User talk:StuRat/archive5

Proposed WikiProject
Hi StuRat

I've noticed that you previously posted a comment on the user talk of the Memory Protection article. I was wondering if you'd be interested on a WikiProject on OS Development? I created a proposal at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#OS_Development

Jatos 09:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think I'd be much help there, as my experience with operating systems is strictly as a user. I think you need to find some O/S level programmers (I'm just an application programmer) to help.  BTW, I prefer that new comments be placed at the bottom of my talk page, so I will move this comment to the bottom after you've had a chance to read it. StuRat 14:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

= StuRat's Rant of the Month =

January, 2006
"Welcome to Uranus-Hertz Corp. Your call is important to us, although obviously not important enough to actually hire sufficient staff to answer it.  Come to think of it, your call isn't very important to us at all, and neither are you.  If you have any complaints, we will be glad to connect you to our call center in India, where they will promptly disconnect you.  Actually, it won't be all that prompt, you will have to listen to off-station MUZAK for several minutes first."

February, 2006
I actually prefer dials to digital pads. My current microwave oven has one dial for time and one for power level. It has a handle you pull to open, not a button you have to depress. It has no digital display. I can't stand those electronic pads where you have to enter info in a specific way to get it to cooperate and need to re-enter the time after every power glitch to prevent it from flashing 12:00 all the time (like a VCR). Also, on a TV which lacks a volume dial, it's impossible to turn it on and turn the volume down in the early morning hours without waking everybody in the house. With a dial you can turn the volume down before even turning it on.

Another example of technology run amok is the digital "temperature control system" on my truck. In order to receive "permission" to switch to recirc mode when the truck in front of me is belching diesel fumes, I must first page thru the menu until I set it to the face vents position, otherwise it will flash a red light at me that means "access denied". Good luck doing all that while driving. Then, when I turn the vehicle off, all the settings go back to the defaults, as opposed to a manual system which would damn well leave it how I had set it. I guess I will just have to get used to looking (and coughing) like a chimney sweep. Well, I enjoyed my good morning rant, did you ?

= Vicious comments from others (and a few that aren't) =

Award
[[Image:Barnstar of Humour3.png|frame|left|I, [[User:Trollderella|Trollderella]] award this for making me laugh with this comment ]


 * Thanks ! ...wouldn't you know my first award would be for being a smart ass ? StuRat 02:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thanks ! StuRat 19:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I maynot be qualified enough to award anything but I can surely support the barnstar you got. Good on you mate! you certainly deserve it ... (My IP address is not permanent.) As per your request I put the four tildes. 202.161.131.69 19:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you, too ! StuRat 22:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Reference Desk and unicorns
Notwithstanding what it may say about me that I haven't written apropos of any of your quality responses to sundry questions posed at the various Reference Desks but that I write now about a jocular comment, I must commend your unicorn leapfrogging entry, about which I laughed a good deal. I should say, of course, that I find msot of your answers to be altogether excellent and that I think excellence in responding to questions at the Reference Desks is to be admired, inasmuch as the Reference Desk is often the first location at which non-Wikipedians encounter Wikipedia and its editors, such that one's being well-treated at the Reference Desk may lead one to partake of the editing work, improving the project writ large. Joe 01:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks ! And you managed to say it all in just two sentences, LOL. StuRat 01:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back
Hi StuRat. I always look forward to reading your posts on the Ref Desk, with their trademark clarity and sanity, and even when I disagree with your arguments, they always give me plenty to think about, so whenever you go AWOL you leave a gaping hole. Welcome back, and I hope you were enjoying whatever you were doing. Cheers JackofOz 14:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I wasn't actually away, just reduced my level of contributions as I'm in the process of moving.  Next month I should be back to "full time". StuRat 15:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Reference Desk

 * Thank you for pointing out the template on the Ottoman capitals, I guess I was too busy looking for the capitals in the article to notice. By the way, those are a lot of edits you have. | AndonicO 12:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You're welcome ! StuRat 12:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh StuRat, Canada stands on guard for thee as we commend you for your incredible selfless robot-like diligence in maintain intergalactic order at RD. I seriously hope you're not getting in shit at work for doing this. I'm not really sure what's happened to all the bot requests, but for the moment I have started laying out a make-shift RD that could be used to transfer the existing pages into a new stream-lined interface once there is a bot willing to handle all of the archiving. After the front page is expanded to include all the rules and stuff, I'm going to add a new RD template to each of the subpages, and see where I can go from there. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ  05:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Cool. And thanks. StuRat 06:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Speaking of which, I've worked your reference to the previous months archive into the template directly, so it's now a part of the top bar--152.163.100.136 18:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds good, but is this Fresh ? Just forgot to log in ? StuRat 18:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Nope. freshofftheufo  ΓΛĿЌ  01:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm a mystery, wrapped in an enigma, either that or I'm VectorPotential (: The date math in the current version of the template is so twisted I figured I was the only one who would be able to update it at this point (: Even if I am too busy with university work to continue hands-on RD maintenance work -- 172.147.144.217 17:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yea, that date math confused me. StuRat 17:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If I have some free time this weekend I'll try and template-ify some of the date math, to make the header less cluttered. Also, there's still one minor glitch concerning the years, sort of going to be a problem once we get to 2007.--172.165.196.210 10:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, cool. StuRat 10:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, that didn't work, just made it more buggy and over complicated--Molecular Hamiltonian 19:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, now it does work, but only with subst--Molecular Hamiltonian 19:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Language
"RefDeskia". Hehe. I Like it. :) --Russoc4 17:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks ! :-) StuRat 17:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.
Hey, just a quick thanks for helping with my question on Reference/Science: "In tides, why is the eighth wave always the largest?". You're answer was really helpful. Robinoke 21:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You're quite welcome ! StuRat 22:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Nick
Hi StuRat, I'm just curious about your username. Does it mean anything? Are you aware that it is the (half-correctt, official is "StR") abbreviation for "Studienrat", the default job title and salary level for high school teachers in German state service? Simon A. 07:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it's a variation on my name, Stuart. My parents once received a letter from my school saying "We would like to congratulate your daughter Sturat on her excellent academic performance.  I thought it was so funny that I continue to use it as a screen name to this day.  StuRat 18:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you a female!!! the name stuart doesnt sound feminine.nids(&#9794;) 18:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not, that's what made it so funny. StuRat 18:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * So, your school staff is guilty for double error on the same letter.nids(&#9794;) 18:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, they were apparently attempting to compensate for the academic excellence of the students with extreme administrative incompetence. :-) StuRat 19:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Templates
Also, I wanted to talk about that templates. This one is horribly inflammatory:

OK, it is time for your joking to end. You are potentially offending people, both here in the Wikipedia community and the wider readership. What you are doing could be seen as vandalism and you could get blocked from editing Wikipedia for it. You might not get another warning before having a block imposed, so be careful and be serious from now on.

This one is better, but still rather unpleasant:

 The jokes are getting old. Humor's great, but Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia. It is time to straighten up and make serious contributions.

Perhaps it could say something more like this, customized for the Ref Desk, Help Desk, and any other location where questions are asked and answered:

 Humor is much appreciated, but this question also deserves a serious answer, does anybody have one ?

StuRat 03:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's one of a series of user warnings, for use on user talk pages not on article pages. Your wording sounds like something for the RD.  Is the issue you don't want it on this page?   The point is to encourage a user to stop doing something.  I hope we're at the point of having a rational discussion.  I don't see any particular reason to keep it here. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Our edits seem to have crossed paths. Templates like this are almost never used at the point of reference, but on the user talk page (at the point of reference generally the offending comment is simply removed).  The "forum" style pages (HD, RD, VP) are perhaps special, but I'm not sure it's a good idea to have these sorts of templates on the RD.  -- Rick Block (talk) 04:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the last one might be good to let everyone know the question remains unanswered. When I see several pages of replies, I generally assume there's an answer in there somewhere, but this would let me know there wasn't, at least at the point where it's posted.  I think I'll propose it at the Ref Desk talk page and see who salutes. StuRat 04:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, ref desk talk page seems like a good idea. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Barnstars
Och Aye but isnt that a bit racialist these days? Plus if you said that in Glasgow.... well I wouldnt! 8-)--Light current 11:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks ! I'm partially Scottish myself, and very cheap, so claim the right to make fun of myself.  StuRat 12:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah so it was you and your brother who found that penny? 8-)

Chianti and fava beans,

 * Before you break out the Chianti and fava beans, ...

