Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 29

message: Seems to have gone missing as well--VectorPotentialTalk 16:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2007 April 7]] 

message: This question was removed from the Entertainment Desk as "trolling": .  I saw absolutely no evidence that it's trolling.  It appears to be somebody asking if a sequel to Good Burger is expected and, if so, who will be in it.  I therefore reverted the unilateral deletion. StuRat 20:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm guessing it was seen as trolling due to the hoax contents of the repeatedly-deleted former article Good Burger 2 which was deleted yet again just today.  Friday (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, if the same I/P was used to create that article as the Ref Desk question.  If so, I would have expected that to be mentioned in the deletion edit summary, however. StuRat 21:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Did you ask the editor who removed the content why he did so? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be a good idea.  In cases where I think someone might have more information than me, I usually ask for clarification before reverting.  Friday (talk) 21:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was also a long spate of questions relating to Good Burger 2 a few months (6 months?) ago.  The questioner would ask and re-ask the same questions on almost a daily basis.  Dismas|(talk) 21:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But do we know this is the same person ? StuRat 01:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Burger 2 

message: The entertainment desk (11th) has been archived (on the 13th) - is this really necessary to archive so soon - given that "an answer may take up to a week to develope" this is just madness. Surely some mistake?87.102.84.170 16:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ok - if for the benefit of people on 'dial up' - I knew there must be a reason. thanks.87.102.84.170 17:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also note that, since there is only one copy, seen in two places (not two copies), any change is immediately seen in both places. StuRat 17:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I myself have an issue with this because a question that I asked on the 10th got only one (non-constructive) answer and has already been archived. What's going on here? - AMP'd 02:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We're finally moving toward our goal, which is to archive the future before it happens. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The 10th hasn't been archived yet, on any of the boards, so people are still free to respond to it Ok, so apparently it has been archived on most of the desks, people are still free to respond on the archive pages, and you can always repost the question--VectorPotentialTalk 12:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as getting an answer, it doesn't much matter if the question is in the archives, so long as remains transcluded on the main Ref Desk.  Once the transclusion is dropped, however, further answers are unlikely. StuRat 15:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: archiving

message: I'm leaving this notice here both because I know it will be read by the individual in question, and as prior justification for future action to those who are concerned by such things. This type of question is barely tolerable at the best of times. It is not acceptable, however, when the OP is a banned user whose obvious presence here, despite their ban, is tolerated only by the good will of the Ref Desk community. If these types of unconstructive contributions    continue I will begin to revert every single edit on sight per WP:BAN. Please do not reply, as your comments are likely to be reverted and the IP blocked, instead take note and act accordingly. Thank you. Rockpocket 02:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're talking about Light current, one possible means of persuading him to cut it out is to hold his current account(s) responsible for edits made anonymously.  I have no problem with his attempted useful edits, but if he thinks we must "take the bad with the good", he's much mistaken.  Friday (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shampoo 

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

text: I thought it referred to the last trolling question about the catholic church or the last shampoo question, neither of which could be construed as requests for information. I actually wrote an answer to the homosexuality/polygamy question but lost it in an edit conflict. That question at least did not seem like obvious trolling to me. The first quote that I was planning to put was the "Kill them all. God will sort them out." quote (in reference to the questions, not people) but decided we should try to be a bit more discriminating than that. Surely you see that some of the questions here are not requests for information, but attempts to provoke disagreement or soapboxing? alteripse 23:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some questions may indeed be attempts to provoke disagreement or soapboxing. Most often I find they can be answered without acceding to the assumed agenda of the OP. I like to think I'm spoiling their day by not rising to the bait. --Tagishsimon (talk)
Y'all should stop feeding obvious trolls.—eric 00:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, so I'm a bit out of step here. Which question did you shoot on sight? alteripse 01:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe we are talking about this unilateral deletion: . StuRat 01:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh. I shouldn't shoot from the hip when I haven't been paying as much attention around here lately.  alteripse 01:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Stu, please take a look at 's contributions. Also, i was not the first editor to delete this particular question.—eric 01:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the talk page says all you need to know... Nil Einne 00:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I was one of the ones which deleted that. One of the reasons was because this editor quite clearly came here with an agenda as shown by the original variant . While the later versions were better phrased, I personally felt enough was enough, especially with the way that he or she continued to add it without discussing first (and was eventually blocked for) Nil Einne 23:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please let me ask my question

