt. -- SCZenz 17:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Friday recall

We now have 6 editors proposing the motion and we can proceed to recall Friday! 8-)--Light current 23:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The "is it possible to turn a woman into.." question's removal

I removed the question as it was previously removed (see history) and then accidentally recreated. In addition, the fact the user was intending for advice on a (perhaps hypothetical, perhaps not) criminal act is reason enough (I would imagine) to remove it without consensus. --Wooty Woot? contribs 04:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The standard I use for nonconsensus removal is "severe disruption of Wikipedia", and this doesn't come even close to qualifying. StuRat 04:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Travelling abroad

Re your comments at the Misc Ref Desk, I do think it odd that someone living in a country with a very very high murder rate and not exactly immune to mass acts of violence (Oklahoma City, 9/11) thinks it's dangerous to travel abroad. Not a criticism of you, just puzzled. On the issue of expense, I can't fault you! lol --Dweller 10:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The crime can largely be avoided by staying out of certain areas at certain times. Tourists are always subject to more crime than locals, as well. Part of it may just be perception. Also, dying quickly is one thing, but being kidnapped by terrorists, tortured, then beheaded on video, seems far worse. I'll go to Hawaii instead, thanks anyway. StuRat 15:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The recall on Friday

Hi StuRat I think that you would gain much from calling for the recall to be dropped. From your perspective, your prime motivation was surely not revenge, but to get Friday to deal with (shall we say) the Ref Desk regulars on a more civil basis. I think you've actually achieved that and that you'll complete it by dropping the recall motion. Friday's generally an excellent admin and you'll gain credit for your willingness to avoid conflict and work toward the betterment of this project, which would undoubtedly suffer if we lost Friday as an admin. I hope you take this suggestion in the affectionate way in which it is intended. --Dweller 13:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I felt that some dramatic action was needed to "get their attention" and get them to stop treating Ref Desk volunteers as scum (whose opinions can just be ignored) and instead get them to act based on consensus, not unilaterally. Most of all, I want them to stop using "dirty tricks", like blocks, AN/Is, RFCs, MFDs, TFDs, deletion of arguments and contributions by Ref Desk volunteers, etc. Frankly, nothing else was working, they continued to delete contributions (which were not disruptive) unilaterally, and then accuse the inclusionists of "disruption" (implying they would block us) when we put them back and demanded a consensus before removal. As for dropping this issue, there are people who've risked Admin retaliation to sign, and others who've told me they would have voted but are afraid of retaliation. It would not be right for me to betray them after they have risked their good name for an issue they care about so deeply. StuRat 14:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I understand what you write. Let me point out your use of the past tense in your reply. I think a lot of the problems have stopped and further calm would be restored by a magnanimous action on your behalf. I think anyone who's signed the petition would admire you for doing this, but if you are concerned (it's a fair point), why not ask the users individually if they'd mind? It's not like there are hundreds of them. If your recall was successful, I honestly think you'd achieve less than you will do if you follow this suggested course of action. I won't push this any harder though. You're under enough strain as it is... all I want is for calm to be restored on the RDs and for you to emerge from this with credit. --Dweller 15:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

And now, with User:Hipocrite calling for indefinite blocks in retaliation against those who signed the petition, leaving would look like we are actually intimidated by such dirty tricks, encouraging him to repeat the use of these tactics. StuRat 15:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

Howdy!I don't quite understand the link you gave me...Please reply me on my «talk page»(or whatever you call it).Thanks.--Vintei 19:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Elephant graveyards

Stu, do you have a reliable source for your claim[1] that:

Elephants, for example, go to the "elephant graveyard" and visit the bones of their relatives periodically.

If so, could you please add it to the science desk question, or to the elephant graveyard article. Otherwise, would you mind altering your response on the desk?EricR 21:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's a site that talks about elephant emotions: [2]:

"They share with us a strong sense of family and death and they feel many of the same emotions." StuRat 23:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure...no problem w/ that, but you stated that there are in fact "elephant graveyards" the residents of which are periodically visited by their living relatives. Any source to back up that claim?EricR 23:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Our elephant graveyard article talks about their existence. I saw a TV program many years ago where an elephant went to such a graveyard and spent some time there, picking up various bones and setting them back down. It certainly seemed to be having an emotional response, but, of course, there is no objective way to measure the precise emotional state of an animal. StuRat 23:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the article says they're a myth. Certainly it does not substantiate your assertion that they "visit the bones of their relatives periodically." I've also heard about elephants having apparently-emotional reactions to the bones of other elephants, but that's not the same as saying that elephants go to graveyards to visit their dead relatives. Unless you can find a source for what you actually said, would you be so kind as to correct your comment? -- SCZenz 23:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't say they are a myth, but does explain how they form near watering holes. You also know my policy on this type of thing: If you have some source which disproves what I said, please include it, but I see no reason to retract what I said. It's up to the OP to decide which answers are correct, based on the evidence presented. StuRat 23:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Your policy here is potentially misleading to our readers, StuRat. You wrote something, namely that elephants "visit the bones of their relatives periodically" that you cannot provide any source for. It's not a big deal, just a small factual error, but instead of correcting yourself you are choosing to put the burden on:

1. Other readers to "disprove" the statement you cannot substantiate.
2. The original poster, to judge that your statement is unsubstantiated.

Neither of those is fair; you said something that's probably not true, that you certainly can't justify, so now you should step up and fix it. I'm not going to debate this further, but the reference desk is not a place to post your own unsupported inferences, or to debate the plain meaning of sources. Things that are not based on sources should be sourced upon request or retracted; that follows clearly from the notion that we're trying to give factual answers to questions. -- SCZenz 00:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Your rule doesn't even apply to the actual articles. There unsourced statements of fact aren't removed, but only tagged as such (it seems rather silly to me to bother with the tag, though, as the lack of sources indicates that something is unsourced). Now, SCZenz, do you go through every answer on the Ref Desk which has an unreferenced fact and complain on the author's talk page, or do you reserve that treatment for me and my fellow inclusionists ? StuRat 00:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced facts may be removed from articles, if a source is requested and none is forthcoming; you can read the "in a nutshell" section at the top of Wikipedia:Verifiability to see that. I think a similar rule for the reference desk is a very good idea; our goal is to provide our readers with factual answers, not things we think we maybe heard somewhere but can't find a source for. -- SCZenz 00:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

No, a talk page, like the Ref Desk, has a lower standard of verification than an article page. The OP can decide which facts to believe, they aren't the idiots that you suppose. I've discussed this many times with you already, so there isn't much point in us discussing it further. StuRat 00:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Stu, i've been the one bringing these issues to your talk page, not SCZenz. It was suggested in one of the many discussions we've had so far that maybe the best way to deal w/ inappropriate responses was to keep bringing the matter up on the editors talk page. My hope was that you'd consider whether or not a claim could be backed by sources before responding to a question. If you feel tho that there is no point in further discussion then i will no longer bother.EricR 03:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

SCZenz knows my positions on everything well enough by now to not have to ask. Therefore, continuing to argue that "unsourced statements are not to be permitted at the Ref Desk", on my talk page, is a waste of everyone's time. You may not know my position on everything yet, so I have a bit more patience with you. Of course, now that you know my position on this issue, I don't want you to come back here and repeat the same arguments again with the next post which lacks cited references. Basically, I'd like to limit posts on my talk page so each editor can bring up each issue once, and only once. If you look at the sheer volume of posts on this page you may have a good indication why this approach is needed. StuRat 04:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course i knew your position on this already and was simply trying to alter it. Doesn't your quote above betray the fact that you've failed to consider anyone else's positions? I've seen no one make that particular argument. However, as i seem to have gone at least one discussion beyond my quota for the matter, it doesn't look like we'll be able to come to any agreement.EricR 05:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

That position does appear to me to be what you two want. If you say I must provide sources when asked or be willing to remove a contribution, that amounts to only allowing sourced statements, especially since, between the two of you, you seem bound and determined to challenge every statement I make. StuRat 12:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I only see one statement being discussed here. -- SCZenz 12:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Try reading the rest of my talk page, then. You only have to back up a bit to find challenges on my statements about heavy water and lasers. Of the three, only the heavy water statement has any evidence of actually being wrong. StuRat 12:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, if the challanges are borne out sometimes, it seems to me that it's very good they're being made. Our readers deserve correct answers far more than you deserve not to be questioned. -- SCZenz 12:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

If you have evidence of a mistake, add it to the response. If not, stop wasting everyone's time. StuRat 12:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that not all false statements have reliable sources specifically saying they are false. -- SCZenz 12:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Then how, exactly, do you know that they are false ? It seems you just assume everything I say is a lie unless I can prove it to be true, which is a WP:AGF issue. Also note that not all true statements have reliable sources specifically saying they are true. StuRat 13:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

(Reset indent) It's not an assumption of bad faith to ask for verification, because our primary goal is to provide people with facts. Nobody's accusing you of lying; but once in a while things you say don't look right (as would be true of anyone who answers as many questions on as many subjects as you do). If I don't think something is right, it would be unfair to our readers just to let it pass, or argue as though what you said is "one possible point of view." When your statement is not supported by sources, and it would be if it were true, then it seems reasonable to ask you not to leave it posted. Stop and think about your approach, StuRat: your focus often seems to be on what's being done to you rather than on the quality service that we're trying to provide to our readers. -- SCZenz 21:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

First, there isn't any way to know if most info has online sources until you look for it. Is the annual production of flax seed for Botswana available online for the years 1983-1987 ? I'd have no idea until I looked for an hour. Next, if you have a problem with something, why is it you are unwilling to look up the sources yourself ? Why would you ask others to do what you are unwilling to do yourself ? After all, your assertion that a fact is wrong is just as unsourced as the assertion of the fact, so why should it be believed without a source ? StuRat 21:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