Well done, StuRat, well done! :-)

Atlant 18:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks ! StuRat 19:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Mathematics Ref Desk
Thanks for trying to help me at the ref desk,I'm afraid maths isn't my strong point.Also,it was really kind of you to actually do the problem yourself.I promise I'll read more about maths so that I don't annoy you too much with my silly questions :) Starkidstar 06:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. If you'll go ahead and list how you did it I will look for any errors. StuRat 06:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

XMAS colors
Thanks ! StuRat 16:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. But thank yourself too; you earned it, and made me laugh very hard in the process. :-) | A ndonic O Talk 17:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks again, my goal in life is to make everyone wet their pants. (I secretly own the company that makes Depends.)  StuRat 17:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well then, get back into life! ;-) | A ndonic O Talk 18:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Is "get back into life" their slogan ? I thought it was "good to the last drop". :-) StuRat 18:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well that too. :-) | A ndonic <b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:Black; font-size:small;">O</b> <i style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:Tan;">Talk</i> 19:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Now if it didnt seem like sycophancy or loyalty or something, I would award StuRat with something! Im not sure what yet! Lets wait and see what comes to mind.--Light current 00:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, you give him a barnstar; it wouldn't look good if I gave him two in a row. | <b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:black;">A</b> ndonic <b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:Black; font-size:small;">O</b> <i style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:Tan;">Talk</i> 00:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * My respect for StuRat is worth more than a truckload of Barnstars!--Light current 01:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur; I won't say "more than a shipload" because it would seem childish.


 * What we need is an award for StuRat putting up with gigatons of irrelevant bullshit presented as coherent and sensible argument--Light current 01:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What, you mean they aren't coherent and sensible arguments? ;-) | <b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:black;">A</b> ndonic <b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:Black; font-size:small;">O</b> <i style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:Tan;">Talk</i> 01:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

more on RD
Hi - I hope I didn't offend you with my latest comments on the talk thread. I get the impression you are sincerely trying to find a path to a solution and very much appreciate the effort you're putting into this. Like I say, I'm busy in real life at the moment so don't have (and will not soon have) much time to participate in this discussion. I suspect this whole thing has been quite upsetting for you - please don't give up. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks ! StuRat 16:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

A modest proposal
Hi StuRat - thanks for keeping the conversation alive on the RD - I think I'm going to call it a day, and I think I'm going to leave things as is. I've written all there is which needed to be said I think, and it's time for me to move on. There's a lot of good nuggets there, so hopefully some Wikipedians will pick up on what I've tried to get at. In the meantime, I cannot guarantee that I will be around the RD for a sustained period, but do keep an eye out for my edits there - I have a feeling that some normalcy can come back to the project soon. Cheers, HappyCamper 20:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help. I am afraid that User:Friday's tendency to do things in a unilateral way will return, however, without another Admin prodding him toward building a consensus with the rest of us.  May I call on you if he drifts back in that direction ? StuRat 20:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm always around. :-) --HappyCamper 20:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thanks ! StuRat 20:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Chapeau
I tip my hat to your tireless efforts on continuing the discourse at Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk. I think the process has revealed some interesting points. I'm sorry my support was sporadic at best - apart from an overstuffed agenda, I also felt a bit lost and overpowered by the tremendous pace of evolving issues on multiple pages (and also admit to being rule-o-phobe). I decided not to comment on the RFCs on you and THB, because it doesn't seem necessary, but if someone else is going to support the poster's view I will change my mind, and also post a comment. I'm concerned (scratch that, I'm angry) about these recent developments and, FWIW, will try to help you guys when I finally have some spare time next week. Meanwhile, keep up the stiff upper lip, and good luck! ---Sluzzelin 11:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your support. I agree on not commenting until the RFC's at least get a second.  This issue just appears to be an unwarranted distraction, IMHO. StuRat 13:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am leaving
StuRat - just to let you know that I'm am going to leave the RD guideline and RD talk page discussions. I just can't deal with Radiant and Hipocrite any more. Every time I interact with them I end up feeling disgusted and soiled. I am going to find some far corner of Wikpedia where the air is clean and the water is pure and I can leave their poison far behind. Sorry to see that Friday has endorsed your RfC, but I am sure it will just die from lack of further input. Keep up the good work, and thank you for all your help. Gandalf61 21:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please reconsider. We need the voices of sane people to finish this process.  If you leave, you let the bullies win.  That doesn't just have implications for the Ref Desk, but for every corner of Wikipedia, even the dark corners.  Light's block ends soon, and DirkvdM still occasionally participates in the talk page discussions:

"...and when they came for me, there was nobody left to protest." StuRat 21:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC) except me! (I hope)--Light current 03:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

As the old latin saying goes: Nil desperandum carborundum. loosely translated as: Dont let the bastards grind you down! 8-)--Light current 03:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL
Loved the chicken farmer joke. Bet it is nuked before midnight, though. Gandalf61 18:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That would surely be fowl play! Where is it anyway. Post a link--Light current 18:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Glad you liked the joke, here it is: Reference_desk/Humanities. StuRat 18:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * And here's a copy, in case it gets deleted:

A chicken farmer had a problem rooster that was stressing out the hens with "unwanted attentions" and solved the problem by putting a bell around the rooster's neck to give the hens adequate warning. However, the rooster soon learned to silence the bell by covering it with a wing, allowing him to once again sneak up on the hens. For his study of this amazing example of animal reasoning and learning, a noted professor has received both the "No bell piece prize" and the "Pullet surprise". :-) StuRat 15:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This really is pulling our Leghorns--Light current 19:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Howdy StuRat. It's a cute play on words, but your comment didn't really do anything to help answer the poster's question.  Please, take pity on the dial-up users of the Ref Desk.  If you'd like to share jokes with other editors, consider using their talk pages or email in the future.  Heck, create a section in your user space; I'm sure it would be well-subscribed.
 * Nobody's going to 'nuke' your remark; it doesn't attack anyone and is unlikely to offend. I'm just dropping in to ask you to remember the purpose of the Ref Desk (it's there to answer questions).  If you want to tell a joke on the Desk, try to work some useful information into it&mdash;that way everyone is happy. Cheers, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I do try to do that, but this joke was at least related to the topic. I use that as a bare minimum requirement. StuRat 19:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Its good to see you have Standards, Stu! 8-)--Light current 19:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed.EricR 23:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for at least notifying me. However, your comment that it was "off topic" is incorrect, as both the joke and topic were on the Nobel Prize. StuRat 23:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There's more to being on-topic on the ref desk than just being vaguely related to the question; there's also the matter of actually helping to answer the question. The ref desk, after all, is for answering questions. -- SCZenz 23:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Answering the question and being on topic are two quite different issues. For example, a request for a clarification is on topic, but doesn't answer the question, just like this joke. StuRat 23:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Being on-topic for the page means asking or answering a question, or doing something that works toward answering a question (like a request for clarification). -- SCZenz 23:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You've got a whole new def of "on topic" there, but is this really worth arguing about ? Call it whatever you want, I don't care to fight about it.  Let's just agree to disagree peacefully, shall we ? StuRat 23:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that what we call it isn't important. I think we agree that the reference desk should be used primarily for asking and working on answering questions, at least. -- SCZenz 23:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Primarily, yes. Exclusively, no.  Building a sense of community is also important.  And, sometimes, that can be facilitated with humor. StuRat 23:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You cannot be serious! 8-)--Light current 23:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Nicotine Addiction
Thanks. Your answer to my question about the addictiveness of nicotine at the reference desk was exactly what I was looking for. BeefJeaunt 03:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You're welcome, and good luck on your report ! StuRat 03:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Fundamentals of marketing
That was an awesome, AWESOME answer. Anchoress 18:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks ! StuRat 18:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to second that. I just about choked on my coffee, when I saw that and laughed.  Nice job!!  Antandrus  (talk) 18:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You're welcome, and here's a link for those who missed it: . StuRat 18:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for Helping Me Out!
Dear StuRat,

Thanks for taking the time to answer my question about the equation of a line. I really appreciate it =) Alex Ng 19:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You're quite welcome ! StuRat 20:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

