Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 22

message: Sometimes our questioners, even if well-intentioned, can be rather inarticulate.  In such a case I think it is our duty to try to intuit their psychology a bit, rather than just going off on tangents for the sake of intellectual exercise (which can also be fun, of course).  We should remember that the question someone needs answered isn't always the one they're asking. For the question that prompted this bit of wisdom, see Humanities#Population Vs. Ethnicity.--Pharos 08:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inarticulate questions 

message: :::LINK for anyone who doesn't know where to look Anchoress 20:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, my opinion is that the response from Loomis is definitely uncivil and possibly a personal attack. If you were to remove his response on these grounds, I wouldn't disagree. Alternatively, you could maybe ask him to remove the response himself, or he could perhaps re-phrase it in more polite terms. Gandalf61 10:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the reply is uncivil towards you, then you shouldn't remove it, since that makes it look like you removed it "to get even". StuRat 13:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have said on past occasions, I personally will remove nothing, no matter how distasteful I find it, and no matter how personal in tone.  I simply had to flag this particular example up for the attention of the community as a whole, because of the questions it raises about etiquette and appropriate usage.  Think of all the casual users who will come across this, and think about the questions raised in their minds.  The abuse itself, savage and incoherent as it is, makes me sad, rather than angry. Clio the Muse 19:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Loomis has been asked repeatedly to stop this behavior. Since he is either unwilling or unable to do so, i suggest that he no longer take part in any questions which Clio has responded to. If there is agreement here we can post on AN/I and ask uninvolved admins to enforce this measure.—eric 15:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd support that, should the behaviour continue. That is uncalled-for and quite frankly appalling. Natgoo 20:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: For what it's worth, I've added my comments to the Baskets and Bombs discussion, under the Edit summary: "Criticism of Israeli policies is not antisemitic".  - Hope this helps, Deborahjay 01:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Having come across this thread rather belatedly, I post these thoughts so that my contrary opinion is recorded for future reference. I agree that Loomis’s reply was loud and offensive. Never the less, I question the sincerity of a post that predicts its result (“in full expectation that the following argument is likely to elicit a venomous response”), leading to a complaint about what is plainly stated as the expected result. That seems pretty close to trolling, in the sense of deliberately provoking a flaming response. The reference on this page to a Nazi propagandist could be used to support such a conclusion. I oppose Eric’s suggestion as not taking into acount the nuances of the issue. --Seejyb 18:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural Warrior 

message: On the front WP:RD page, the description for the Archives as it stands is
Questions are archived regularly. Feel free to cut & paste from the archives if you would like further discussion.
I changed it (diff) to
Reference Desk questions are archived daily
with the reasoning that "how to ask & answer" related questions should go in that section, not in the description of the Archives (i.e. OPs shouldn't start recieving instructions on how to ask until they've actually chosen a desk). The archival information is available in the right column of "How to ask" as well as at the top of the archives page. Also I don't think that "if you would like further discussion" would make sense to a user.. it's not clear that they should copy from the archives only if their question was archived before it was adequately answered.
User:Jones2 reverted my change and requested that I bring it up here. I've just put my version back up and request comments. 
If you have a problem with the copy-and-paste idea itself (it wasn't my idea!) put it under a separate heading --⁪frothT C 19:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RD archive caption 

message: This page is now 364 kb long. Should part of it be archived pretty soon?--Light current 00:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems that somebody archived it in Archive 20 but never removed the content from the WT page --⁪frothT C 02:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, and it seems that Froth and I were both edit conflicting each other, me with archive 20  and Froth with archive 21.  :-)  --hydnjo talk 02:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah that would be it. It did seem that something strange was going on. I think I cleaned everything up --⁪frothT C 02:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Note to Froth: I was loading archive 20 prior to cutting it from this page (just in case). Happened that you and I were on the "same page".  :-)  --hydnjo talk 02:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page size and archiving 

message: I removed this Q and A session. --Light current 02:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...Is this even meant to be a serious question? --`/aksha 01:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I very much doubt it, but my money is on the steel octo-bear, man fungus would be squishy. Vespine 01:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: What part of 'the concept' are you having trouble with? In the "X vs Y" speculations, experts tend to agree that the biggest factor is size; the larger combatant will win in a one-on-one fight. Which of your two combatants is the larger? Try reading up on Animal Face-Off, or check THIS GOOGLE SEARCH for more information. Anchoress 01:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if this isnt a question for immediate deletion (on the grounds of asking for opinions) I dont know what is!! I propose speedy deletion. Can I have a seconder? 8-(--Light current 01:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got a second for you. --Kainaw (talk) 01:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK watch it go!!!--Light current 01:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinion seeking Q removed to here 