First, it's fine if you don't know if there's a source... but if, when one is requested, you can't find a source, then you should modify your comment to reflect the sources you can find. Next, I am happy to look for sources for things I doubt—but if I can't find a supporting source, will you then modify your comments? Your statement that you may write anything you wish as fact, unless a source exists to specifically contradict it, can obviously sometimes lead to counterfactual information being posted as true... and that's bad. Isn't it? -- SCZenz 22:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not bad, the weight of the comments will steer the OP in the right direction. Not finding a supporting source doesn't make a fact false, either. Only finding reliable contradicting sources that outweigh any supporting sources make a fact false. StuRat 22:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You're just not thinking like a Wikipedian on this one; whatever values you have aren't Wikipedia's values. "Weight of comments" steering people "in the right direction" isn't what the site is for, and it's not what reference desk means either; we need to give people information that can be found in verifiable sources. Otherwise the ref desk is nothing more than a place to discuss your opinion. -- SCZenz 00:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The RDs do not have any defined purpose.--Light current 00:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

SCZenz, my talk page isn't the proper place for you to argue your case for what the Ref Desk should be. You already know my opinion and I know yours. StuRat 00:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Two issues

I genuinely hope this doesn't come across as provoking you, but I am interested in your thoughts about the following:

1) Do you think there was "consensus" on the RD talk page to re-delete the thread about turning a woman into a sex addict? To some extent this question is moot since Wooty removed it unilaterally, but was the discussion on the talk page an example of the kind of consensus you're thinking should be created before taking such a step? I was really not happy with the way this whole episode played out, for one reason because of the indeterminant amount of time involved in establishing "consensus". I think the re-deletion was on the way to being handled how you've been suggesting deletions should be handled, but I'd like to know what you think about it (as sort of a test case for what I think your desired process is).

The consensus process is good, except for the part about "weighing the opinions based on the strength of their arguments". This invariably results in just ignoring the arguments of anyone who disagrees with you, which isn't finding a consensus at all. I also objected to deletions of the posts before a consensus had been reached. StuRat 00:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I was more interested in your thoughts about this specific case and how it was being handled. Do you agree there was consensus in this specific case, if so roughly when? The first comment was at 02:04 12/27 (UTC), by 06:00 there were 5 comments favoring deletion with only the OP opposing although comments continued until 05:00 12/28 with another flurry of comments starting at 02:00 12/29. Does the unspecified amount of time involved in gathering this consensus bother you at all? -- Rick Block (talk) 17:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The holidays mean people will likely take more time to respond than usual, so waiting a bit longer to "call a consensus" would be in order. StuRat 18:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

A bit longer than what, now? Are you saying it's still too early to "call a consensus" in this case? Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I think it's been long enough, now. But it certainly wasn't when the deletions started. StuRat 20:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

2) You've been curiously silent about LC's suicide comment that I deleted. What do you think about this one? Does this meet your standard for something that can be unilaterally deleted, or have you been silent about this because you're too furious to say anything, or perhaps somewhere in between?

I was waiting for a response from LC, as I wish you would have. StuRat 00:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Which I'll take as a no. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It definitely was not a severe disruption (prevented Wikipedia from operating), so no, it was nowhere near something that justified a non-consensus deletion. StuRat 18:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks -- Rick Block (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It certainly doesnt meet mine Block . Put it back at once! Or be prepared for an edit war. This is atotally factual statement in response to the Q. I know lots of editors who are suicidal. And you cant prove I dont! --Light current 00:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

StuRat (and Light current) Do you agree in this case there's consensus to now keep it deleted? I understand Lc is annoyed that I didn't wait for him to respond (I actually did think he wouldn't object), but looking at the comments I see 4 supporting delete (by 22:00 12/28, roughly two hours before Lc apparently had a chance to comment) and only 1 objecting. If I'd asked on the talk page first, and waited until 22:00 (at which point it would have been 4 supporting delete and 0 objecting) would that have been OK? -- Rick Block (talk) 17:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

No, you can't just wait until the balance favors your view and call a consensus in that direction. As more votes come in, the consensus may very well change, and then the actions taken should change, too. If the early consensus is to remove an item, but this is no longer true later (either no consensus or a consensus to leave it in), the item should be restored. StuRat 18:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, are you saying it's still too early to "call a consensus" in this case? How long, exactly, should we wait? If your criteria is "stable consensus" I think what we're actually talking about is a process for deleting comments from the RD archives rather than the RD. The RDs change so fast that leaving a comment up for more than an hour or two means you might as well just leave it up permanently. This comment, in particular, was grossly inappropriate (if WP editors are considering suicide, posting a comment with a slimey face at the end indicating "satisfied/happy" is perhaps just enough to make them do it). -- Rick Block (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

That's quite absurd, to suppose that someone would commit suicide as a result of that comment. We did have at least one suicidal editor here I'm aware of. He seems to have become less suicidal these days. StuRat 20:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Fine, you think it's absurd. But is it still too early, and if so how long? -- Rick Block (talk) 20:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Please read my answer up above: [3]. StuRat 20:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

That was in reply to the "sex addicts" question. Surely you're not saying "3 days", that would be absurd. -- Rick Block (talk) 21:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I think it's been long enough, now. But it certainly wasn't when the deletions started. StuRat 22:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It was only my seemingly jokey reply to the sex addict Q that I agreed to remove on consensus. The rest of the post should stay and I will immediately re add it. If you want to delete it we must again reach concensus on that issue. 8-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Light current (talk • contribs)

Erm...

I hope I'm not being obtuse, but I don't understand your response to my post regarding the recall process. I'm not sure why you think I'm suggesting 9 petitions. I'm suggesting one (or better none) that's focussed only on admin-related issues. --Dweller 12:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

That would be the natural result of having people who refuse to sign because they agree with some points, but not all. StuRat 13:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Who's joking?

I'm convinced you're a figment of the fevered collective imagination of Wikipedia nation. However, if by chance you do exist, you have my permission to borrow the line. (We'll talk about royalties later.) Clarityfiend 23:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm all in your imagination. Perhaps I may be an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, or a fragment of an underdone potato ? StuRat 23:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

More like a big ham. Clarityfiend 10:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL. StuRat 13:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Wild goose chase...

Please don't send people on a wild goose chase, as you did at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#RBMK. The answer to the question is not in the article. Asking if the original poster has read the article – when you have not – is impolite. It also can discourage other people from actually trying to answer the question, as other readers may assume that the answer is in the article linked. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

My intention was to provide a link to the article for other readers who didn't know what the abbrev meant. I never said the answer was in the article. I originally would have said "let me suitly emphazi that for you". Later, I would have added the link the their own title or text. Now, since neither of those are allowed, I had to add it after, which does seem to imply that it contains an answer. That's why I added the text asking if they'd already read the article, hoping to get either "yes I have, and the answer isn't in it" or "no, but now I have and the answer isn't in it" or, best yet, "no, and now that I've read it, I've found my answer" (either directly or via a link). StuRat 20:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad that you chose a less rude way to answer than you would have before; I still think that your answer was misleading. I hope that your attention to courtesy and care will lead to continued improvement in the future. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I didnt. It asked the OP whether he had seen that page thats all! 8-)

This answer was in no way rude, and neither would have it been rude for me to add the link to the title. "Suitly emphazi" was rude, I suppose, but that's long gone now. Perhaps we need a template that says something like "Have you read our article on ... and verified that it does not address your question ?". I will ask about this at the Ref Desk talk page. StuRat 20:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Leaving

Stu. Ive decided to leave the Rds for a time (maybe for good), as I felt the situation was escalating into one where it would have been massively disruptive and would only end in more people being blocked or banned (weve had at least 3 blocks already. In fact I think all the crap thats going on now on the talk page has massively disrupted the desks.

Also since we (I) do not know the real purpose of the desks, it seems a bit pointless to continue expend all this energy fighting for an unknown cause. I wish you well if you decide to continue! 8-)--Light current 20:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm in this for the duration. Sorry to see you leave the Ref Desk, I hope you can contribute to the rest of Wikipedia, maybe in some electronics articles ? StuRat 20:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Good luck! I ll be keeping an eye on it, but Im going to try very hard not to comment. BTW that doesnt mean Im not interested.-- I just need a rest from it all! 8-)--Light current 20:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think Ill see what the random pages throw up. Some of those are in a terrible state and need to be given the 'Lc' treatment!(also known as Wikifying in myt own inimitable way!) Also it wil be refreshing to get abuse from some different editors for a change!--Light current 21:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Light current, I understand why you need a rest but will miss not seeing you around. Maybe you could pop in a few times a week just to keep things lively? -THB 21:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You never know your (bad) luck! 8-)--Light current 21:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You wouldn't mind taking Hipocrite with you, would you ? StuRat 22:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

On your bike! 8-)--Light current 22:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, but he'll have to sit on the handlebars. StuRat 22:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds suitably painful!--Light current 22:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

{{Subst:Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/X FOR Y|Thing One|Thing Two}}

{{Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/X FOR Y|Thing One|Thing Two}}--71.247.246.54 22:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• It's a work in progress--71.247.246.54 00:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• LOL, aren't "Thing One" and "Thing Two" from The Cat in the Hat ? :-) StuRat 01:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Humanities RefDesk

"National Steppe Family day"? *groan* :) DMacks 23:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to add a few groaners from time to time to make the rest look brilliant. :-) StuRat 01:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Mistakes like that happen when youre Russian 8-)

--Light current 17:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Redundant comment moved

See User_talk:StuRat/redundant#Please_stop_namecalling. StuRat 00:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines

In response to this request, I have done exactly that before. Please, read the guideline. What you're looking for is right there, very near the top even. Friday (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there some reason why you can't provide better links instead of asking me to read pages of text ? Here is a good link, to what I assume you're talking about: (Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Maintain_Wikipedia_policy), with the relevant passage below:

"A talk page is research for the article, and the policies that apply to articles also apply to talk pages. Research and debate should meet the same standards of verification, neutral point of view and no original research. There is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion and personal knowledge with a view to prompting further investigation, but it is a serious misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements."