abridged too far
Hello - irrespective of all the issues all the regular Ref Desk posters are discussing, just wanted to express my appreciation for your most apt replies. "Abridged too far" really made me smile! Wonderful! Happy New Year --Geologyguy 00:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that's very gneiss of you. (I don't want you to think I'm stoned or anything, I just have quite an apatite for puns, especially puns that rock. If I leave a pun out, I feel like I might gypsum body.) StuRat 01:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * WTF are you talcing about?--Light current 02:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thats another one chalked up! Any Moh's?--Light current 02:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * We're starting to accumulate quite a conglomerate of puns here. StuRat 02:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No schist! --Geologyguy 03:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No you mean aggregate--Light current 02:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think someone should get slated for al these terrible puns 8-)--Light current 03:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It seams to me that you only have yourself to blame. David D. (Talk) 18:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Eh?--Light current 19:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Look up seam. I guess if you have to explain the pun it doesn't really work.David D. (Talk) 19:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think I lost my apatite, as much as I enjoyed the "abridged too far." It's not that I beryl will to ya'll, but this is too much. Shame there seams to be no article on seam--it's absence diabases the value of Wikipedia.  KP Botany 20:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is unseamly. It stings that there isn't even an article on the song We Work the Black Seam; somebody should call the content police. StuRat 20:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Chertainly we should mica note of its absense in the disambig page. David D. (Talk) 21:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * OK I understand mica, but WTFs note got to do with it? Youll have to do better than this on the RDs! 8-)--Light current 21:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You didn't notice StuRat's change of course? We're now going over a clef with the police in tow. At least we'll get a good view of the strata on the way down. David D. (Talk) 22:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I thought we could double our pun if we bass them on both geology and music. Perhaps I should add another topic so we can treble our punishment ? StuRat 22:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Dunite. KP Botany 22:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think I shale call that a day. Unless any one thinks otherwise.--Light current 22:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * A stalag mite be the right punishment for bad punners.Edison 23:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Stalagmites are attached at the bottom and stalactites at the top, so what do you call them if they're attached at both ends ? A mitey-tite, of course. StuRat 00:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Of cuourse one easy way to tell the difference (as one of my old GFs told me) is that 'Tites' always come down! BTW do you get a prize for having the longest pun run?--Light current 01:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Chain letters
You wrote: "For that matter, how about chain letters, especially the online variety, which can grow and mutate and reproduce, with the more successful mutations surviving and the less successful dying out. So, are they alive ?  (Sure, they need people to survive, but don't many living parasites also need hosts ?)" StuRat 22:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a good example, has reproduction, mutations and natural selection. David D. (Talk) 06:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. StuRat 07:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Dozens?
The notion that a hunter would kill dozens of birds with a single shot seems outlandish to me. Do you have a reference for this? Friday (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh geez, so it starts again. It’s not outlandish at all.  Each shotgun contains many pellets, see illustration of a target hit by one: .  With the birds packed into such a dense cloud, each pellet was likely to hit and each kill or incapacitate at least one bird.  If you count the number of pellet holes, you will see there are dozens. StuRat 20:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * A comment from an editor who writes with English as a lingua franca in mind (i.e. for the benefit of non-native speakers among your readers): I didn't see the original post, but just based on the above, I'd recommend avoiding any ambiguity inherent in the wording single shot (focused on the action of firing the weapon?) by substituting single blast (to indicate a possible indeterminate number of multiple projectiles having been fired in that act). Just an idea. -- Deborahjay 05:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Good point, Friday should have said "a single blast". StuRat 12:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'm familiar with shotguns. Depending on shot size, there may be anywhere from less than 10, to several hundred pellets.  Very small ones won't generally kill a target individually- typically the target is hit by many pellets.  The shot pattern will spread out over a distance, and the individual pellets will lose their effectiveness as velocity decreases (which is does quite rapidly with such a small projectile.) Do you have a source that mentions anyone downing dozens of pigeons with a single shot?  Friday (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It was from a TV show on PBS many years ago, and I have no idea what the name of it was. At moderate range the pellets are spread out far enough to hit dozens of birds (provided the birds are there) and still have enough force to kill or incapacitate the birds.  Those which were incapacitated fell to the ground and were finished off by the hunters or their dogs. StuRat 21:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Eh, I suppose it's a small issue- it's not like you're putting this assertion into an article. But, please do rememember that the ref desk isn't very well served by us basing what we say from our recollections of things we saw on TV many years ago.  It's very easy to misremember such stuff.  Friday (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it isn't, I don't know about your mind, but my mind doesn't just make up things like that. The Ref Desk also isn't well served by challenging everything you possibly can, when you have absolutely no evidence that anything is wrong.  This is especially true if you hold a grudge against people and use those challenges as a way to "get back at people". StuRat 21:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no grudge and no opinion whatsoever about you as a person. I do remember that you've put in inaccurate information before, and people have pointed this out to you.  You're still doing it, so I'm telling you again.  The ref desks aren't chat boards or panel discussions.  Friday (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * And where am I giving inaccurate info, exactly ? If you're going to make claims like that, I'd like to see some evidence. StuRat 22:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, as I said, I don't buy your assertion that hunters would kill dozens of pigeons with a single shot. Neither your first nor your second explanation for where you got this were convincing to me. But I suppose this doesn't matter much- now we're essentially looking at your opinion versus mine, neither of which are reliable sources. I can't even say such a scenario is impossible, just that it sounds quite unlikely to me, and is far from a typical hunting result. Friday (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That's because birds don't typically form a cloud of a million, giving hunters a target they can't miss. In the future, please don't challenge my statements unless you have some actual proof that they are wrong.  And don't accuse me of giving inaccurate info unless you have proof, either. StuRat 02:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As has been pointed out to you many many times before, your standard of "you must prove me wrong" is unreasonable. If you're going to make unlikely claims, please have references to back it up.  Friday (talk) 02:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is your claim that my statements are "unlikely". You just arbitrarily decide that the claims of people you don't like are "unlikely" and put the burden of proof on them, when you have absolutely no basis for doubting the statement.  And I'm sure your fellow deletionist agree that anything lacking a reference can be deleted arbitrarily (but then again, they think anything can be deleted arbitrarily, reference or not).  That doesn't make it right or mean the majority of people agree. StuRat 15:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The claims of 50 are citable, for example, see this discussion, so StuRats memory is probably correct. The problem is whether such claims are legitimate. Hunters, notoriously fishermen, embellish their accounts into ripping yarns. David D. (Talk) 03:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Since 24 would constitute "dozens", even if the claim of 50 was twice the reality, I would still be correct. StuRat 15:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Unless you're a baker! David D. (Talk) 17:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I don't particularly like rising, but I do like to loaf around. StuRat 17:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * StuRat the last thing we need is another bun thread. David D. (Talk) 17:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow. I'm surprised enough that such a thing would be reported, whether or not it's really true.  I may have my doubts, but if people are claiming that, they're claiming it.  StuRat, sorry for being so skeptical about this.  Friday (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for admitting your error. This could all have been avoided, however, had you done some research before challenging my statement.  I wish you would learn from this mistake. StuRat 15:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

"The greater good" sounds familiar...
Re: your initial response to my query on "Sanctity of Life" in relation to Warfare – I'm clarifying the topic as it more narrowly pertains to the individual draftee with a humanistic belief system faced with joining a combat unit rather than seeking a desk job or even conscientious objection. So I'm replying here rather than risking a diversion of the discussion there; to note: I recall the "greater good" argument (though unfortunately not much else!) from my high school history lessons back in the mid/late 1980s USA as a (the?) rationale for dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in order to hasten the end of WWII. Did I get that right, do you suppose? -- Deborahjay 05:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's right. The argument is that Japan would not have been willing to give an unconditional surrender otherwise.  This would leave the US with the following options:


 * 1) Accept a conditional surrender, which would have left the militaristic, imperial power structure in Japan, which likely would have resulted in another war with Japan, with nuclear weapons, a few years later, in which case millions would have died.


 * 2) Continue conventional bombing, with the goals of destroying Japan's military, industrial, and agricultural production, resulting in the deaths from bombing and starvation of millions (almost all Japanese).


 * 3) Perform a land invasion of Japan, which would have resulted in the deaths of millions of Japanese and hundreds of thousands of allies. Japanese school children were being taught to charge soldiers with sharpened sticks.


 * The US was in no mood to accept a conditional surrender. There was a contingency plan, however, in case the atomic bomb was not available by the time it was needed, which was a combo of options 2 and 3.  Another concern was that the Soviet Union, which waited until Japan was weakened to declare war on Japan, would invade and conquer large portions of Japan, and then set it up as a communist state.  As it is, they only managed to conquer a few northern islands.


 * So, to avoid using the atomic bomb would have likely resulted in more deaths. I do think their should have been Japanese POW observers present at the Trinity test, however, who then could have been returned to Japan to report on this new weapon.  While I don't think this would bring about an immediate unconditional surrender, perhaps it would be enough to get the Japanese to give an unconditional surrender after Hiroshima, without the need for the second atomic bonb being dropped on Nagasaki.   StuRat 12:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Free Beer
Thanks for the comment on my userpage, the joke got a good laugh out of me at work, which is always good :D Aetherfukz 14:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, just try not to laugh while the boss is announcing his goals for the year. StuRat 16:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Your puns
Just wanted to let you know, I think your puns are great! I especially like the one about the vandalism to the Ireland related article raising someone's "ire". Good stuff, dude! Dismas |(talk) 20:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks ! StuRat 20:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding our exchanges above
Hello StuRat. After a short Wikibreak, and some time to reflect, I wish to apologise for the uncivil tone of some of my comments on this page and at the Ref Desk. I still strongly disagree with your interpretation of Ref Desk policy, culture and purpose, but there is no excuse for personalising a disagreement. Moreover, I realise my annoyance helped antagonise the dispute, rather than resolve it. I think this is a sign that it is time to take a complete break from the Ref Desk for a period, which I intend to do, though I expect I may choose to return at some point in the future. Happy editing. Rockpock e  t  07:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. While I still completely reject arguments for authority and ad hominem attacks, believing that everyone should be allowed to present their arguments, with the readers deciding which is strongest (based on the relative strength of each argument and any supporting evidence), I admit that when someone is uncivil to me I find it difficult to remain civil to them, and I apologize for that. StuRat 13:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Requests for comment/StuRat 2
I would invite you to read through this again. Your statement that there's no consensus you've done anything wrong is rather surprising, given the kinds of comments on that RFC. You may also pay attention to the few who certified your response- 3 editors besides you, including two who've been blocked many times for disruption. Do this tell you anything? Friday (talk) 14:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You are, of course, neglecting all the users who endorsed outside views favorable to my position, such as the 10 who endorsed "Outside view by User:Amarkov". StuRat 15:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You mean the one I endorsed? I didn't miss that one.  If you read carefully you may find that it deals with part of the issue, and not other parts.  Friday (talk) 15:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That's the one (must have been one of your more reasonable moments). The statements "The word 'deletionist', by itself, is not incivil", "And I do not see any evidence that StuRat is using it as a particularly derogatory term" seem quite favorable to my continued use of the term.  If you think that position reflects a consensus that I should stop using the term, you are seriously mistaken. StuRat 15:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Ingemar's antics in My Life as a Dog
Woof woof arf bark whine bark. (Equal parts not wanting to give too much away and being *gasp* a bit of a prude.) Clarityfiend 03:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * But I have an inquiring mind and I want to know ! For example, does Ingemar prefer Coke or Pepsi bottles ? :-) StuRat 16:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ref Desk