message: If we didnt have this talk page, how many arguments between RD editors and critics would there be? More or fewer 8-)--Light current 05:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who's a critic?  We're all just editors.  Friday (talk) 05:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah but some editors are critical of other editors , are they not?--Light current 05:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Editing is a collaborative process- we work together to help the project.  This means criticism needs to be involved, yes. Friday (talk) 05:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Im talking needless arguments like on this page --Light current 05:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Healthy debate is never needless since it helps us define and refine our postions. So a certain amount os sparring is inevitable to get closer to a any kind of compromise. Off topic does not help for sure. David D. (Talk) 06:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd call needless argument that new sturat RFC. But as for this page, I'm going to have to go with healthy debate as long as wikistress doesn't get too bad --⁪frothT 06:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Pleas do not make such accusations. You are being offensive (again) (WP:CIV--Light current 18:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a thought 

message: As soon as I saw Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#.50_BMG_to_the_head it seemed trollish to me.  However I tried a new strategy, by responding in a no-nonsense way rather than removing it.  Looking at how it went after that, maybe it should have been removed instead.  If people would take the hint and not feed the trolls, removal wouldn't matter, but if people are taking the bait, that's another matter.  Of the responders, I thought Rmhermen did the right thing, but V-Man737 is just handing out troll food.  Thoughts? Friday (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I'm strongly in favour of the "play it down" option. Don't give a big reaction like they want, just answer the question as straight as possible (as you did there). This limits the chances that somebody mis-identified as a troll (that's not really trolling) will be "censored" inappropriately. Unfortunately, the downside of this is  that some of the more persistant troll's might just start asking worse and worse questions, trying to see how far they can push the line before somebody finally snaps and gives them the reaction that they're looking for. But at least it avoids the delicate arguements about whether the questioner is really a 39 year old man trolling or an 11 year old girl with lots of questions, and things like that. --Maelwys 16:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Friday - what makes you so certain that the questioner is trolling ? It's a rather ghoulish question, but it could in principle be answered factually and objectively. And, if I understand the .50 BMG article correctly, it is legal to own a weapon that fires this ammunition in most US states - so how do we know this isn't a serious question from a prospective purchaser ? Gandalf61 16:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who says I'm certain?  However between the username and the question, I'd put this one in the "90% likely to be trolling" category.  Or, more accurately, the "let's start a speculative conversation about gory wounds" category, which is hardly encyclopedic. However, as Maelwys smartly points out above, if we take the "play it down" approach, this has the advantage of being a good way to respond, whether or not there were original trollish intentions.  Friday (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you sounded very certain when you said "V-Man737 is just handing out troll food". I don't think we should be so quick to cry "troll" every time we see a strange question on the RDs. After all, if the questioner is serious, they could find it offensive to be labelled a troll - and rightly so. To be compatible with WP:CIV and WP:AGF, I think we should apply a very high standard of proof before we start implying that a questioner is trolling. And this particular question just doesn't get over the bar, as far as I am concerned. Gandalf61 17:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Contibution history of the "not-troll" -> . Clearly, not a troll. Look at all those valuable not-trollish contributions. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Post-hoc rationalisation. Gandalf61 17:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, it's not. Friday obviously knew it was a troll - that he was right is a demonstration of Proof. One wonders what the cost of stopping the troll food is, exactly. What value was gleaned by the extended discussion with this individual? Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  FWIW, the objection of " if the questioner is serious, they could find it offensive to be labelled a troll" is exactly why I responded the way I did, instead of with "Go away, troll" or some similar.  Friday (talk) 17:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: As demonstrated, reference desk responders have demonstrated an inability to identify trolls, and an unwillingness to listen to others who have identified such. Trollish questions are far more likley to get detailed (worthless, unresearched, purely speculative) answers than questions asked seriously that require detailed, valuable, researched unspeculative answers. This is because the reference desks are treated like a chat room. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: That question doesn't seem trollish to be at all, and certainly not 90%. These things are fascinating to young boys! --⁪frothT 18:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Children are welcome to chat about whatever they like on any number of other websites.  They are not welcome to do this at Wikipedia.  Friday (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What? Why should children not be allowed to seek out information on wikipedia? There's no way I'm going to discriminate by age for determining whether a question is valid. The OP was seeking an answer to a specific question, not "chat" and that's exactly what the RD is for. --⁪frothT 19:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought this was obvious, but it's the "chatting about whatever they like" that doesn't belong.  This does not depend on the age of the chatters.  Adults who act like disruptive children are still problems, regardless of their age.  We can't know anything about editors personally and we shouldn't want to- we should let the editing speak for itself.  Friday (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, letting the editing speak for itself, it's not an especially "chatty" thread so far. Mainly factual responses with relevant links. V-Man737 asks a subsidiary question, which Dave6 answers. Not a problem thread so far, but let's see how it develops. Gandalf61 20:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What would it matter how it develops? It's a legitimate question, period. --⁪frothT 03:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: If we focus on providing factual, encyclopedic answers, either by linking to Wikipedia articles or other reliable sources, we can avoid the whole issue.  In short, the reference desk should be a reference desk.  Friday (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So would you like to edit the 'purposes' section of the guidelines to reflect that?--Light current 23:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trolling: remove, ignore, or play it down? 