message: Where do most of the clueless questioneers come from? If we could maybe stop some sites from redirecting questions to us we could probably stop really stupid questions from appearing. - AMP'd 02:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't aware that other sites redirect people to us.  But that's a good thing, imo.  It shows we have achieved a good standing and reputation.  We're always going to get dumb questions.  We have to learn how to deal with them.  JackofOz 05:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If we give boring answers, some folks will decide that trying to stir up trouble on the ref desk isn't much fun, so maybe they'll go away.  Friday (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify, you mean boring but useful, I assume. David D. (Talk) 14:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  Friday (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I can be very good at being boring. At least some of my students tell me this is so. ;) David D. (Talk) 14:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On a good day I can put not only students, but myself to sleep with pedantry. Edison 07:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An idea 

message: Proposal for guidelinesWe are currently drafting a proposal for guidelines at Wikipedia:Reference desk/guidelines.Get involved! Discuss the proposed guidelines, propose your own and help us reach consensus on the associated talk page, Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/guidelines.
Does it have to be purple? --VectorPotentialTalk 15:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, that is bright! Certainly no one will miss that one. One probelm with this colour is that the contrast on the link words is poor.  Especially when the link is highlight by the browser history in a similar purple. David D. (Talk) 15:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've lightened the purple to #F0C0F0 from #F090F0.  Is that better? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is better on my monitor. David D. (Talk) 16:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks good to me ! StuRat 16:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

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

message: ::(Miscellaneous/2007 March 29)
::(Miscellaneous/2007 March 30)
::(Miscellaneous/2007 March 31)
::(Miscellaneous/2007 April 1)
As of today, the only desk still not archived from the end of March is the Miscellaneous desk, if someone could go through and restore the missing days, I'll go through and add the missing navigation templates--VectorPotentialTalk 14:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By you?  I think you do amazing work here, VP, and I for one really appreciate you.  Clio the Muse 14:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. Barnstar in the oven. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then there's the "in the oven" barnstar, given out to pregnant Wikipedians: "Congrats, you finally managed to get yourself knocked up !". :-) StuRat 03:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miscellaneous & and the end of March 

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

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

message: Who removed the guidelines templates from the top of the Ref Desk pages, and why ? StuRat 06:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this a rhetorical question?  In case not you can use the history function to see all recent edits. And why? This may help you. David D. (Talk) 20:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since nobody has given a reason why the invitation was rescinded for Ref Desk users to participate in writing the Ref Desk guidelines, I have restored the offer. StuRat 21:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thought the banner was removed because the page was changed from a proposal to a guideline proper. I don't care either way but I guess at some point, when the guidelines are stable enough, the banner should be removed again. Rockpocket 21:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What ?!? When did this happen ?  I didn't see any discussion or agreement that the guidelines had been finalized, or even notice for that matter.  I was still discussing issues on the talk page, for God's sake, and many issues were still "open". StuRat 23:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I refer you to David D's helpful advice above. That History tab hides all sorts of goodies. Rockpocket 01:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who chose green for the restored templates' background color? Though I personally like green a lot, and think it gets neglected far too often at Wikipedia, this shade wasn't selected by consensus. As a matter of principle, the green should be reverted back to fuchsia. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was trying to find a color that showed the black text, blue link, dark blue previously selected link, and red border all clearly.  I think it does.  If you don't like it, feel free to change it, though. StuRat 03:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: K, nuff faux-naïveté Stu. Sorry, I was poking fun at your ratty incisors and pulling your rodent leg. Psychologically, green was a good choice. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose that depends on if green means "go" to you or just means the bread has gone moldy. :-) StuRat 07:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope no one minds, but I've changed them back to their original maroon and white color scheme--VectorPotentialTalk 21:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The color change was for a reason, to grab the attention of Ref Desk readers and hopefully get them to participate in the Ref Desk guidelines discussion.  Without that color, it just blends in with all the permanent stuff at the top of each page.  So, I'm going to put the color back in. StuRat 05:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who removed the guidelines templates ? 

message: A request posted in February: Could an administrator add the Russian interwiki-link to WP:RD (protected). The link to be added is:(ru:Википедия:Форум/Справочное бюро). Thanks in advance. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Rockpocket 02:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  !! ---Sluzzelin talk 11:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian interwiki