 * Thanks ! StuRat 19:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, deserved for the "splitting hares" comment alone. A pun par excellence. Rockpock  e  t  20:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Merci beaucoup. StuRat 20:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Responding to suicidal individuals
Hi StuRat. I would like to invite you to commenting upon or edit the new proposed policy Responding to suicidal individuals now that it has finally come up for discussion on Village pump (policy) and Requests_for_comment/Policies. Hopefully we can reach consensus (or not) within a week or two. Thanks! S.dedalus 23:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've commented, but it looks like they are more interested in avoiding legal liability than saving suicidal individuals. StuRat 16:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hiya Stu
Thanks for your comment on my talk page. I responded there, but also wanted to add a note here that I agree with your actions on the matter in question, which promoted a fair outcome, despite reasonbly-held differences in opinion on side matters. Regards. dr.ef.tymac 00:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. I had seen your comments on your talk page and decided it was best not to respond. StuRat 00:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, Clio will be back
This is just some drama to get everyone to tell her how much they love her and want her back. I'm sure she'll be back as soon as she's gotten enough attention (although it might very well be under a new screen name/sockpuppet). StuRat 04:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

- Since my comment is continually deleted from Clio's page, I will place it here. StuRat 05:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * ...and she is now back, just as predicted. StuRat 06:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm really disappointed in you for this subthread
I'm at an utter loss to understand why you're still persisting in this namecalling and scorn towards Clio. It's petty, childish, disruptive, and really, really disgusting. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * My question is... is it allowed to remove comments you dislike from a discussion page? That's what I truly find... well, not elegant. I thought doing so was considered as vandalism. --Taraborn 22:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that, currently, albeit not elegant, everyone has the right to remove stuff from their talk page, and do whatever they want with it.


 * However, I think there should exist pages to talk about the user that don't belong to the user, as article talk pages. A.Z. 22:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Unlike article pages, general talk page material should not be removed unless it violates some policy (like personal attacks). You can "refactor" comments, though, like moving them to a new section that's more appropriate, or archiving them when old.  Just removing comments because you disagree is a definite no-no, however.  User talk pages are a bit different, though.  There the user has ownership and can remove anything they like, while others should probably restrict themselves to removing their own comments before they have a response. StuRat 10:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Aren't you tired yet?
I know I am. It's almost 3 AM here. A.Z. 05:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Only 2 AM here ! StuRat 05:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * So plenty of time till the Sun comes along! I for one am going to sleep. I have got to work tomorrow. Good night. A.Z. 05:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Good night. StuRat 06:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Jews
Thanks for your common sense. For me personally, this comment wasn't deleted because I thought it was wrong though. I still think it is right - it was removed because it wasn't worth fighting offence.martianlostinspace 10:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe you lined it out, as opposed to deleting it. This is what I recommend if you no longer believe a statement of yours to be correct.  The existence of races is a very touchy issue.  While it is true that there is considerable genetic overlap between races, or, to be more scientific, "gene pools", there are still genes which are far more common in certain gene pools than others.  For example, the gene for Tay Sachs disease is more common in Eastern European Jews than in the general world population.  I personally have no idea about "head size" genes, however. StuRat 20:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Your comment at the Ref Desk talk page
I responded to a good point you made. --Dweller 13:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll take a look now. StuRat 03:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry :(
I must admit to being a dirty little vandal, I altered the desert question on the science desk so that everyone said dessert. i'm still giggling though. 213.48.15.234 13:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No harm done, and it was worth a few laughs, too. StuRat 02:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You and Friday
I'm being somewhat gossip here but I'm just very curious... I see you and User:Friday arguing (or discussing) many, many times, for example in the Reference desk guidelines. Why is that? Sorry for meddling. --Taraborn 21:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The Ref Desk is where people ask questions and get answers from volunteers like me. Reference desk/guidelines is where the rules for answering those questions are written down.  Inclusionists, like me, welcome a wide variety of questions and answers.  Others, like Friday, are apt to delete any question or answer they don't think "is encyclopedic". StuRat 15:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm being gossip too, but I believe Friday has once expressed the opinion that the reference desk would be better off if it were deleted. A.Z. 19:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Bearnstar

 * Thanks. Does "eaten by a bear" mean it was deleted ? StuRat 15:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Haha. I hope that is a clever joke (or else paranoia really is getting the better of you). No, it doesn't mean that, the link explains. Rockpock  e  t  17:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, where have you been? I could have done with your support recently when a harmless joke I made was unilaterally removed. Typical, just when I need some inclusionist support, they all go awol. Rockpock  e  t  17:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I had to do some actual work (gasp !). Do you have a link to the joke ?  Is it too late to support it ? StuRat 01:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, too late, I'm afraid. Actually it wasn't the removal itself that I was bothered with (a joke is a joke, and I'm not about to claim something so flippant deserves to remain if another editor thinks it inappropriate) it was the unwarranted accusation in the edit summary of the removal.


 * By the way, Loomis is a hair's breadth away from being indef blocked again. I'm lobbying to give him one last chance, though I'm not sure it will carry. I don't know if you have any influence with him, or if you even care, but if you do it really would be helpful if you could impress on him that it he has a stark choice to make. Rightly or wrongly, fair or unfair, this is how it is and he has got to accept that or he will be unwelcome here for an indefinite period.  Rockpock  e  t  08:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop feeding the trolls, or at least one particular troll
Dunno if you noticed, but Light current has been up to his juvenile behavior again. I think your clever remarks in response to his trolling only encourage him. Would you mind taking particular care not to feed the trolls, when the troll is him? Or, if you actually know this kid, would you mind having a word with him? There are plenty of web sites where they encourage people to act like 12-year-olds, but Wikipedia isn't really meant to be one of them. Friday (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Colour Inkjet Refill
Hello. When I refill an HP 28 Colour Cartridge that is low on ink as indicated to me on my computer, I can only refill about 1 mL of each of the three colours (magenta, cyan, and yellow). The cartridge says it can hold up to 8 mL. Why can't I refill 8 mL of each colour? Thanks. --Mayfare 23:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Just speculation, but, if it's an airtight container and you are using a needle to inject new ink, you will need to draw air out to allow room for the new ink. StuRat 01:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your speculation, StuRat. However, I am not sure if my colour ink cartridge is airtight. I went on HP's website and couldn't find any information on it. I even tried searching on Google. No luck there. Does anybody know if an HP 28 Colour Cartridge airtight? --Mayfare 02:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Why not do an experiment and use the needle to draw some air out first, and see if that doesn't allow you to inject more ink ? StuRat 02:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I experimented. Drawing out colour ink does not allow me to inject more colour ink. Why can't I refill 8 mL of each colour. --Mayfare 00:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I was suggesting you draw out air to make room for the new ink. Drawing out old ink to make room for new ink is rather self defeating.  Also, if there is still ink in the cartridges, perhaps that isn't the problem.  For example, printer cartridges not used for a while can get a dried out plug in the ink delivery system. StuRat 05:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. I meant to say that I tried to draw out air but I drew out colour ink instead. --Mayfare 22:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Useful article to be deleted
Perhaps you want to vote here. A.Z. 17:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know, I've added my comments there. StuRat

Speedy tagged Image
There is no source information on the image page, so it does not follow the image use policy and meets criterion I4 of the criteria for speedy deletion. In a nutshell, the image use policy requires that the copyright status of images is verifiable. Without source information, it's impossible to do so. For example, the image could have been an artist's impression of the event, drawn on its centenary.

If you know where it came from, please could you fill in the following template and add it to the image page.