First, it isn't applicable to the Ref Desk, since it's about a talk page for an article. They don't seem to have considered that there are many other types of talk pages, like the Ref Desk.

Second, even an article talk page isn't just for research for the article, it's also for questions related to the topic, simple format and spelling questions about the article, complaints about the article, etc. The person who wrote that section appeared to have a very narrow view that all talk pages are strictly for research on an article, which is just plain wrong (I'd say "research for an article" is a rather minor component of talk pages). It's not surprising then, that any rules they came up with are also just plain wrong.

Finally, it's just a guideline, not policy, meaning "it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception". StuRat 01:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm! Maybe the talk page guidelines need rewriting Stu. Fancy a new project?--Light current 01:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This should be moved to the stale repetition page. Consensus is that the Reference Desk is NOT an article. -THB 01:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Well WE know that, but apparently Friday is not aware of that fact. 8-(--Light current 01:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

There's a slight subtlety here, not only is the Ref Desk not an article, it's also not an article talk page, but rather a different type of talk page, with different rules. For that reason, I felt this discussion was new enough to warrant a response. StuRat 02:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Use of the term 'deletionist'

Since we've obviously reached an impasse on this issue, I've asked for third parties to comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/StuRat 2. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a compromise suggestion. Stu, would you be prepared to relabel thes people as 'those with deletionist tendencies'. THat might make this sacond RfC a non starter! 8-)--Light current 02:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

If they want to waste their time with frivolous RFCs, that's fine with me. I see I already have supporters there despite it not having even been certified yet. StuRat 02:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree its ridiculous. Consider my suggestion as a fallback position then. 8-)--Light current 02:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This is totally Kafka-esque. -THB 03:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

How about "Not Inclusionist But NOt Deletionist Either" - nibnode for short ? Gandalf61 12:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

LOL. StuRat 14:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Is any of this accurate?

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/StuRat_2#Differing_views_of_acceptable_behavior - I'd appreciate your thoughts on whether any of this is accurate. Friday (talk) 06:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it wasn't accurate at all. I've responded there. StuRat 14:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: light pollution help (you left out the link)

[4]. ;) -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added it now. StuRat 04:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Animal rights

Regarding this edit: the ref desk is not a place to rehash debates on controversial topics. See Wikipedia:Reference_desk/guidelines#What_the_reference_desk_is_not. There's also some discussion about this on the talk page. Friday (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I completely reject those nonconsensus deletionist "guidelines", especially as any input I, or other inclusionists, have into those guidelines is typically immediately deleted. Furthermore, asking what the arguments are in any debate is not "rehashing the debate" any more than asking what the issues were in the Lincoln-Douglas debates would be. StuRat 16:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

If you're unhappy with that part of the guideline, please bring it up on the guideline talk page. I know that asking the question isn't rehashing- but you replied with your own opinions on the matter rather than referring the questioner to material explaining the various points of view. This is a good way to start a debate. We don't want debates on the ref desk. Friday (talk) 16:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no point in bringing it up there, as anything I write or do there is attacked by deletionists. And I didn't "make it up", as you insinuate, I saw a lecturer discuss this on TV, but I don't know his name, so can't cite the source. StuRat 16:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply you made anything up. Do you actually disagree that we should be careful with controversial topics? The simplest, best way to deal with them is to point people to our articles that already cover these topics in a neutral, verifiable way. Do you disagree? Friday (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the deletionist idea that they can hide all discussion and prevent any further discussion on any topic they deem to be "controversial", yes. StuRat 16:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

If our mission here was to run a debate board, we'd do things differently, of course. But, some of what you're unhappy with is out of my control- if editors perceive that reason has failed, they may resort to removing content that they think is going nowhere good. I'm personally treading lightly when it comes to this, but I cannot make other editors do the same. I see you're still on about "deletionists"- this is only going to make other editors not take you very seriously, I'm afraid. Friday (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI

Phlippines, Haiti, Cuba and Bangladesh are not teh poorest countries of North America/Asia, you're a user of an encyclopedia, use it. Therequiembellishere 00:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall saying they were (at least not any time recently), are you sure you have the right person ? StuRat 03:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Stupidity tax

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Stupidity tax, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Pascal.Tesson 14:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Irresponsible advice

StuRat, before you state what is and what is not dangerous, like you did on mercury contact, I suggest you do a bit of fact-checking or keep it to yourself. Someone might actually believe you and let their child handle elemental mercury! --Justanother 16:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's see your evidence that liquid mercury is dangerous to touch. StuRat 16:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Pardon the butting in, but both Mercury (element) and Mercury_poisoning contain the information you seek. The article on poisoning says it's "moderately absorbed through the skin". It's not exactly fair to ask other people to do your work for you- we should all take care in our research to make sure we give accurate answers. Friday (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't make it dangerous. Many things, such as water, are absorbed through the skin, without being dangerous. My argument is that liquid mercury does not react with the human body sufficiently to cause problems in the quantity absorbed through the skin. StuRat 17:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your reasoning here; "doesn't make it dangerous". Given the difference in toxicity between water and mercury why would you say this (seems like apples and oranges)? Just to put this into context, there is no doubt that mercury is less toxic than mercury compounds, however, if it does get inside the body it can form organic compounds. Since mercury poisoning is cummulative any exposure should be considered dangerous. Just my two cents here, please don't see this as a pile on but this is the type of answer that started this whole massive debate in the first place. David D. (Talk) 17:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You're using circular logic "we know that liquid mercury is dangerous because it can pass through the skin, where it must do damage because we know it's dangerous". Since mercury in the form of thimerosal was, until recently, actually injected during vaccinations, and no harmful effects were documented, that's pretty good evidence that at least some forms of mercury are nontoxic. They have discontinued the use of thimerosal for vaccines in the US, but that's due to the same "mercury scare" which you're all perpetuating, not due to any scientific reason. The only purported case of poisoning from liquid mercury in our article on mercury poisoning was from the Chinese emperor, and that was likely because the mercury he ingested was contaminated with lead or some other toxic mineral. Can you point to any cases of poisoning due to liquid mercury ? StuRat 02:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Anything that has a culumulative toxicity you stay clear of, its all about exposure (are you forgetting you compared it to water above?). And there is no need to get any exposure let alone some. I'm not say thing stuff is as bad as the organic mercury compounds. But to imply it is safe is negligent without context and against the advice of experts. There is nothing more to say. David D. (Talk) 04:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

That logic is completely wrong, and demonstrates a lack of understanding on your part. Many things have cumulative toxicity, that doesn't mean you need to avoid exposure completely, that only means you need to be sure your cumulative level never reaches toxic levels. For example, there is mercury in fish, but that doesn't mean we should never eat fish again, that only means we should limit our consumption of certain types of fish. To eliminate all fish from our diets would do more harm than good, especially since fish would likely be replaced with less healthy meats and poultry. StuRat 04:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Vranak

Stu, I put the evidence on the RD, please look there. --Justanother 17:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, please provide a link (was it the Science Desk ?). I'll look later, I have to go to work now. StuRat 17:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Misc Desk on the Maldives bottle. Later. --Justanother 17:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#Strange Container found on Maldive Beach --Justanother 17:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You know Stu, this is two-in-a-row for me. First I call you on the fishy joke and you try to gloss that over and also you remove my comment from your talk page (talk about "deletionists"). Now you continue to give erroneous and dangerous advice about a subject that I doubt you are qualified to speak on and you refuse to back down even when shown what the experts say. It is getting hard for me to continue to WP:AGF. --Justanother 03:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I've provided an authoritative source, referred to Wikipedia articles on the topic, and I've asked my dad, who happens to be a chemical engineer who has worked extensively with mercury. You have absolutely no reason to think I'm "making this up". You, on the other hand, have failed to provide me with the requested evidence of mercury poisoning from liquid mercury. StuRat 03:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Cumulative toxicity. Well, i'm glad you checked with your dad, at least you did some research this time. David D. (Talk) 04:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I missed the fishy joke. Could you please provide a diff? t h b 03:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the obscenities, please keep dirty words off my talk page. A person can delete anything they want from their own talk page, without consensus, that's different from the Ref Desk. If you want to call me a "user's own talk page deletionist", go right ahead. StuRat 03:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the crude term (I would not call it an "obscenity" but OK). Here is the diff, THB. --Justanother 03:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing he wanted the diff on my original comment, not your complaint about it. StuRat 03:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Stu, ask your dad if he would give his, say, 6-year-old son a pound of elemental mercury to handle and play with, no gloves, but assuming that the boy will follow directions to not ingest it. --Justanother 03:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I did, and he said yes, but did advise an allergy test first (touch a drop, then wait a day, to see if a rash develops). StuRat 03:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. Well I would never say a bad word about your dad. That is his right and choice. My point is that there is a reference source for material safety and it is the MSDS and the standard practice of industrial hygiene. See my comment on the RD. --Justanother 03:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, the comment of StuRat's that you removed was the most innocuous of the whole thread except for the "groan" that followed. You were much more inappropriate putting extremely vulgar words in his mouth on this page as he has complained about above. Looks to me like you were deliberately trying to make StuRat look bad and you owe him an apology for your offensive behavior. t h b 03:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I correctly interpreted his allusion, thank you. --Justanother 04:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, i had never realised that StuRat was innocence incarnate. I guess I'll have to write more carefully in the future. David D. (Talk) 04:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do. StuRat 04:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