message: Just why do you think Discussing fights between fictional charactersr is allowable, yet Qs about SOCIAL SCIENCE  are not. Make it good-- this is your last chance to convince me that you do not have completley muddled ideas that are not worth wasting time on.--Light current 15:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm confused.  You ask me never to talk on your talk page, and then you ask me a question you appear to want an answer to.  Oh well, remove this if you'd rather not have it here.  My discussion of the basic issue is where it belongs, on the ref desk talk page.  I linked to it above.  To answer your specific question, there is no answer to that question.  I have never been of the opinion that questions about social sciences are off-limits for the ref desk.  This would be a rather crazy opinion to have.  Not sure where you got this idea.  But, let me say this: I have enough work to do trying to explain my actual opinions.  Please, don't try to get me to spend my time explaining why I don't have opinions that I don't have.  We're all volunteers and our time is limited- let's use it well.  Friday (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fridays Last chance 

message: moved rather than deleted because i'm an Antiremovalist!!!
From Wikipedia:Reference_desk/guidelines#What_the_reference_desk_is_not:  The reference desk is not a place to rehash the debate about Creation, evolution, the Apollo moon landing hoax, or any other kind of controversy.  I think this pretty much says it all.  Friday (talk) 23:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the discussion is perfectly competent for this forum as it is an aspect of evolution and not an argument about evolution itself. 8-|--Light current 00:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why was this removed?  I was trying to discourage people from rehashing debates.  My warning cannot serve this function where it's sitting here, so you're interfering this removal interferes with my attempt to keep the ref desk on topic with this move.  I don't appreciate that.  Friday (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who moved what?--Light current 01:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was removed here.  But it's moot now, per eric below.  Sorry for the confusion- I mistakenly implied it was you who removed it, which isn't correct at all.  My apologies! Friday (talk) 01:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So put it back --⁪frothT 12:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: ...and a second time here.—eric 01:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Metacomments from Misc. desk moved here

message: There's a place called Yahoo! Answers, obviously for people who don't know about Wikipedia's reference desk. - Patricknoddy 7:55am, January 14, 2007
:Taking a look at it meself (I Googled it, XD!), it seems to be like a cross between a Yahoo chatroom (plz tell me u no wut dats l1ke!!!!11) and Wikipedia's reference desk (although much closer to the chatroom). It has much more relaxed atmosphere, in my opinion leading to much less reliable answers. According to a CNN article, "To manage any credibility gap, a Yahoo review team deletes inappropriate answers." Considering that this team doesn't delete requests for medical advice, chatrooms, and trolling, I'd say Wikipedia rawks all. V-Man737 13:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, yahoo answers is highly unreliable. --⁪frothT 19:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yahoo! Answers 