Let me know if you need further clarification of the policy. Thanks - Papa November 1 23:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Some googling found the source. I've added it to the image page, restored it to the article and removed the speedy tag.  Papa November 1 10:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Election for the Board of Trustees
Are you going to vote? You can see the candidates here and you can endorse them here. A.Z. 23:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks like the endorsement period is closed. I would have endorsed User:Kingboyk for his commitment to democratic means (versus the current group of despots we have as Admins) and User:^demon for his commitment to re-allow contributions through anonymous proxy servers.  (Users who wish to contribute anonymously should be allowed to do so.) StuRat 00:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You can still vote for them. Both have got enough endorsements, unlike the candidate that I have endorsed, Jouster, for the reasons expressed on his user page. A.Z. 03:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Where do I go to vote ? StuRat 03:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know, but I guess the page hasn't been created yet or there is no link to it. According to this timeline, voting starts next thursday. A.Z. 03:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I voted, but I don't think the results are in yet. StuRat 23:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems that they'll announce the results tomorrow. A.Z. 21:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

"Incarated"
Thanks for the chuckle, StuRat. Bielle 23:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You're welcome ! StuRat 23:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

"Discussion" to "talk"
Hi, StuRat. Do you want to participate in this discussion? A.Z. 23:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I voted in favor of this change to the tab labels. StuRat 23:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Integrin
You're a member of WikiProject General Audience. I think that project is not working right now, but it's a great idea and a needed project. I think I may join it.

There's a discussion on the Integrin article talk page in which I'm defending that the article be more accessible to general audience. Participate, if you wish! A.Z. 03:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll take a look. StuRat 07:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Administrators and the stanford prison experiment
I'm looking for a diff by yours where you compared administrator corruption to what happened to students during the stanford prison experiment. Do you happen to know where is that diff? A.Z. 23:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It was the 6th comment in this thread: User_talk:StuRat/archive4. StuRat 04:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I agree with the comparison, and I am referring to that diff in an essay I'm writing (linked from my user page, and that is supposed to be my definitive essay about giving sysop tools to everyone).


 * I bought a book by the leader of the Stanford prison experiment, called The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil. I read some parts of the book, but I see it will be somewhat disturbing to read it entirely. I can see Wikipedia all over it. In fact, I was just reading the article about the Stanford prison experiment today, and I realized you can easily substitute guards for administrators and prisoners for editors. A.Z. 05:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * For a more ominous comparison, there are Nazi war criminals. There were many people who behaved in a perfectly decent manner both before and after the war, but who calmly assisted in genocide during the war.  Clearly, when somebody in authority tells people "it's OK to kill those subhumans", a lot of people go along willingly, even cheerfully.  I wouldn't use this is your essay, however, as people tend to immediately ignore any comparison with Nazis as Godwin's Law.  Personally, I think we have much to learn from that period, to ensure that it never happens again. StuRat 16:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting. That book does talk about the nazis as well. StuRat, I would like that you read my essay and perhaps comment about it. I decided already which system for giving admin tools I support. It is simple and it doesn't require structural changes. The RfA reform page will probably move on now because an user decided to put an end to it with a vote. A.Z. 05:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I added my comments. StuRat 17:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Matrixism
I see no evidence that this page is protected. A redirect should be doable. Friday (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe it's not for Admins, but if I try to edit it I get dumped onto a page that says "This page has been protected to prevent creation." StuRat 17:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Some nonstandard method of protection perhaps? Weird.. Does it say anything that might give a clue how it's protected? Friday (talk) 17:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Its this new way of salting pages. You transclude the article in Protected titles, which is itself protected with the "cascading" option enabled). It took me a while to work out how this worked too. Good of them the lets the troops know eh? Rockpock  e  t  17:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "Salting" ? As in "plow the ground with salt so nothing can ever grow there again" as the Romans did in Carthage ?  Now that we know how it's done, can either of you undo it so I can do as the AFD discussion concluded (move and redirect to The Matrix). StuRat 17:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:SALT. Are you planning to merge the info into The Matrix or just redirect to the article as is?  Rockpock  e  t  17:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect, as was the conclusion of the AFD discussion. I would create a new section named "Matrixism as a real religion" and copy the content there from the user page where it currently resides. StuRat 17:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, StuRat, but a more recent DRV, see Deletion review/Log/2007 March 19, endorsed the deletion. I'm not about to over-rule that considering how much administrative activity there has been on this article in the past. Here is what I will do, though. If you choose to add the Matrixism material to the Matrix article and it is accepted there for a week or two without significant challenge, then I will unsalt and redirect to there. However, if the material is sufficiently non-notable and unverified as to not sruvive as an article, it is likely that will also be the case as a subsection of the Matrix. Rockpock  e  t  18:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see how the conclusion of the first ~vote can just be ignored because there was a later discussion. Do those opinions not matter any more ?  Also, I think often people say "delete" as a lazy way of saying "get rid of that article, but I don't care what happens to the content".  It's something like when people don't have car blinkers on, does that mean they aren't making a turn or that they are just too lazy to put on the blinker ?  I think people should have to explicitly say "destroy the content and don't ever let it be placed anywhere in Wikipedia", if that's what they really mean.  As for cars, a "going straight" signal might help there.  I've added the content to The Matrix (series). StuRat 19:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * By your own argument, why should a later discussion be ignored because there is a former? Besides, I'm not "ignoring" the first Afd, but there is no point unsalting if there is no consensus for the material to be kept anywhere in Wikipedia. The material looks fine to me in its current place. If there is no major objections to its notability and verifiability by this time next week, I will unsalt and redirect Matrixism to that article. Rockpock  e  t  19:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. StuRat 19:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Great. And on the off-chance I forget, do remind me of this next week. Rockpock  e  t  19:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. Rockpock  e  t  18:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I've now changed the Matrixism redirect to point to the specific section. StuRat 18:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Then you should probably leave a hidden note by the section heading noting that per WP:REDIRECT, otherwise someone may change the wording of the heading and the redirect would be lost. Rockpock  e  t  18:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Good idea, and I've now done so, but the redirect wouldn't be totally lost if the section title was changed. In that case, the redirect just reverts to the top of the article. StuRat 20:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hobo etc....
Thanks for the info, loved the song in the nineties but never realised what it was all about...! SietskeEN 12:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC) (But it is a lot less decent than I expected it to be... :-O )


 * You're quite welcome ! StuRat 13:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

you don't happen to understand lojban
do you? lucid 03:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No, but then again, I rather enjoy the ambiguous nature of English words, since that allows for the formation of puns. StuRat 03:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Way to read a sentence that I had intended to come off as a joke with an extremely serious tone and make a comment about the ambiguity present in the english language, thus forcing me to make a sentence that is completely unambiguous. Until you find a way to point out the ambiguity -- lucid 03:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, since you wrote "english" in lower case, you must not mean the language, but rather the term which means "spin" as in "put some english on the ball". Therefore, your comment regards the "spin language", AKA, the language of politicians. :-) StuRat 03:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you play Six degrees of separation, by chance? -- lucid 04:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Not since Kevin Bacon filed that restraining order. :-) StuRat 04:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thanks ! StuRat 20:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Matrixism (2)
Hi,

Be a little more careful there -- that's just the first of several AfDs on the topic. The content was userfied to me as part of a DRV compromise six months ago. I'm not sure yet whether I'll revert your merge, but be aware that a redirect from my userspace to the article is forbidden, per CSD R2. I'll probably just restore the userpage as it was. Good effort, but you should probably check with someone before doing that, rather than after. Best wishes, Xoloz 22:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I did, we had a Ref Desk discussion which was then continued up above on this page. Admin User:Rockpocket agreed to "unsalt" the locked page so I could add the redirect after the content went unchallenged for a week. StuRat 22:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Never mind... I see now what you've done. I like the merge, but how did you preserve the attribution history, because my userpage is still as it was? Xoloz 22:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't preserve the attribution history. If you know of a way to do so, please, by all means, be my guest. StuRat 22:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Fixed. :) You'll notice this has changed the history of the redirect -- the people who wrote the content that you merged now receive credit in that history.  I realize this situation was complicated, but remember that bigger merges require the merging of the article history as well, which needs the use of admin tools.  The GFDL demands that the attribution history be retained.  Best wishes, Xoloz 22:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Medical advice on the Ref Desk
StuRat, please try to avoid offering medical advice on the Reference Desks as you did in this thread. It's one of those things that Just Isn't Done around here. While I appreciate that you're just trying to help, giving a questioner a list of diagnoses for his symptoms isn't appropriate. Even offering opinions as to whether or not a condition is serious or dangerous isn't a good idea; giving the impression that we'll always tell people if their symptoms are serious may lead questioners to (inappropriately) rely on those evaluations.