G'nite guys. Stu, I put another ref on the RD a bit ago. There are tons on the net, just google "mercury poisoning" + skin or some such if you want more. Stu, my only final comment is we all make errors and it does not lessen us to admit them - quite the opposite, in fact. --Justanother 04:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and I'm glad to see you admit to your error. StuRat 04:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

My error was in posting the bit about the skin-lightening creams before realizing that that was not elemental mercury and I self-corrected the error and then posted a good ref on elemental mercury. Thank you for appreciating that. BTW Stu, I know how clever you are and I know how you like subtlety so don't think I am not picking up nuances in the fishy joke (that was not too subtle though) and in the above. But I like you anyway, big guy (laff) and without retracting anything I called you on I DO apologize if I came across as a bit of a WP:DICK; that certainly is one of my failings. Later. --Justanother 14:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Nonconsensus deletion

It's pretty clear that the need to remove information that is inaccurate and potentially dangerous is sufficiently compelling that it's not possible to wait for consensus. If you want to argue that it wasn't dangerous, please participate in talk page discussion first. In fact, I've left a note on the talk page already. -- SCZenz 00:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I had included reliable sources which show that it's not going to kill you if you touch elemental mercury once, sources which you've deleted, along with everything else, thus biasing the argument in your favor. This is inappropriate behavior, please stop. Deletions should only occur AFTER a consensus has been gained, or if it's extremely disruptive (prevents Wikipedia from functioning). StuRat 00:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Take it to the talk page. Handling mercury is dangerous, and I have no intention of sitting here and arguing about how dangerous it is exactly. Your tendency to make inaccurate statements and then go to any length to defend them makes things difficult in general; in this case, when there is a potential danger to listening you, I'm afraid I don't have the luxury of giving you any leeway. Putting our users in danger is extremely disruptive. Sorry. -- SCZenz 00:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Handling liquid mercury is far less dangerous than many things we do every day, like driving cars or taking a shower, judging by the number of people killed or injured by each. So, using your logic, whenever anyone asks a question about a car or shower, we should refuse to answer and say "cars are dangerous, don't ever drive one, and avoid showers at all times !". StuRat 19:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Stu, not wanting to anger you, but might I suggest contemplation of a couple of my favourite pages? WP:TIGERS and WP:NAM. Skittle 01:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

StuRat, you absolutely need to stop putting your own desire to be right ahead of the good of the ref desk. This is not acceptable. Consider this a warning. Friday (talk) 05:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It was pointed out to me that I've invented a motivation for your actions with this statement, and I shouldn't do that- I apologize. What I mean is, please stop repeatedly putting back removed content. This is disruptive editing. Friday (talk) 05:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a standard illogical deletionist POV, that repeatedly removing the same thing without consensus is good (as SCZenz did), while repeatedly putting it back is a blockable offense. StuRat 19:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Stu, without delving down the rabbit hole that is the "illogical deletionist POV" (an issue which I have several more thoughts on which I'll write on another time), let me say this about mercury: you're right. It isn't that dangerous. People who treat it as if it were arsenic or sodium azide or plutonium or polonium are overreacting and being paranoid. But.

Mercury is dangerous. People who advise caution in its use are (a) trying to protect innocents from accidentally poisoning themselves with it, and (b) trying to protect Wikipedia against allegations of giving unsafe advice. In insisting that mercury isn't that dangerous, on the other hand, all you're trying to do is protect someone from relying on unnecessarily cautious advice. Although my sympathies are entirely with you on this one, this is an argument you can't win. U.S. culture is unnecessarily paranoid these days, and Wikipedia simply reflects that. Pick your battles! —Steve Summit (talk) 04:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Proper risk assessment is critical to the success of any endeavor. For example, faulty risk assessment has led the US to largely abandon nuclear power for other forms, such as coal and imported petroleum, which pollute far more, endanger far more lives, cause global warming, risk national security, etc. We shouldn't just accept faulty risk assessments, whether they be that nuclear power should be banned or elemental mercury should be banned. Evidence should be permitted to be provided on both sides of the question, not one side's evidence suppressed, as my evidence was. StuRat 04:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

LC's Block

Hello StuRat. Regarding your comments about LC being blocked as a result of making a complaint at AIV, I'm afraid that simply isn't accurate. Notice that the complaint over stalking was made at 12:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC). Have a read of the conversation here and you will see that a number of admins were discussing the possibility of an indef block before that complaint was made. What LC did, unwittingly, was bring his disruption to the wider attention of the of the community. Despite his belief that a small number of admins were out to get him, its very obvious that not one single admin is supporting his position. Its also notable, I think, that its the admins who are on LC's hit list that are principally arguing against an indef block. Make of that as you will. This is exactly why myself and others have been encouraging him to file an RfC, because he needed to realise that the admins are simply reflecting the opinion of the wider community.

I happen to think that Friday's actions on this were regrettable. It wasn't wiki-stalking, but it doesn't take a genius to work out how LC would react to Friday turning up on engineering pages. It clearly incited him to further incivility which, of course, led to the current block. I have completely avoided the pages LC edits in article space, for that very reason. So while it is true that Friday clearly played a role in this block, it is simply another example of how LC is unable to deal with those that are in disagreement with him in a polite and civil manner. If it wasn't this instance, it would have been the next, or the next. He brought it upon himself, plain and simple. So please don't think it was Friday's interactions with him as the reason for his blocking. It wasn't. It was just another symptom of a wider problem. Rockpocket 04:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, but I would have liked to see a more balanced response to LC's legit complaint. Any block discussion should not have been added to his complaint, and more people should have asked Friday not to follow LC around "looking for things to correct". I can see how LC feels picked upon when his legit complaints get a reaction like this. StuRat 04:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps you are correct that the appearance that a complaint led to a block is not healthy. But an appearance is all it is. I don't know whether Friday's alleged stalking deserved action or not. As I said, Its something I have purposely tried to avoid because I knew this would be the outcome, but those that responded didn't see much merit in the complaint. Personally, I don't think LC has the moral high ground when it comes to accusing others of following him around, as I have been trying to have a conversation on various other talk pages and he has been chipping in in all of them. The lesson to be learnt here, I suppose, is that those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. In other words, if you are this close to getting a block for prolonged disruptive behaviour from some admins, drawing the attention of more admins to your situation is probably not too clever.

If you have a concern for LC, perhaps you might counsel him on how to modify his behaviour on the expiration of his block. That seems to me the way you could best help him. You appear to be held in a level of respect by him, so perhaps he might listen to you above the rest of the community that he clearly disregards. The bottom line is that if he slips back into old habits, he will be gone for good next time and that would be unfortunate. Rockpocket 08:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I have made suggestions to LC on how to stay out of trouble. However, I still feel that the attitude that "you've been blocked in the past, therefore you no longer have any right to complain on AN/I" is just as wrong as it would be in society to say that once a person is convicted of a crime, they are no longer entitled to police protection. StuRat 10:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The bigger problem is that his complaint was confrontational and entirely spurious. -- SCZenz 10:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Not entirely spurious, there are many of us who agree that Friday should also be less confrontational. Following LC around and correcting whatever he does is not the way to get things to cool off. StuRat 11:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Not fixing his mistakes might make him happier for a while, yes; however, the community generally finds it acceptable to "check up on" users who sometimes make sub-optimal edits or have communication problems. I am not sure I like the idea of telling Friday not to do this just because Light current won't react well. I worry that many people seem to expect those dealing with Light current to have a thick skin, while allowing for him to have a thin skin. This is not a tenable situation for any Wikipedian in the long term. -- SCZenz 14:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I expect a higher level of behavior from Admins than general editors. Unfortunately, I am frequently disappointed. StuRat 07:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I've replied about this at AN/I - claiming that his current block was because he complained at AN/I is a complete mischaracterization. This was not

LC: "It seems like Friday's stalking me, can't somebody do something about this?"

Sandstein: "No, he's not. And, BTW, you're blocked."

He's blocked because he was belligerently arguing about it, deleting relevant commentary, and (the precise proximate cause) expressed a wish that another editor drop dead, while having been blocked numerous times before for essentially the same reasons. There is no attitude that "you've been blocked in the past, therefore you no longer have any right to complain on AN/I". However, if you've been blocked for doing X in the past, complain at AN/I, and in followup discussion about your complaint do X again, yeah, you're going to be blocked. If, as in this case, you've been repeatedly blocked for doing X there may well be a followup discussion about whether the block should be permanent. Characterizing this as "blocked for complaining" is dishonest. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I might buy that, except that the only times I've ever complained about Admin behavior, I've also been threatened with blocks for complaining (none were actually carried out, however). When I complained about an AFD result where the majority of the votes supported keeping the article but it was deleted with the comment "the consensus is for deletion", I was then accused of using sockpuppets and threatened with a block. I did not use sockpuppets, and there didn't appear to be any evidence that I did. Then, when I signed the petition to have Friday stand for re-election, I was again threatened with blocks. Lastly, when I complained at AN/I that Friday has a conflict of interest in promoting one side of the Ref Desk debate and also blocking those on the opposite side, I was threatened with blocks yet again. Fortunately, I don't do anything remotely blockable. If I had, however, it likely would have been ignored until I complained about an Admin action, then it would have been used as justification to block me. Shall we do an experiment ? I'd bet that if I filed an AN/I complaint, I would again be threatened with a block in that very thread. StuRat 20:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

There is an inheret bias with that analysis, StuRat. And that is that interactions with admins that might lead to a complaint may be initiated because there was an issue which required admin attention in the first place. An admin may be attempting to resolve an issue in good faith, and then finds themselves the subject of a complaint for simply trying to do their job. Its amazing how many people consider the very fact that an admin disagrees with their interpretation of a situation equates to admin misconduct. If this is the situation, the complaint itself could be seen by the community as a further attempt at disruption and thus could be a factor in a resulting block. So, if there is a statistical corrolation between admin misconduct complaints and blocks it could well be explained by the fact that there is a strong association between those that are being disruptive making complaints.