message: This is an issue we've had disagreement over.  Here's an example edit, from an unrelated page, that illustrates this practice pretty well.   If anyone's still arguing that any removals need prior discussion and approval, please understand that what you're arguing for is just not how we generally do things.  This sort of thing shouldn't happen often, true, but it does happen.  You're unlikely to get most editors to change their minds on this.   Friday (talk) 20:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The RD isn't the same as article talk space, which is intended solely for article building. Not picking sides or anything, but this isn't the best argument. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate that circumstances are different on different pages.  However, after months of discussion, I think there are still editors here who automatically oppose any removal of content unless there's been discussion ahead of time.  I was trying to explain, again, that this is not a good position to take. Friday (talk) 20:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Is it abnormal to want tro fuck jo swinson?
My attitude is why waste time discussing a no brainer deletion such as this one. Seriously would anyone here defend such a question?  I would hope not. David D. (Talk) 22:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: No, Friday, you still don't understand.  You can't just make up rules as you go along.  The Reference Desk is not an article and article rules aren't applicable. Sorry.  It's not even in article space.  You're the one who wants to change established Wikipedia practice.  You're also arguing for tradition, which is a logical fallacy.  This is precisely why it's so difficult for the deletionists--they've got some well-meaning but wrong-headed ideas stuck in their brains that they keep regurgitating, unable to see that they don't correspond with reality. -THB 15:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you look at the diff I posted?  Did you see that it was deletion of content from a talk page, not from an article?  The point's been made many times that in some ways, the ref desk is more like a talk page than it is like an article.  It's also different in some ways.  My point is that editors do sometimes just delete off-topic or otherwise unhelpful content, and no prior approval is needed.  I don't see where this statement is at odds with reality.  Friday (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of unhelpful content without prior discussion is generally accepted at Wikipedia 

message: For 'contentious' questions what would people think of placing the answer(s) on the users' own talk page and just a link to that below the question on the RD? If the original question was meant sincerely then the person gets their answer. People could still click the link if they were interested in the answer or wanted to follow up. However, since it is on a user talk page, rather than the high traffic RD, long 'chat sessions' and arguments are discouraged or appear on a page where they don't 'crowd out' the normal function of answering questions. Arguably this could be done for all RD questions, but placing both the answers and links is two edits in place of one and thus probably best reserved for the subset which are currently causing disagreement and disruption. Thoughts? --CBD 00:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not discuss 'contentious' on this page. Please go to WP:Is this a contentious question and vote as to whether this is a contentious question or not. After the appropriate voting period a decision will be announced as to whether this question is 'contentious' or not. An appeal process is being devised so that... Geesh, Sorry CBD but I think that we need less structure, not more.  hydnjo talk 01:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well... I wouldn't really consider this 'more structure'. It's just a matter of responding on a different page... as opposed to the current 'process' of edit-warring back and forth and calling each other names. Or the other proposal above of developing a whole series of 'stop talking' templates for each possible situation - which people can then edit-war back and forth and call each other names over the use of. :] --CBD 09:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When has edit-warring been a problem? It seems to me that we've all been pretty good about avoiding that and are quick to bring issues to the talk page for discussion. If you are referring to the 216.164.x.x episode, three different editors reverting an addition should probably be called a good application of common sense rather than an edit war.—eric 15:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no one replaced them, it doesn't qualify as an edit war, by definition.  However, one problem is when someone deletes a non-trolling question by someone who may have trolled in the past.  The deletionists who do that are no better than vandals. -THB 15:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *THB, just so that I can understand, could you point to an example or two of that particular "one problem": deletion of a non-trolling question because the questioner may have trolled in the past? Thanks,  --hydnjo talk 01:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eek, you don't want an RFC do you? But yeah, disagreement over what material qualifies as a legit question is the problem here, this solution won't help --⁪frothT 18:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *Actually, they have been replaced half a dozen times and then removed again. That's an edit war. --CBD 10:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly THB has issues today. As well as last week. David D. (Talk) 23:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's a sycophant (as in "administrators & their sycophants")? Thanks, --hydnjo talk 01:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its an unwell elephant of course! 8-)--Light current 02:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's when you use nine colons just to indent your message to make it look relevant. sycophant!!!!11eleven111 V-Man737 02:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'scuse me V-Man but I've now used ten colons to properly indent this response and you've used nine colons. So, WTF does that have to do with the question at hand or are you just trying to pull my chain. Also, I have no clue as what you're trying to convey by "11eleven111" ;-)  --hydnjo talk 03:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was my prophetic foresight indicating that I was going to next use eleven colons in my indentations! Okay, actually my sycophants told me. V-Man737 04:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'scuse me again V-Man, I forgot, to ask, does the number of indenting colons have something to do with the degree of sycophancy or did you just make that up so as to appear more clever?  --hydnjo talk 04:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: appear clever?? Baby, I am clever! And yes, thanks to this thread, I am now a thirteenth-degree sycophant. Consider your chain thoroughly pulled. ^_^ V-Man737 04:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In case you're still confused, I'm referring to your comment at WP:RD/M: "There are administrators (and their sycophants) advocating for unilateral control over content on the reference desk. -THB 18:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Not to mention the fact that this would be good motivation for anons to register so that they'll have their own user page (as opposed to sharing one with whoever else uses that IP address). V-Man737 02:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that any solution will only work if everyone agrees to follow it. The 'tagging' solution above would work great... if people were willing to accept the judgement of others as to when a conversation should stop. Given that the recent questions about homosexuality have been reverted back and forth half a dozen times I'm not sure that would happen. I suggested this 'respond on user talk pages' idea as a sort of compromise... those who worry that removing questions unanswered may 'bite' some well-intentioned users would get answers for those questions... and those who think that 'silly' questions turn into long chat fests/joking around or other 'disruption' would be able to move that off the reference desk to a page where it is less likely to happen and shouldn't cause problems even if it did. Lack of attention should discourage 'trolls' and prevent fights over who is or is not a 'troll'. On the 'down' side it would leave the 'potentially improper' questions themselves (not answers) on the RD and potentially suggest that some questions are taken more seriously than others... however, I think both of those things are issues currently too. This doesn't give 'either side' exactly what they want, but I think it would be an improvement if everyone were willing to abide by it. --CBD 10:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a side question, do we take some questions more seriously than others? Sub: should we take some questions more seriously than others? Subsub: what is meant by seriously? V-Man737 11:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate suggestion 