Your cooperation in the future is appreciated, and your continued contributions to the Reference Desks are welcomed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I would add that the rule is as much there to protect you as it is to protect Wikipedia. Practicing medicine without a license is illegal in almost every country in the world.  If someone comes to harm because of your advice - then aside from moral and ethical issues, you could easily end up bankrupt and in jail - and it's just not worth the risk.  Sneaky tricks like offering links to pages you also wrote outside of Wikipedia is not going to help you there.  I'm not going to let this rest here.  If you won't obey the spirit of the community rules - we'll have to change the wording of the rule so it's not allowed.  Wikiversity should also disallow the offering of medical and legal advice and if we can't settle this amicably - I'll have to start campaigning for similar rules there.  But it would be much, MUCH better for the community if you'd please just stick to the spirit of the guidelines.   As it is, if you keep this up you'll be continually upsetting about 80% of your friends here at the help desk - and causing a rift in the community for the other 20%.  Please - don't do this. SteveBaker 01:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Stu: I have this terrible pain whenever I twist my arm around this way. What should I do? Edison 16:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I get a similar pain whenever I try to have a civil, logical conversation with many of the Admins here, although the pain isn't in my arm. StuRat 18:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

wunderground.com
Thanks for recommending Weather Underground in WP:RD/C. Weather.com was killing me on dialup, and http://forecast.weather.gov/ doesn't have the hourly forecast. Wunderground seems to beat the both. What a great site. / edg ☺ ★ 13:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You're quite welcome, glad you like it ! StuRat 13:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Wunderground is also one of my favourite sites, and I'm so glad to see it being recommended :) Skittle 12:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Seriously?
"There are some serious nutjobs there, like Clio, who seem to be not only allowed, but actually encouraged, to viciously attack others by the Admins there (they block or ban anyone who criticizes her). I'd sure hate to see that lot migrate over here.". Seriously? I've seen all sorts of people criticize Clio, none of them got blocked. I've criticized her myself, without getting blocked. Do you think Loomis got indefinitely blocked for criticizing Clio? Do you think the 12 hour block you received here was for criticizing Clio? Or which blocks and bans were you talking about? Also, who are the other serious nutjobs? ---Sluzzelin talk  00:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am serious. Clio has said the same and worse (like her rant today on the people at Wikiversity which she calls "the realm of the stupid, the second-rate, the vicious and the petty-minded"), but rarely even gets chastised by an Admin, much less blocked, while anyone who aimed such comments at her gets chastised immediately and blocked or banned eventually.  I don't want to discuss the "other serious nutjobs" here, but applying the strictest possible interpretation of Wikipedia policies (many of which clearly aren't applicable at all to the Ref Desk, but are meant for articles only), as well as making up absurd arguments such as us being arrested for practicing medicine without a license or being guilty of posting SPAM for providing a link to a sister project, might give you some clues as to what I'm talking about.  The prevalence of such completely illogical arguments shakes my faith in Wikipedia.  I have long ago lost faith in the "Admins for life" concept. StuRat 01:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi StuRat. I missed Clio's little dig at you at the time, just noticing it now. I have reminded her of WP:NPA. Likewise, you should be aware that "posting personal attacks or defamation off-Wikipedia is harmful to the community and to an editor's relationship with it... Such attacks can be regarded as aggravating factors by administrators". If you are going to complain about the attacks of others, calling them a "nutjob" from the saftey of another site is unlikely to garner much sympathy for you. As i said, just a friendly notice... Rockpock  e  t  02:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * First, that policy only applies to sites "not under the control of the Wikimedia Foundation", not Wikiversity. Second, I've not provided any links to attacks, although you and others have (does that make you in violation of the policy ?).  Finally, your "reminder" to Clio couldn't have possibly been worded any softer, along with the "please feel free to remove this" language.  Why can't you, or any other Admin, ever be firm with her, and say something like "this language will not be tolerated" ?  You have absolutely no problem saying that to others when they behave as she does.  StuRat 19:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, why doesn't the "you have no right to complain because you do it too" logic ever apply to Clio ? More favoritism at work ? StuRat 19:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Firstly that part that is under dispute is the 3RR on removing attack links. Secondly, that quote does not explicitly relate to links, the following subsection is about external links. The part I quoted speaks for itself: "posting personal attacks or defamation off-Wikipedia is harmful to the community." The fact that you appear to acknowledge you made a personal attack, and instead choose to wikilawyer over whether policy explicitly forbids it speaks volumes. How about you just stop doing it? Namecalling has no place on any wiki-project, that applies to you and Clio. She is aware of that, now you are too.
 * Finally, I find that Clio is more responsive to friendly notices. Unlike certain other editors, she does not strive to wikilawyer around every warning and play games with semantics. She either accepts it or disputes it, I don't care which, as long as she doesn't continue doing it. You, on the other hand, appear to do anything you can to bend the rules to suit your purposes, even to the extent of jumping ship and making attacks from the apparent safety of Wikiversity. If that continues I will consider it "an aggravating factor". Oh, and just in case you were not aware. Please feel free to remove this notice from you page if you desire. Rockpock  e  t  20:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) You seem to have responded too quickly. I figured out which section you had linked to and revised my comments accordingly, but you responded to the old comments.  Please reread my current comments and respond accordingly.


 * 2) She may apologize or not (she never has apologized to me), but in either case she does continue with the insults. I expect to see a continuing chain of insults from her here, with no action taken against her (in fact, the continuing chain of insults is because no firm action is ever taken against her).  She has now moved to placing insults on Wikiversity, as well (she just said she "despises" me and "pities" Lewis).


 * 3) You don't seem to have answered why the "you have no right to complain because you do it too" logic doesn't ever apply to Clio. StuRat 04:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Matrixism Deleted by Rogue Administrator
The Matrixism re-direct and section on Matrixism in The Matrix (series) were summarily deleted by User:Philwelch. They have been restored (temporarily?) by User:Neil but I imagine this is not the end and you might want to chime in on the subject. Philwelch's administrator status is apparently under arbitration for various violations you might want to have a say there also. 207.69.139.144 15:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, do you have any links to where his status is being discussed ? Also, did you just forget to log in or do you prefer to remain anonymous ? StuRat 17:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Please note that the proper spelling is "rouge." Edison (talk) 05:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If I ever incorrectly spell "rogue" as "rouge", you will be able to tell from my apparent blushing as well as the stampede of people telling me I messed up. :-) StuRat (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Isochoric process now available to normal people
Hi, StuRat. I would like to know your opinions on my changes to this article. I believe I have improved it. I think it was an instance of experts keeping it from being readable to normal people. You may reply on the article talk page, if you wish. A.Z. 08:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I made some changes and comments (basically, I feel it's important to have material for both the general and technical audiences). StuRat 14:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I see your point. I thought your changes were an improvement. A.Z. 02:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and let me know if any other articles need a review for a general audience. StuRat 02:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Simple Math Question -- Need Help -- Leap Years (?)
To: User talk:StuRat and User talk:Lomn

From: User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro

Re: Reference desk/Mathematics

Can someone please help me with this simple math calculation? It can't understand it and it's driving me crazy. Any insight is appreciated. Thanks.


 * Person A is born on 12/18/1946 and dies on 03/21/1994
 * Person B is born on 12/18/1904 and dies on 03/20/1952

Method One
According to Microsoft Excel: A lived 17,260 days and B lived 17,259 days.

That seems to make "sense" since ... although in different calendar years ... they were both born on the same "day" (December 18) but Person A lived an extra day in March (dying on March 21 instead of March 20) while Person B did not live for that extra day in March (dying on March 20 instead of March 21). So, it makes sense that the March 21 decedent (Person A) has lived one extra day more than the March 20 decedent (Person B) ... that is, Person A lived 17,260 days which is one day more than Person B who lived 17,259 days.

So, the only thing that is truly "different" between Person A and B is ... the actual calendar years that they lived through ... and thus "how many leap years / leap days did each person live through." (I think?)

Person A has lived through 12 leap days: in 1948, 1952, 1956, 1960, 1964, 1968, 1972, 1976, 1980, 1984, 1988, and 1992.

Person B has lived through 12 leap days: in 1908, 1912, 1916, 1920, 1924, 1928, 1932, 1936, 1940, 1944, 1948, and 1952.

Using Method One (above), Person A lived one extra day more than Person B.

Method Two
Person A: From December 18, 1946 to December 18, 1993 is exactly 47 years. So, A celebrates his 47th birthday. The date of death on March 21, 1994 is 93 days after the birthday. (using Excel or viewing a calendar)

Person B: From December 18, 1904 to December 18, 1951 is exactly 47 years. So, B celebrates his 47th birthday. The date of death on March 20, 1952 is 93 days after the birthday. (using Excel or viewing a calendar)

Using Method Two (above), Person A lives 47 years and 93 days. Person B also lives 47 years and 93 days. (There is no "one day" difference.)

Method Three
I tried to use the Wikipedia template located at: Template:age in years and days.

Typing in these dates and values yields the following results:

Person A:

47 years, 105 days

yields:

47 years, 105 days

Person B:

47 years, 104 days

yields:

47 years, 104 days

So, Method Three (above) agrees with Method Two (above) ... Person A and Person B died at exactly the same age.