To make a crude analogy, say you are a violent criminal, and make a complaint to the police about an unfair parking violation. When the police investigate they find out about the extent of your crimes and you are jailed. If this happened often enough, one could find statistical associations between being jailed and making complaints about parking tickets. However, that says nothing about a causative relationship between the two, because we are ignoring the fact that criminals are the ones making most of the complaints. The challenge is to find the real examples of misconduct among the noise, but this doesn't appear to be one of them. Rockpocket 21:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe the police policy you used in your example has also led to problems. For example, if somebody is on parole for possession of marijuana, but has moved out of the area they were supposed to stay during their parole, and they saw their neighbor steal their bicycle, it would be nice if they could call the police to get it back. However, since they are afraid they will be sent to jail if they get the police involved, they decide they need to take the law into their own hands, grab a weapon, and head over to their neighbor's house. We have now taken petty theft and escalated it to the point where a killing may occur, due to this poor policy. To avoid this, many police departments have a policy of ignoring "lesser crimes" by the person who issued the complaint. Of course, if they find the complainant is covered in blood and there is a body in their house, they aren't going to ignore that. StuRat 07:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

At a risk if misinterpreting the analogy, I think I agree with you. There is always the danger of the scenario you describe happening - and its something we need to remain vigilent about - but I believe most admins are independent minded enough to see the bigger picture when complaints are made.

I also don't believe that LC's case can be compared to this. In the analogy he would be the paroled chap who went to the police, but instead of simply making the complaint about his bike, he proceeds to commit a few more crimes in the police station (say, smoking a joint while being belligerent to the duty officer.) You can hardly blame the police for invoking the conditions of his parole when he is so blatantly violating them in front of them. His situation was more like a violation of a Three strikes law. It may appear appear unfair because he was blocked for a relatively trivial reason, but the additive effect of his habitual disruption was the the real reason for the action. Now there may well be an debate about how admins should deal with habitual disruption in policy, and whether there should be guidelines about that specifically. But i'm not buying any argument that paints LC as the innocent victim - or even the lovable rogue - in these metaphors! Rockpocket 08:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

But you do agree, I hope, that LC still has the right to complain at AN/I, without that complaint leading directly to a block. StuRat 08:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

He does have that right, and he did use it, and it didn't lead directly to a block. -- SCZenz 12:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

As SCZenz said, I do, he did and it didn't. Rockpocket 07:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

advice, please

How do I sign petition about admin Friday? What is the technique? I have been treated in a very, very shabby fashion on Wikipedia as have many ot my colleagues. Hence, I stopped contributing. Thanks. MathStatWoman 08:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

There was a petition to recall Friday from adminship, but that petition has now ended, and failed to get enough signatures. If Friday continues to engage in such behavior, however, it is likely that such a petition will come up again. If you'd like, I can notify you if such a petition comes up, and you can decide if you want to endorse it or not. Meanwhile, can you provide any links to show where he has treated you in a shabby fashion ? I'd be interested in seeing those. StuRat 08:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please, new petition

Just look at my discussion (User talk) page and search for "Friday" to see his comments to me. But he was not the only admin to attack and wipe my entries. I was never a "sockpuppet". I share a computer and a network with others including giggly students, and I resent the accusation on my user page. I was trying seriously to write articles on mathematics, statistics, and bios of mathematicians and statisticians, and contribute to a few other articles. But now there are articles that could have been improved, but they stay stagnant and incomplete because I will not edit them any longer, after the way I was treated. MathStatWoman 09:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yours is a familiar story, unfortunately, there are many Admins who run roughshod over common editors. I'd like to wait until Friday does something particularly egregious, however, before submitting another petition, in order to ensure that we get enough signatures this time. I'll let you know when this happens. Of course, you do need to check back at your talk page every few days, unless you have email enabled, then I could let you know any time. StuRat 12:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Try filing a Wikipedia:Request for comment if you actuall believe administrators have abused their powers; that way you can see what the community thinks. As you were no doubt informed last time, trying to get someone desysopped first is a very confrontational and aggressive approach to dispute resolution. -- SCZenz 12:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Beware the bedfellows you keep. Alliances of convenience may not be a good strategy. David D. (Talk) 13:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

StuRat...you might want to consider that some people with a grudge against sysops, like some people with a grudge against the police, actually are guilty of something. In this case, sockpuppetry confirmed by CheckUser, and at the moment, ongoing Colbert vandalism. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 14:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Admin recall is (in my view) part of dispute resolution, and it's not even meant to be the first step. I believe I was polite and helpful in dealing with MathStatWoman but if any editor disagrees, please show me where you feel I went wrong. I'm sure we all have room for improvement. If someone has a problem with wikipedia in general, admin recall is not going to be a fruitful way to solve that problem. Friday (talk) 15:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Just as a point of interest, MathStatWoman was blocked this morning for creating a dozen or so Colbert-themed nonsense articles, after ignoring several warnings. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 15:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I share a computer and a network with others including giggly students MathStatWoman 09:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC) (Vranak)

Then she should log out of wikipedia when she is done editing! Right to David D. --Justanother 16:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

But note that, with respect to the Colbert-themed nonsense articles, she does not blame the giggly students for here recent aticle creations:

"Well, my dear, I do not agree -- it is not nonsense. Wikipedia has made reality into a commodity. It is real. It is true." MathStatWoman 13:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The giggly student defense was in regard to all the sockpuppets. I don't think she has ever blamed them for her edits as Mathstatwoman. David D. (Talk) 17:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text that you requested

I do not have any such text. I wrote no such articles; it must have been someone else using the same computer or network. Please look at how Friday and other admins treated me and my earlier contributions. I will not add to Wikipedia until the unfair designation of "sockpuppet" is removed. This is a shame because many mathematical articles are missing, incomplete, or out of date, and I could help. Also, I know much about Apple Inc and have been locked out of editing that article. MathStatWoman 15:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The statement that "I wrote no such articles" is factually false. The articles deemed "nonsense" on User talk:MathStatWoman were all created by User:MathStatWoman. They had the following complete text:

• Reality of realities - Reality has become a commodity.
• Etat de réalité - Reality has become a commodity.
• Being Real - Reality Has Become a Commodity.
• Realness - Reality Has Become a Commodity.
• Réalité - Reality has become a commodity.
• State of being real - Reality Has Become a Commodity.

StuRat, I recommend you find something to do other than personally review the deleted edits of users engaged in vandalism. Those articles were reviewed by two editors in good standing, the tagger and the deleting admin, and it was kind of a waste of time to double-check their work. Next time, I will let you dig yourself in as deep as you like instead of pointing out what you're getting into. -- SCZenz 15:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

SCZenz, there is no need for you to respond to a simple request (to have the deleted articles made available for review) with such hostility aimed at me. StuRat 21:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Also worth noting: I wrote bios on some living mathematicians. Some were wiped ("speedily deleted"), all of which were about female mathematicians deemed "unnotable". I notice when other contributers tried to write about certain mathematicians (i.e. women), their entries were also "speedily deleted". MathStatWoman 15:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I was online at the time, watching the articles being created. There were several more that aren't noted in warnings, about a dozen or so all together. I'm not sure if they are still visible in any logs. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 16:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

MathStatWoman, is it your position that the person typing here: User talk:Betaeleven#MathStatWoman wasn't you? -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 16:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you are missing StuRats point. i interpreted his request as wanting to review the mathematician articles that were deleted. From what i recall all were one line without any claims of notability. The defense used was that any woman in mathmatics was notable in the 70's. So it comes down to whether these woman mathematicians are notable pioneers in the field despite nothing notable from an academic perspective. Interesting debate. David D. (Talk) 16:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I take the above back. On reviewing StuRats request he does appear to be asking to see the reality articles. David D. (Talk) 16:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

No one commented on my talk/discussion page, but on yours, about me

(a) About "reality" and its translation into French as per Colbert. I do not do things like this. I must have forgotten to log out and others did it.

OK, I believe you. And, according to WP:AGF, everyone else should believe you, as well. StuRat 01:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

(b) I submitted bios of female mathematicians longer than "one line". Told to add more. Added more. Told that articles were "too long". They were wiped. I submitted bios of male mathematicians and they were not wiped.

While your submissions may technically be a violation of the "notability" requirement, I don't agree with that requirement, myself. My standard, as an inclusionist, is "does the removal of this material do more harm than good". If we lose you, a good contributor to math articles, as a result, then I would say yes, it did more harm than good to delete those articles. I also don't believe that a lack of notability is ever justification for a speedy deletion. StuRat 01:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

(c) Never was a sockpuppet. I have much to contribute, but I have too much dignity to be treated so shabbily. Remove "sockpuppet" designation that is absolutely undeserved.

I've also been falsely accused of being a sockpuppet, there doesn't seem to be any way to clear your name once so accused. As far as I can tell, there is no way to do this. StuRat 01:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

(d) State this again: will not contribute until I am treated properly, with respect, with no "sockpuppet" designation. It is totally unfair, just because I share a computer and a network.

If you do this, you are really letting the overly aggressive Admins win, this is just what they want, for you to give up and leave. They've told me to leave several times. StuRat 01:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

(e) If you are really an "inclusionist", what shall you do about all this?

I have no power to do much of anything, because I'm not an Admin, and the voices of normal editors are largely ignored by Admins. This is something I would very much like to change. The best I can do is to suggest you get a new screen name and use that exclusively and don't tell anybody about the new name. Unfortunately, once a certain number of people decide you are an "enemy", you will never get a fair shake, under the old screen name, again. StuRat 01:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

(f) I will be sure to sign out this time.