message: The response by THB at WP:RD/M#Watches. Time Always Set At 10:00 10:00 66.41.244.168 17:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That comment of THB's doesn't look too bad to me.  If Wikipedia once had an article on a topic which has come up on the Reference Desk more than once, but if that article doesn't now exist, that's legitimate cause for frustration (and especially given our recent push to try to cite appropriate articles in Reference Desk answers). —Steve Summit (talk) 02:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *Sorry to disagree with you Steve but the comment is out of place on the RD. Perhaps you didn't understand, I have no objection to such a comment (as much as I disagree with it) being posted on this talk page, my disagreement has to do with such commentary being posted on our project page and I stand firm on that position. --hydnjo talk 03:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference desk is a place to answer questions, not a place to discuss how those questions are dealt with.  The latter purpose is what the talk page is for.  Personal attacks and rude labelling makes the situation worse. -- SCZenz 03:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I understand that; my point was just that, all things considered, that particular comment of THB's didn't look, to me, off-topic or offensive enough to raise a stink over.  As someone else was just saying somewhere else on this page, pick your battles. :-) Steve Summit (talk) 01:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know a lot about picking my battles.  I also know that sometimes it's best to draw a line in the sand. -- SCZenz 18:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Project page vs Project talk page

message: I moved the following metadiscussion here: Edison 22:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Garb Wire, I'm afraid you are in the wrong place. Questions about Wikipedia's policies or complaints about the actions of Wikipedia editors should be posted on Wikipedia:Village pump. The Reference Desks are intended to be used for general knowledge questions. Gandalf61 21:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question by Garb Wire about Ref Desk policies moved here from RD Humanities

message: Forgive my lack of insight, but I'm not seeing much WP:POINT between the reversions that are occurring in Misc. Enlighten me! V-Man737 03:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: THB is removing the templates. If s/he does not agree with them why didn't s/he discuss it above? If s/he thinks there is no consensus s/he should explain it above. David D. (Talk) 04:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And what evidence do you have that there was a consensus ? StuRat 06:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey StuRat, you can't have it both ways?  Are you defending deletions from the ref desk or only some deletions?  If you defend this deletion by THB then why can't others delete stuff which has nothing to to with the question? David D. (Talk) 07:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not supporting the template deletion, just asking what evidence you have that there was a consensus.  As always, I would have added a statement afterwards challenging the template usage, something along the order of "the previous template is only the opinion of one individual, while I, and possibly others, disagree". StuRat 08:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rv onRD/M

message: I moved this from the main page as it does not adress the question at all:
I haven't been at this desk for a while, but I find it hard to believe this "debate" has been rehashed that many times. I also don't think we need citations to well accepted facts. Perhaps we should direct the asker to a communismwiki. X [Mac Davis] (DESK|How's my driving?) 15:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  From the main page