Method Four
I also tried to use the Wikipedia template located at: Template:age in days.

Typing in these dates and values yields the following results:

Person A:

17260 days

yields:

17260 days

Person B:

17259 days

yields:

17259 days

So, Method Four (above) agrees with Method One (above) ... Person A and Person B did not die at exactly the same age, but one day off.

Question
Can anyone help me understand the difference / distinction / discrepancy between these four methods? I seem to be missing something, but I cannot figure out what. Thanks. Where is my reasoning flawed?

Method One and Four agree that "A" lives one day longer than "B". (17,260 versus 17,259)

Methods Two and Three agree that "A" and "B" live exactly the same length of time. (47 years and 93 days)

So, perhaps the word "year" means a different thing for Person A than it does for Person B?

That is, the word "year" means 365 days in some cases ... but it means 366 days in some other (leap-year) cases.

That might seem to cause the discrepancy.

However, Person "A" has lived during 12 leap years/days ... and Person "B" has also lived during 12 leap year/days.

Thus, for both persons, the word "year" means 366 days in 12 years of their lives ... and the word "year" means 365 days in the other 36 years of their lives. They have both lived through 12 leap years and 35 normal years (thus, a birthday of 47 years total) ... plus a fractional piece of yet another (i.e., their 48th) year.

Can anyone help me understand the difference / distinction / discrepancy between these four methods? I seem to be missing something, but I cannot figure out what.

Where is my thinking flawed? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 05:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC))


 * All the methods are correct, but methods 1 and 4 are more useful for comparing ages. The reason is that methods 2 and 3 each count "47 years", but those years have variable lengths, some being leap years and some not.  As it works out, the 47 years between 12/18/1946 and 12/18/1993 contain 12 leap days (48, 52, 56, 60, 64, 68, 72, 76, 80, 84, 88, 92) while the 47 years between 12/18/1904 and 12/18/1951 contain 11 leap days (08, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48).  Note that 1952 is not in the 47 year period in the second case. StuRat 07:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, had methods 2 and 3 counted from death back in time, the 47 years in each period both would have 12 leap years: 03/21/1947 to 03/21/1994 (48, 52, 56, 60, 64, 68, 72, 76, 80, 84, 88, 92) and 03/20/1905 to 03/20/1952 (08, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52). The number of additional days would be 93 from 12/18/1946 to 03/21/1947 but only 92 from 12/18/1904 to 03/20/1905.  Thus, you would get ages of 47 years, 93 days and 47 years, 92 days, respectively.  The lesson ?  Don't use variable sized units if you want an accurate result. StuRat 07:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, StuRat. Thank you for your reply to my question posted on the Math Help Desk (referenced aboved).  I appreciate it.  However, I am confused now more than ever.  Can you please help me understand this situation?  It's driving me nuts.  Thanks so much.  If you like, please start your explanation from scratch -- so that I can follow it more easily.  However, I thought it was important to note that both people (A and B) lived through 12 leap days in the course of their lives.  At some point, you said that one guy only had 11 leap days, while the other had 12.  (You lost me there.)  Then, you said, if we count "backwards" (from death to birth), then they both have 12 leap days in their lifetimes.  (Huh?  You lost me there again.)  So, I am very lost lost (= lost squared).  Ha ha.  Would you mind explaining this again, starting from scratch?  Thanks a lot.  By the way, to clarify confusion: when you say the word "year", please indicate if you mean a calendar year (January 1 to December 31 of 1962, for example) ... or if you mean a full year of the person's life (December 18, 1957 to December 18, 1958, for example).  Thanks again for your time and patience.  Please reply at my Talk Page: User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro.  (Joseph A. Spadaro 14:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC))


 * Follow-up. The issue is that the 1952 leap day is not counted as part of a "year", but as a separate day, using methods 2 and 3.  The period used for the final year is 12/18/1950 to 12/18/1951, which does not include February 29, 1952.  Thus you have an extra leap day, not part of the "47 years".  This doesn't happen with the other person because his year of death, 1994, was not a leap year.  So, while both people had 12 leap days in their lives, methods 2 and 3 only count, for the person who died in 1952, 11 of those in the "years" and one as a separate day, while they count all 12 of those in the "years" and none as a separate day, for the person who died in 1994. StuRat 15:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's a way we can simplify the problem, leave off the first 44 years, which contain 11 leap days in either case:


 * 44 years, 11 days =
 * 44 years, 11 days


 * 44 years, 11 days = 44 years, 11 days


 * 16071 days =
 * 16071 days


 * 16071 days = 16071 days


 * This leaves us with the portion that contains the "discrepancy":


 * 3 years, 93 days =
 * 3 years, 93 days


 * 3 years, 94 days = 3 years, 94 days


 * 1188 days =
 * 1188 days


 * 1189 days = 1189 days


 * Now, let's break down how those calcs are done:








 * 93 days = 93 days <- Leap day included




 * 366 days = 366 days <- Leap day included




 * 93 days = 93 days


 * So, by shifting the leap day out of one of the "years" and into the days counted separately, it appears that an equal length of time has passed, when, in fact, the 2nd interval is a day longer.  Note that all ranges were assumed to be from noon on the starting day to noon on the ending day (or from the same time on both days, in any case). StuRat 16:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not StuRat, but perhaps I can help as well. You've hit on the problem on the RefDesk as well as here:
 * year is used as a term meaning "sometimes 365 days and sometimes 366 days, starting from an arbitrary point" (in this case, that point is Dec 18)
 * This gives you two different meanings of the word "year" scattered across your examples, intermingled in the final answer, with no further distinction given. That ambiguity is why you get the varied results for "years + days lived" even though it's quite easy to agree that persons A and B lived a different number of days.
 * Does that clarify the issue, or are you looking for a more explicit breakdown? &mdash; Lomn 13:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks to you both. I appreciate the thorough explanations.  I need a chance to read through them carefully and digest them.  I will see if I understand this situation, or not, and get back to you as appropriate.  Many thanks again.  This problem was really stumping me, and I assume that your thorough explanations will make sense of it, after I have had a chance to read/digest/process them.  Thanks.  (Joseph A. Spadaro 17:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC))


 * OK, once you get a chance to look it all over, please let me know if it makes sense. The source of the problem seems to be defining a year as anything other than a calendar year (Jan 1 - Dec 31), which means leap days may, or may not, be included, depending on which days are defined as the "year" and which are the extra days. StuRat 12:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

RD: Decline
I have replied to your response in the Reference desk question "Decline". --Taraborn 15:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you provide a link or at least tell me which Reference Desk ? StuRat 17:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think Taraborn is referring to Reference desk/Humanities. - hydnjo talk 02:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yea, I managed to find it on my own. Thanks. StuRat 04:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Non-Euclidean?
Would you consider editing a paragraph in Isaac Titsingh?
 * "Titsingh returned to Europe where, among several other "firsts", he became the first to introduce the unique Wasan/Euclidean mathematics of sangaku to the West. ...link to sangaku overview, Princeton University...link to sangaku explanation -- digitized photos and geometry graphics (text in Dutch)'

What about supplementing this text with something like these two sentences as an in-line footnote?
 * Maths arising independent of any Greek foundation could and did develop a geometry un-inflected by the input of Euclid's systemic approach. And yet, the term "non-Euclidean" would be misleading or wrongly applicable to Wasan or sangaku because the modern idea of alternatives to the Euclidean proofs are inextricably intertwined with an intellectual exercise which involves modifying the basic postulates of observed reality.

I'm inclined to think that this isn't helpful -- rather more of a distraction? Maybe not .... What do you think? --Ooperhoofd 18:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree. Is "un-inflected" supposed to mean "uninfluenced" ?  If so, that's an odd way to say it.  Also, I'd say "mathematics", not "maths", since "maths" sounds strange in American English, where "mathematics" is abbreviated as "math".  Finally, may I ask why you came to me with this request ?  I would seem to be an odd choice. StuRat 20:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry to have presented an unwelcome query .... I simply wanted to expand a one-sentence paragraph which, I suppose, does already stand well enough on its own.  I had thought you might have a valuable perspective which could help make the article better.  A difficult-to-parse sequence led to my mistaken impression that you could embody a somewhat rare blend of interests in pre-Meiji Japanese history and in non-Japanese Euclidean geometry.


 * As for why I contacted you now: It just happens that in the past week, Nik42 made an uncommonly crisp and insightful comment at Talk:Japanese era name; and when I followed that user-link, I stumbled across your user-name. No doubt you've forgotten, but in 2006, you were asking Nik42 about an obscure Edo period controversy:
 * Kan'ei 6 (1627): The "Purple Clothes Incident" (紫衣事件, shi-e jiken): The Emperor was accused of having bestowed honorific purple garments to more than ten priests despite the shogun's edict which banned them for two years (probably in order to break the bond between the Emperor and religious circles). The shogunate intervened making the bestowing of the garments invalid.