Thanks. You might also want to use the screen lock feature whenever you walk away from the computer so nobody else can sneak on. StuRat 01:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

MathStatWoman 23:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

REMEMBER THE GOOD TIMES

I lv u strt. 222.158.163.241 10:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Ideal firm size and Microsoft

Hi! Just read (mostly) your article on ideal firm size. Seeing the discussion there is not active, though Id get a response quicker here. I noticed your comments on the size of Microsoft in light of low economies of scale effect in the services sector. But wouldnt it be understood better in terms of the very strong network effect characteristic of IT, than as just a temporary anomaly? --Aryah 19:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Certainly such an argument can be made, but I'm not convinced. I would expect Microsoft's dominance of the PC O/S system market to drop in the next decade, due to diseconomy of scale issues. StuRat 00:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Final Warning

Although he pretends to be so, Hipocrite isn't an Admin, so has absolutely no authority to do as he threatens. StuRat 00:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I've been around the internet long enough not to take things like that seriously. Heh. :) --Kurt Shaped Box 22:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. Perhaps watching seagulls posturing gives you some insight into similar behavior here, LOL. StuRat 00:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Western movie dialogue:

• Cowboy A: "Sure is quiet." Edison 23:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Cowboy B: "Yea, too quiet, the injuns must be up to something." StuRat 03:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Indian: "No, we just don't eat as many beans as you two." StuRat 03:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Entertainment reference desk

I think you broke the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment somehow. March 12-March 20 are now missing. Just giving you a heads up. I'd just revert but I'm not sure what you want to keep. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 02:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any of my edits having had any errors, but thanks for catching the problem, I'll go take a look. StuRat 02:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Potatoes

Oh well... I was really put off by the way you jumped down my throat about suggesting potatoes as healthy foods, and now to see you say the same thing... I didn't see your post on the thread about the weather, but if you came to my defense, thanks. Anchoress 01:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

If you can give me a link to where I "jumped down your throat", I'd like to take a look. As for taters, it's complicated, they aren't always healthy or always unhealthy, it all depends. But they are definitely low sodium, which was what the immediate question was about. StuRat 01:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I looked a bit. I'll look more later maybe. Anchoress 19:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ref Desk discussion (hair with split ends)

Dear StuRat. I'm replying to you here because I don't see much point continuing personal sniping on the Ref Desk.

I'm genuinely surprised at your suggestion that, "the speculation of an "expert" over the speculation of everyone else is just an argument from authority". If you were referring to me as an "expert", then I completely agree. If you are referring to the authors of the scholarly papers I provided as sources, then you must surely realise that you are suggesting that the opinion of the man-on-the-street on any subject is as noteworthy as a Nobel Prize winner for work on that subject. In subjects like evolutionary genetics, there is no definitive "proof". Experts, by definition, are trained to understand the evidence and synthesize that to form a parsimonious explanation for observation. When they publish that it is not "speculation", it is evidence based analysis. Reading the paper {European hair and eye color: A case of frequency-dependent sexual selection?) should make that perfectly clear.

Now, you are clearly a smart guy. Based on your Ref Desk contributions, you appear to have an impressive wealth of knowledge. However, you are clearly not an expert geneticist. That is not a criticism - Hell, I'm not an expert at anything but genetics. My concern is that, while really stupid comments and theories are esentially harmless, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Why? because plausible sounding theories, even if totally wrong, are difficult to distinguish from the academic reality. This leads to misinformation for our readers.

In a perfect world each question would be answered "expertly" (and by that I mean with reference to experts) and nothing more need be said. Thats never going to happen. So there is nothing wrong with smart people giving their best shot. If that shot turns out to be way off mark when expert analysis is provided, then personally, I believe it is appropriate to withdraw my analysis for the benefit of the reader. I have done that a few times (e.g. [5]) when I believe another editor has indicated my answer is misleading. But withdrawl itself is no big deal when its clearly wrong. What is really, really unhelpful though, is an insistance on arguing a point. Why? Because it leads the reader to cast doubt on which answer is accurate and it essentially turns into a debating contest where he who can shout the loudest and longest gets the advantage in the eyes of the reader. Is that the basis on how we should disseminate information?

Now, ask yourself this, do you really have any knowledge of pigmentation genetics, I mean at a fundamental level? Because what it seems to me is that you have applied pretty basic Darwinian theories to the question. Now do you really believe your opinion, based on that limited knowledge, deserves to be what a reader takes home from the question. Or would you think they should take home the best analysis available from experts in the field? With no disrespect intended, if you think the former then I would propose you should consider WP:WORLD and m:MPOV.

This has really depressed me, probably because it is so close to my area of professional expertise, that (again, no disprespect intended) I know how completely wrong your analysis was. I could write pages and pages providing the detailed evidence for why scientists believe that drift or sexual selection, rather than Darwinian section, is involved. Thats not your fault, of course, as you have a decent effort at applying your not inconsiderable knowledge. Perhaps I was at fault for being somewhat aggressive in my original response, but the fact remains that a person reading that section will leave thinking there is debate among the scientific community about what happened when there is infact none whatsoever. That is a real shame.

This is a small issue that will blow over, but the bigger picture is worrying. I read your most recent comments to mean that my/your/his analysis of any issue is as deserving of space on the RD as that of an academic expert (i.e. that found in reliable sources). That makes the RD not an information source, but an opinion forum. And one where he who shouts the loudest and longest gets his point across best. Unless we start enforcing some core policies (such as WP:RS), the desk is just going to continue to creep down in informational quality as those who do have expertise drift away.

Anyway, i'm not interested in arguing the specifics any longer. We both know the reality of the situation, but if you are keen to get the last word on the Ref Desk, then you can have it. I'm leaving the Ref Desk for a while. I may be back if there is a culture change, enforced or otherwise, where reliable sources are given the respect they deserve. Or maybe I'll just regain an appetite for it again. I don't see any winners emerge from this (unless of course you consider this a victory in removing another "opponent" from the Desk) and the only loser is our readers. Rockpocket 19:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. There is plenty of spelling and grammer mistakes in this post. I added one or too extra just for you. Feel free to point them out if it makes you feel better. Rockpocket 19:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

1) While expert "evidence" is always welcome, this means actual proof, not mere speculation by experts. Is the opinion of someone with a doctorate in theology on the nature of God any better than yours ? Is the opinion of a musician on which song is the best more valuable than yours ? No. On the other hand, true evidence (such as a genetic analysis of remains of primitive people to track the development rate of hair and skin color changes) would be welcome. For example, there is evidence of blond hair in central Asia quite early on, possibly even before it was seen in Europe.

2) Also keep in mind that experts are not always correct. Many, perhaps most, "expert" theories are eventually disproven. The same people who were once experts frequently become an impediment to further progress, such as with Einstein's famous objection to quantum mechanics: "I can't believe that God plays dice with the universe". Thus, the opinions of experts still should be viewed critically. Conversely, the opinions of non-experts also should be considered.

3) In the Wikipedia environment, it is quite impossible to know which contributors are experts. Anyone can claim to have a doctorate or years of study in the field, so it makes no sense to rely on people's claims of expertise. However, if they really are experts, and are correct on an issue, then they should be able to provide superior evidence. Thus we should solely rely on evidence to decide who is right, not on claims of expertise.

4) As for being willing to retract my statements, I might have done just that had you any actual proof that I was wrong. I believe Wikipedia policy is not to physically remove comments, as that messes up the conversation, so I often just let the person who corrects me get the last word, if I agree with their evidence. I see you use line-out, but that makes it rather difficult to read, at least on my browser, so I don't use that option much. The reader is smart enough to judge evidence and figure out who is right. Just as we shouldn't treat other responders as idiots, we shouldn't assume that question askers are incapable of judging evidence for themselves.

5) An "argument from authority" is never acceptable to me. I see this as saying "everything I say is right because I am an expert, and everything you say is wrong because you're not". Clio is perhaps the worst offender in this regard. Aside from the inability to prove which Wikipedia contributors are experts, this leads to a deplorable lack of critical thinking. A non-expert with the evidence on their side should trump an expert with no evidence every time.

6) I don't quite understand why you refuse to use a spell checker. Do you actually pride yourself on having answers full of spelling and grammar errors ?

7) I also found your use of a completely unrelated topic on the Ref Desk talk page to attack me ("your ridiculously ill-informed opinion") to be quite rude.

8) You also seemed to misrepresent what I said, several times. Leaving aside the "lion taste" comment as a joke, you still claimed I said that white skin made people easy prey, when I actually was speculating about hair color. You also misrepresented my statement that split ends cause frizzy hair as if I had said it causes curly hair. If this is really your area of expertise I would hope you would understand the difference. I'm also hoping this misrepresentation of my statements is just sloppiness on your part, and not an attempt to deceive the reader about what I said.

9) As for you leaving the Ref Desk, your continued contributions are welcome, so long as you can treat everyone with respect and avoid arguments from authority. StuRat 04:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many times I have to say this, StuRat, but I'll give it one more go: The papers I provided the references to show there is no evidence for your theories, but that there is evidence for the alternative. I'm not sure how familiar you are with peer-reviewed journals, but they don't go about publishing speculation of scientists, they require evidence before they pass peer-review. Specifically, just as you require, they carried out a genetic genetic analysis of multiple populations groups (and a few primitive people), enabling them to identify evidence of selective pressure on hair and skin colour loci. You clearly have not read those articles, so trying to claim I have provided no evidence is an argument from considerable, and it appears willful, ignorance. If you don't have access to those journals - and you are not willing to take my word for it - I would be happy to summarise their findings for you. Seeing as you provided no references whatsoever, I presumed the citations would be sufficient for you to appreciate your speculation was way off mark, but if it takes a line by line explanation of the analysis, I'll provide it.

