Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 28

message: I removed this trolling. - AMP'd 02:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm, yeah, it's not April 1st in my time zone yet. I have apologized to the OP. - AMP'd 02:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trolling removed from misc. desk 

message: We seem to be getting a lot of reasked questions today, at least in the misc desk. Is this an April Fool? Skittle 09:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have anything particular in mind?  I have to say there is one anonymous user whose questioning seems to me to be a cover for a rather persistent agenda.  I do not think this has anything at all to do with 1 April.  Clio the Muse 09:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was kind of thinking of 'That stuff from your nose', 'Tattoos' and 'Catholics- not really christians?'. I thought there might be others I'd missed, since this seemed like a bit of a coincidence, and I wanted to check before I wasted time taking people seriously.... :-) Skittle 09:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had the latter in mind.  This theme usually appears, sometimes in variations, on the Humanities Desk.  I do not know about the others.  I personally could read no further than the title of your first example!  Clio the Muse 10:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  April Fools Day 

message: The following User:Dreftymac/Scratchpad001 was posted as an attempt at holiday-appropriate humor. Someone removed it though, which I can't justifiably complain against. If anyone's curious, it simply consists of computer-generated samples generated from legitimate RefDesk answers by various contributors within the last ~24 hours. Hope no one is offended, it's all offered in good humor and respect toward the various contributors. Cheers! dr.ef.tymac 16:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it from the Humanities RD, with an explanatory message on Dreftymac's talk page, to which he responded very politely. I felt that in the light of the current debate about behaviour on the RDs, this contribution, although intended to be humorous, could have been seen as a bit ... ummm ... incendiary. Gandalf61 16:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Answered it would have I, never or today.  Me O'TheClues, also known as Clio the Muse 18:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Hey, come on, someone may have had a good answer for that one! This reminds me of the time I only wanted to know how I shot web and these jerks wouldn't help.  If only Wikipedia had a tradition of ignoring the rules when they get in the way! Friday (talk) 18:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rules, Friday, what rules?  Surely this is all just a free for all, and if I say the moon is made in part of Camembert (I'm not quite sure which part, possibly the core) and Elephants bury their dead by eating their bones you would really have to prove me wrong.  And we could, of course, debate these questions at endless and tedious length, since both of us insist on having the last word, and really I think there is at least one more angel than you do dancing on the head of a pin.  Clio the Muse 18:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can't produce a reliable source to confirm the existence of a pin head, I see no reason to believe you.  I'm quite familiar with angels so you must bow down to my superior expertise.  Friday (talk) 18:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Friday, Friday, you know I am always right, and your pointless request for sources only serves to undermine my integrity.  This encyclopedia has only one point of departure, and it moons above the onstreaming always in Uqbar.  Clio the Muse 19:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  April Fools Day Removal 

message: How much space do the adventure files take up each on the Donkey Kong 64 game cartridge?--Mathsexpressions 21:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This question belongs on the Computer Ref Desk, not on the Ref Desk talk page. StuRat 16:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back-Up Memory on DK64 

message: For anyone who doesn't know, on Wikipedia we achieve neutral point of view not by making sure the opinions of all editors are represented, but rather by making sure that significant viewpoints as described in reliable sources are presented fairly.  This is a perhaps subtle, but very important distinction.  The opinion of some well-known commentator may well be appropriate for inclusion, but my own opinion is not.  Friday (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Saying that only the opinions of "well-known commentators" are worthy of inclusion is an argument from authority and assuming that all policies made for Wikipedia articles, like this one, apply directly to the Ref Desk, without alteration, is unreasonable. StuRat 18:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Five pillars. Friday (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: (After unnoticed e.c.) Particularly agree on Friday's last sentence. It may be worth thinking about how to present the references "fairly". Adding contradicting or controversial references, even in the case of extreme fringe-views, can enrich the answer's scope, much to the reader's benefit. How do we weight the references? Do we ourselves comment on the reliability or bias of sources? Do we comment on the quality or scope of wiki-linked articles? When qualifying external sources, do these comments have to be referenced as well? (In the form of criticisms, scientific or other, by notable people, organizations and so forth). ---Sluzzelin talk 18:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ideally, I think we'd present arguments approximately in proportion to how accepted they are (this works pretty well in article space.)  Someone asking about "How could the WTC have collapsed on 911?" could be directed to September 11, 2001 attacks as well as 9/11 conspiracy theories.  Someone asking about the solar system should not be told that the Earth is supported by a stack of turtles, even if this is the honest opinion of a ref desk responder.  Basically we should remember that we're trying to be a useful information resources- this needs to take precedence over our desire to spout off about our own opinions.  Friday (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About NPOV  

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — ✉Hello World! 14:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:{{ucfirst:Cyrillic alphabet}}