From your description here, I presume you are using "frizzy" to mean "apically damaged". That is not a hair type, but a result of trauma, as we established. Quite why you use the term "frizzy" to refer to hair one would find in Africa I don't know, since African hair tends to be remarkably healthy and hence not "frizzy" at all. Their hair is, of course, curly, which is why I made the assumption you were using the two interchangably. If not, then your theory is even more outlandish. Go figure.

I'm perfectly aware you were referring to hair colour when talking about people being easy prey, but blond hair is genetically correlated with white skin (in case you haven't noticed) and thus when studying pressure driving hair colour, it is impossible to distinguish it from pressure on skin colour (again, check those papers I referenced, you'll see what I mean). So its not a misrepresentation of your statement at all, as the two are interchangable in this context.

Finally, you seem to be confusing the provision of reliable sources (which is the benchmark for information here, by the way) with an argument from authority. If I was saying "I'm right and your wrong, because I'm an expert and your not" then you would have a point. What I am saying is "I'm right, because these experts have evidence to prove it and here are the reliable sources that say so". If anything you are the one making the argument from authority, essentially: "my opinion is as important and therefore deserves to be heard, irrespective of a complete lack of evidence for it." Rockpocket 08:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I do wish you wouldn't split your evidence arguments in three different places, as you have. The proper place for the discussion of the evidence is on the Ref Desk, while the proper place for discussions of process is on the Ref Desk talk page (but not under unrelated items), and personal attacks don't really belong anywhere. I've responded to your latest statements, where you made most of them, on the Ref Desk talk page. Those peer reviewed journals appear to admit they are engaging in speculation, with language such as "...it is feasible that..." and "...one possible outcome being...". This is hardly conclusive evidence. So your statement that peer reviewed journals don't publish speculation is demonstrated to be untrue. Also, I recall a case where a total nonsense article was submitted and published as a hoax, to demonstrate the lack of oversight demonstrated by some such journals. Such journals also largely reflect the prejudices of the time, as with psychology journals representing homosexuality as a mental disease in the past. I'm not saying we shouldn't use peer-reviewed journals as sources, just that what they say shouldn't be accepted as fact, but should be viewed as critically as any other source. Frizzy hair, like curly hair, doesn't lie flat, and thus provides some protection from heat. Hair color and skin color are not interchangeable, as most people with white skin lack blond hair. It's not an argument from authority to say that everyone should be heard, and what they say should be judged on the weight of the evidence. Your rather weak evidence isn't much better than no evidence at all, so shouldn't be taken much more seriously. You also seem to have neglected to respond to several of my points, such as items 6 and 7. StuRat 16:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You clearly have no idea whatsoever how the scientific process works, nor do you have any clue what analysis they did, nor what their conclusions mean. You are basing your arguments on the quotes I've pulled out for you, not the weight of evidence in the paper. That you can't be bothered, or are unable to comprehend the evidence is just another reason why you should refrain from arguing about what you don't understand. You make wild statements like "Frizzy hair, like curly hair, doesn't lie flat, and thus provides some protection from heat" without any sources whatsoever, then when expert evidence (which you obviously don't understand) is provided to counter your claims you retort with "Your rather weak evidence isn't much better than no evidence at all". Its pathetic, it really is. Its patently obvious that your purpose at the Ref Desk is simply to massage your ego rather than provide accurate information. Clearly you prefer to debate rather than inform, which would be fine if your position had any inherently useful information. But you know what they say, you can't polish a turd.

Your arguments are akin to spin doctoring: "Scientists only find no evidence to completely disprove that global warming is a natural occurance therefore they can not be absolutely sure it is influenced by man and therefore both theories are equally likely". Trying to cast aspersions on the bias of academic journals is even more laughable. FYI scientists use cautious terms because it is impossible to demonstrate anything unequivocally in evolutionary genetics. What they do is study the evidence and make conclusions based on that on the principles of parsimony and likelihood. If you think your theories based your high-school understanding of genetics with no supporting evidence whatsoever have anything near the validity of that of published experts based on data analysis, then you are delusional as well as egotistical. "It's not an argument from authority to say that everyone should be heard"? You are confusing a Ref Desk with a discussion forum. But, of course, you seem to think the Ref desk is a discussion forum.

You and your coterie of syphocants on the Ref Desk will bring about your own downfall. Your agitating already got Light Current blocked and Loomis won't be too far behind. Eventually someone will block you too. Until then, you are welcome to it. Rockpocket 20:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You're just getting abusive again, attacking me instead of my arguments. I think it's time to give up on you ever treating everyone with respect. I will file you away as another academic elitist with contempt for everybody else. Fortunately, such people are not the majority on Wikipedia, nor do I believe they ever will be. I also question your competence when you say things like "hair color and skin color are interchangeable". I accept that you have submitted rather strong evidence that some scientists have made the same speculation as you did. However, what you've presented so far is rather weak evidence that their speculation is actually correct, as you've admitted yourself, so there's no need for me to prove it. StuRat 20:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Rat

Dear Mr. Rat,

Please read this very slowly just in case you miss out on what I'm saying. :-)

Seriously, I just wanted to send you a note telling you how relieved I am that there'll always be a few sensible people here with the capacity to see through all the bullshit being tossed around.

I really couldn't care less if Friday doesn't think I have much to contribute, and that I should probably leave. I'm here to stay.

Incidentally, don't you find it fascinating that in discussing my supposed personal attacks upon others, remarks such as "Loomis has nothing of value to contribute and should probably move on" go completely unnoticed? Nooo! That couldn't possibly be a personal attack in and of itself of course! I'd actually be deeply offended at such a statement were the whole thing not so ridiculously absurd.

The irony of it all couldn't be any funnier, if you ask me. Some close runners-up I suppose would be Friday's continuous debating as to how there's no place for debate at Wikipedia. Apparently his argument is that any form of argument should be forbidden. His POV is that Wikipedia should be completely NPOV.

Then there was that whole exchange between Clio and Froth which basically consisted of: "Froth, your personal attacks upon me are completely unacceptable, you intellectually impoverished nerdy wanker!"

Anyway, rest assured that I find all the crap going on about me far too amusing to be taken seriously.

Of course, Mr. Rat, I realize that as you're but another intellectually-impoverished-misogynistic-character-assasinating-witch-hunting-nerdy-wanker, it's surely beyond your intellectual capacity to understand this note first time around. I'd therefore suggest you read this note over several dozen times in order for you to possibly grasp it's brilliance. :--)

Take care, Stu.

Lewis Loomis 20:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Lewis. Clio must be British, as pretending to be polite while actually making vicious personal attacks is a very British thing. I seem to recall this comedy routine set in the British House of Lords:

"I thank the madam chairwoman, for her comments, and would like to suggest, in turn, that she take this opportunity to sit on a long, sharpened stick."

"While I choose not to avail myself of that suggestion at this time, I would like to suggest, on my part, that the gentleman from Coventry take a longish walk upon a rather short jetty." StuRat 04:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you cant suggest that Stu! Thats one of the things they used to block me! 8-(

Thanks for the advice, I will use that candle of wisdom to light my way through the current storm. :-) StuRat 03:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Friday's Posts are utterly moronic, yet I'm sure he's an amazingly intelligent guy!

Hey Stu,

I have to apologize to you for my lukewarm response when you asked for my support a while ago, concerning something to do with Friday. In my defense though, and as I told you at the time, I hadn't ever really ran into him and hadn't ever known how idiotic he his posts can be. Had I known at the time I'd surely have thrown my entire support behind you.

Anyway, as a gesture of apology, I'll leave for your entertainment the following most idiotic of posts left at my talkpage. Of course the post must be some sort of practical joke, as there's no way such a brilliant person as Friday could actually have been serious in writing it:

"Replying here in order to not clutter up the ref desk talk page. My opinions on the usefulness of your contributions have nothing to do with you making personal attacks- they have to do with the type of thing you're doing right here. To me this looks like you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. This sort of contribution is not useful. Also, a comment on the quality of your contributions is not personal- personal would be if I were commenting on you as a person, not talking about your edits. Wikipedia is not for flame wars. Friday (talk) 14:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)"

Hmmmmmm..."a comment on the quality of your contributions is not personal"...interesting. If that's the case I suppose it would be safe for me to say that Friday's posts aren't worth a pinch of shit. Nothing personal, of course!

Loomis 00:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Lewis

I agree that, while saying "I disagree with this particular response because..." is fine, when you take it to the point of saying "None of your posts are very good", that's getting personal. First, it's a generalization, and they would have to read all of your posts to be able to say that. Second, it is implying that there is something wrong with the person, if they can't make any good contributions. I suppose the quality of a person's contributions must be discussed when considering blocks, etc., but to say something like that to a person not under some investigation serves no purpose other than to inflame the situation. StuRat 00:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

"General advice" on the Reference Desk

I think the "general advice" you provided to the "Plea Bargain Gone Bad (3.7, March 29)" query, would have been more appropriately worded had it not been couched as your personal opinion. There are other, more objective ways to present the possibility that serving time in prison may have a corrective effect (note links to pertinent pages), rather than "Prison time might be just what they need." On the other hand, your remark that "you should keep him away from that bad influence [i.e. his brother] in any way you can" is irresponsible and presumptuous, and writing that "it might be time to give up on him" [i.e. the OP's recidivist son], is that and worse. It's my belief that such remarks degrade the reputable nature of the Reference Desk as a source of information (and I will ask about this on the Discussion forum there). The RD policy of not providing legal or medical advice is clear; exercising good judgment (and good taste) is the responsibility of all respondents, at their discretion. That response of yours, however well meant, is grossly lacking that latter quality. You might consider amending it yourself, if you see fit, besides the sort of disclaimer JackofOz subsequently added. -- Deborahjay 20:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you really think that a 21 year old, with a long criminal record, who is now getting his little brother involved in crime, and even testifies against him so he can get leniency, is a good influence on his little brother ? StuRat 20:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You needn't ask for my opinion on this matter, because that's beside the point. Whether or not I agree with this question you've posed here, makes no difference to what I suggested above: It would have been possible, appropriate, and better had you restricted your remarks, in the context of a Ref Desk response, to providing helpful information free of judgmental wording. -- Deborahjay 20:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Since answering her question would require giving legal advice, there was no way to provide helpful info within Wikipedia's strict rules. Also, the following responder suggested that her sons should get jobs in the Mafia. I certainly don't think my advice (to try to save her youngest son while she still can) is bad, especially when compared with a comment like that. StuRat 21:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If you'll re-read that response in full, you'll find it isn't "suggested that [the OP's] sons should get jobs in the Mafia," as you say. It related to the putative hiring by the CIA of criminals, which covert wording implies the respondant's take on how that agency (and by extension, the Mafia) operates (which may be true, or an ironic remark). And I did show you a way (above) to "provide helpful advice" on the opening point you made (re: prison and correction). I don't doubt your good intentions, but those do not justify making speculative remarks in response to a Ref Desk query. -- Deborahjay 21:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is a better link (directly to the section in question): WP:RD/H#Plea Bargain Gone Bad. I found "With a CIA career now out of the question the Mafia may still be hiring" to be a response which would neither be appreciated by the OP nor helpful to them. StuRat 21:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

From the Reference desk

Actually, Wikipedia has gold collar, but it is spelled "gold-collar."

I see. In that case, a redirect would be in order, which I've now added. StuRat 03:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/StuRat 3

Since I believe there's consensus that certain aspects of your editing are problematic, and you do not, I am seeking broader community input on this issue. Friday (talk) 16:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Enough already, please stop this endless crusade of yours. StuRat 16:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

If you see it as a crusade, it's already off track. Two different editors have suggested that mediation might be useful. Would you be willing to give this a shot? One reason for this is- when we're not disagreeing on certain things, it seems like we're able to work together peaceably at the ref desk. We should not let any conflict we may have clog up the working of the ref desk- I assume we can both agree on this. One thing we'd need to do is find mediator(s) who we both consider acceptable. Anyway, if you're willing to try this, let me know. Friday (talk) 01:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that conflict is pointless. I am willing to consider mediation, but I'm not really that familiar with it, do you have somewhere that I can read up on it ? Is your offer to do this instead of your latest RFC on me ? StuRat 02:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The RFC has already shown itself not useful, so I've deleted it. By mediation I just meant we'd try to find a neutral third party to help get us on the same page. We can agree to disagree on several things, but the (in my view) disruptive editing is not something I'll gladly stand by for. We need to resolve this. Friday (talk) 03:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that disruptive editing should not be allowed, but I apparently have a very different idea of what that is than you do. What I want to know about arbitration is whether it is "binding". That is, if the arbitrator says something like "leave the Ref Desk", are we then forced to do so ? StuRat 03:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

To clarify: if you say "arbitrator" people might think you mean the arbitration committee which is an "official body" and the last step in dispute resolution. This is completely separate from the kind of informal mediation I'm talking about. But the word "arbitrator" in the generic sense is the sort of things I'm talking about. Anyway, the kind of informal mediation I'm talking can't be binding- there's no way to make it so. All we can do with it is enter into in a good faith effort to resolve the disagreement. RFC is supposed to be this way, but people see it as a stick to beat people with, instead. So, sadly, that's how it sometimes turns out. If we want someone to mediate, maybe we could ask someone to help out. Altho, if you're game, there's no reason to wait on a mediator to move forward with the process, either. I've taken a fresh stab at this issue at User:Friday/samepage. I've tried to explain what I see as the central important point of the dispute. Friday (talk) 04:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have responded there. If we can keep the conversation civil (no accusing each other of "disruption" and threatening blocks, please), perhaps we can make some progress. I think we should keep the conversation just between us, though, as the input from more radical individuals won't help things at all. StuRat 06:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

There is formal mediation, see Wikipedia:Mediation, and information mediation, see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. I don't know if Friday is talking about either of these or something else. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, I didn't mean either of those, I just meant finding neutral third parties to help out. I'm not very familiar with either of those groups or what they do. But between the two the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal sound much closer to what I was talking about. Friday (talk) 04:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Trying to help

StuRat - I have asked Friday to reconsider his latest RfC. In the meantime you could perhaps assist matters by adopting a slightly lower profile for a while. Just trying to help ! Gandalf61 21:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Friday does seem to be using repeated RFCs to harass me, but I'm not sure that hiding when he/she does this would be the best approach, as this might only serve to encourage such behavior. I will, as always, avoid engaging in disruptive behavior, however. StuRat 22:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of instructables web site page

I created the instructables web page with notables from Time, etc. and it was deleted without trace. Can you help me revert the deletion and find out what is going on? Thanks. Nebraska bob 03:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is the deletion log: [6].

Here is the deleted article: [7].

I can't revert the deletion, though, as I am not an Admin, and only they can do that. Instead, I suggest you copy the deleted article to User:Nebraska bob/Instructables, and "perfect it" there before trying to make it into an article. I can do the copy for you, if you like. StuRat 03:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks StuRat. I found the problem. Althouth the first two users who deleted the empty article within minutes of its creation left it alone after the content was added. Two other users, one who has a record of vandalism and the other quite surprizingly concerned about the wikipedia not being an index for websites despite other articles about website including this one being listed in Category:How-to websites Category:educational websites. Since it is likely his concern was the title of the article I dropped the "web site" suffix and created it as simply Instructables where the other user had deleted the redirect and replaced it with a redirect to his user page. Since I still had the original copy as a doc file I posted it to a sandbox as you suggested, made a few changes and move it to the Instructables page. Thanks for your help. It looks like a site you might be interested in. I have certainly found some detailed help there on projects I could not get that level of detail elsewhere from: brain surgery and disarming explosives (just kidding). Thanks. Nebraska bob 08:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'll definitely take a look at that site. StuRat 08:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Please don't stir up trouble

This comment of yours serves no constructive purpose that I can see. It looks like you're just picking on whoever disagrees with you. It's fine to disagree, but please explain your disagreement like a mature adult. We have enough trouble keeping things on track without you fanning the flames. Friday (talk) 16:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You only attacking statements by inclusionists while completely ignoring far worse comments from deletionists, is what serves no constructive purpose. I suggest you learn how to be objective in your criticisms of others. StuRat 20:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

This reminds me of when I was trying to convince you that it's unhelpful to divide editors up into warring factions. Your response was essentially "But, look at all the horrible things the other side is doing!" Oh well, I tried. Friday (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop it with the 'deletionist' namecalling, already. My objective opinion is that Friday is absolutely correct here—your statement was well over the line into personal attack and petty bickering territory. Your comments on that entire thread have been growing increasingly incivil, particularly the parts where you assume that individuals who don't contribute to the Ref Desk on a daily basis aren't capable of understanding your arguments or participating productively in a discussion. You need to take a step back, and think about whether you're more interested in bickering with Friday or improving the Desk. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Now wait a second here. What about the following statement:

• "StuRat's stated claims here reveal such distorted understanding, based on abysmally inadequate reading comprehension, as well may raise further alarm as to the fitness of that user to respond in the Reference Desks at all... Deborahjay 19:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)"

Why is no objection raised when someone says something like that about me ? If you want me to take criticism seriously, it needs to be even-handed, and not ignore insults aimed at me or fellow inclusionists. StuRat 21:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, it's a bit misleading to change your statement ([8]) encouraging Friday to seek my opinion after you discover that I agree with his assessment of your remark. It makes it look like I'm butting in uninvited.

My statement was that Friday should try to be even-handed in criticisms of those who agree and disagree with him/her, and not only attack those who disagree with him/her. I thought you could help in that regard, but I was apparently mistaken, if you think that comment by Deborahjay is just fine, because it's aimed at an inclusionist. StuRat 21:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I also stand by my assessment, which was that "your comments on that entire thread have been growing increasingly incivil..." (emphasis added). I see you've resumed your petty namecalling, with a return to goading other editors with your 'deletionist' slur [9]. I'll be taking a leaf from Rockpocket's book and have no further part of discussion with you as long as you continue to be rude. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The term "deletionist" was discussed on the second RFC Friday filed against me (actually, he just endorsed the first one), and I saw no consensus that it was rude or should be discontinued. StuRat 21:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Good Burger

An anon has a long history of adding "when will Good Burger 2" come out? "What city is Good Burger 2 being filmed in?" "Who will star in Good Burger 2" The questions have been deleted for over two years now. Corvus cornix 21:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I see. I wish you had said that all in the edit summary, then I wouldn't have reverted. StuRat 00:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. It just used to happen so often. It doesn't seem to have come up much lately. Corvus cornix 16:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No prob. StuRat 16:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Loose stool

Hi StuRat; I reverted your re-addition of the comment, because I felt it wasn't as harmless as just diet advice. My edit summary covers my position; there is no way to know that loose stool after a change in diet is harmless, and it's irresponsible for an editor to advise someone to continue despite it. I didn't make the choice lightly, and I hope my reasons are compelling to you. Anchoress 04:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree. A change in the consistency of stool is a normal side-effect of any major diet change. StuRat 05:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it's also a side-effect of a lot of more serious things. The diarrhea could be a sign of food allergy, or spoilage or a pathogen. Anchoress 07:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

If they have just changed their diet, that's the most likely explanation for a temporary case of diarrhea. Of course, if it persists, then that's another story. StuRat 12:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Out of courtesy...

...could you please not poke fun at querent's typos on the Ref Desk [10]? Thanks. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't poking fun at the OP, but rather all the "low altitude pains" I've met at Wikipedia. StuRat 17:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)