 * For some time, this enigmatic subject has been on my short list of things to look into a bit further ... and then I noticed that your user page mentions Euclidean distance as one of the articles in which you felt your contribution was noteworthy. Ergo, I added 2+2 and came up with a wrong sum.  It was all a bit of a stretch, I know; but there you have it.  I took a chance, but it didn't work out as well as I'd hoped.


 * It all had to do with improving Isaac Titsingh. What more can I say?  This appears to be one of those times when I'm learning the hard way .... --Ooperhoofd 06:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, it makes sense now. I do indeed remember those edits, although, until now, I never thought of there being any link between them.  Well, no harm done, and I hope my suggestions on that paragraph are helpful. StuRat 12:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Carpal tunnel syndrome
I seem to be suffering from said affliction (oh no, a medical diagnosis, ban him immediately !). Therefore, I have been, and will continue to be, less active until it heals. See you later my friends (and enemies). StuRat 16:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Get well soon (is that medical advice?) & do come here when you can - you are very much appreciated. DuncanHill 17:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks ! It has reduced to a level where I can contribute a bit. StuRat 17:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

A.Z.'s block
I thought I would reply here, rather than on Dmcdevit‎'s talkpage. Yes, the reasoning, evidence and discussion leading to many of ArbCom's decisions are non transparent. By the very nature of this information it is sometimes difficult to know exactly why, but in the few occasions I have been privy to information restricted by ArbCom, it was relating to personal identifying details of editors and/or information that compromises the security of editors. Whether that is a good or bad thing, whether than we like it or not is somewhat beside the point. WP is not a democracy, and everthing is not automatically open for community discussion and decision based on democreatic principles. Jimbo made that clear when he first appointed ArbCom: "The Arbitration Committee [...] can impose a solution that I'll consider to be binding, with of course the exception that I reserve the right of executive clemency and indeed even to dissolve the whole thing if it turns out to be a disaster" In other words, ArbCom can make decisions without justifying itself the community and only Jimbo himself can over-rule this. No amount of demanding ArbCom listen to consensus will change that. So, does ArbCom have the potential issue unfair blocks? Of course it does. Is this particular block unfair. Who knows? You and I are not privy to the facts, so we can't know. Maybe will will never be privy to the facts, so we will never be able to know. That is simply something we have to accept if we wish to remain part of this community.

The second issues it that there has been a few recent blocks of so-called "pro-paedophilia advocates" (and I use that term because thats is what others have accused them of being, not because I consider them to be that, personally). I do get the feeling that there is a kind of hysteria around here that people who don't espouse the established "paedophila is bad" line are themselves paedophiles, and paedophiles must be blocked. I don't know if there is any official sanction of that (though Jimbo generally appears to have little patience for such individuals). I personally don't agree with that reasoning. With respect to encyclopaedic content, a "pro-paedophilia advocate" is no more a concern to me than an "anti-paedophilia advocate" - WP is not a place for any type of advocacy. But I am not WP's legal or PR counsel and wouldn't have to deal with the fallout if the project was implicated in an online grooming scandal. Everyone is welcome to contributed to WP, but in reality, does that mean we should openly welcome self identifying paedophiles and permit them to interact with children? Is that really in the long term interests of the encyclopaedia? I guess what I am trying to say is that while its all well and fine to discuss these issues in purely academic terms, but people like ArbCom and Jimbo have strategic, legal and ethical considerations that we don't. To conclude, I, again personally, don't believe A.Z.'s edits have demonstrated advocacy. However, his editing style has does mean he tends to offer personal opinion and couch things in terms of his beliefs. In the culture of low tolerance for non-conformist views on this issue, he was skating on thin ice. I and others tried to warn him of this a few weeks back, but to little avail. I hope his appeal is successful, but I'm not holding my breath. Rockpock e  t  19:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This seems like a horrid way to conduct business. How are we to know if we should object to the block (to Jimbo Wales) and ask him to overrule the ArbComm if everything they do is secret ?  It's one thing to say "this isn't a democracy", but denying the "common people" even with the most basic info of who decided to impose a block, for how long, and for what reason, seriously undermines my confidence in "the system".  As for A.Z., I've seen no evidence that he is personally a pedophile, and haven't even seen any evidence that he holds pro-pedophile views.  The edits of his I've seen so far appear to be rather balanced on the issue.  Do you have any other edits you can point out that I may have missed ? StuRat 20:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, do you have any info on the block and locking of User:A.Z.'s talk page ? Were these actions actually requested by the Arb Comm or is User:Dmcdevit  acting on his own ?  (How do I find out who locked the page ?). StuRat 20:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I see the block of his talk page was done by User:JzG, who, strangely, doesn't even have a user page of his own. StuRat 20:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Back to front:
 * JzG deleted his own user page in September per WP:CSD. I don't know the reasons for protecting his page apart from his justification "Arbs can write, and A.Z. really does not need the drama in a sensitive case like this.". I'm guessing it because demands for information were not constructive, the real relevant informed discussions need to take place privately and thus anyone with anything to say should send it to ArbCom. They tried asking people to do that, but they continued to protest of A.Z.'s talk page.
 * I'm the dark about this as much as you. Dmcdevit's comments seems to suggest he was acting "for and on behalf of" ArbCom and thus I don't see any reason to believe he being untruthful about that. Whether ArbCom is aware of something we are not, or have made a decision based on the same information we have, I don't know. If it is the former, was are not in a position to criticize their decision, if it is the latter, then I think it is a poor decision. Based on my experience, I'm guessing it is the former.
 * I don't have any specific edits of A.Z.'s to hand, I'll see what I can find later. However, he generally espoused the view that adult-child sex isn't necessarily child sex abuse and was involved in efforts to distinguish the two from each other in article space. Those sort of arguments are not atypical among the pro-paedophilia lobby during attempts to POV-fork (though, again, I don't have any reason to believe that was A.Z.'s motivation).
 * You make a fair point. How can there be oversight of ArbCom, even by Jimbo, if he is not even aware of ArbCom's actions? I don't know if Jimbo has access to all of ArbCom's private discussion, perhaps he does (you could ask him). However, I agree with you that if there are non-transparent decisions made then, there perhaps should be some mechanism through which we (the community) are at least made aware of what has happened, even if we can't know the exact reasons for it. That might be as simple as making it explicitly clear in the blocking rationale (to be fair, Dmcdevit did note he was blocking for "engaging in pedophilia advocacy, appeals go to arbcom per talk page" which would suggest it was an ArbCom decision) or perhaps there should be a page listing non-transparent ArbCom actions with a brief rationale, so we can all see what ArbCom is up to. The problem, of course, is that such a page would result in lots of people arguing with all of ArbCom's decisions (as we see with A.Z.'s case) because as far as they can tell the person doesn't deserve to be blocked. However, if the reason they were blocked was obvious to the community then there wouldn't be a need for it to be dealt with privately! The only way to break the circular reasoning is to trust the integrity of ArbCom and, as a check and balance, trust that Jimbo has the ability to oversee their decisions properly (i.e. that he has access to the same information as they do). Other things we could ask for is that, once the appeal is finished and everything is settled, a member of ArbCom provide as much information as they can for the reason behind the block in the blocked person's talk page. I find they are usually as forthcoming as they can be if you ask them respectfully and at the appropriate juncture.
 * Personally I don't think it is a "horrid" system. The project has a legal and ethical obligation to respect the privacy of individuals by controlling identifying information (which, for example, is why checkuser information is limited and controlled). This means there will be occasions where evidence and information must remain private. In those instances there cannot be public scrutiny and we simply have to trust in those people elected or appointed to make the appropriate decision. In this instance the most basic information were there for those that know where to look: who decided to impose a block (Dmcdevit, "for and on behalf of" ArbCom) for how long (indefinately), and for what reason (for engaging in pedophilia advocacy). Rockpock  e  t  21:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think they could make a lot more of the process public without violating anyone's privacy:


 * 1) Make a copy of any discussion or decision on page-locked site with any personal info (names, I/P addresses, etc.) redacted. The page-lock will prevent people from complaining there, and the redacting will ensure privacy.


 * 2) There is no reason why this has to wait until the process is completed. They may be basing decisions on incomplete or incorrect info, which could be remedied if those people with the info knew Arb Comm had bad or missing info they were using. StuRat 01:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Its rarely that simple. People are naturally curious (why is partly the reason we are all interested in why A.Z. was blocked), I would argue people who choose to spend their free time contributing to an encyclopaedia are at the extreme end of the curious spectrum too. I was privy to restricted information on a recent case and ArbCom, rightly so, would not say anything more about it publically because even saying what had happened in the most general terms would have sent everyone scurrying off to search, looking for anything that might fit. That serves no purpose. Either is causes people to jump to the wrong conclusions or someone makes the right conclusion and suddenly the information is no longer private. Also, while we can delete and oversight info from Wikipedia, we have no control of what happens on forks or other sites (this is partly the reasoning behind WP:BADSITES). At the end of the day, personal security/privacy trumps pretty much everything else and if that means we are all left in the dark while the case is discussed, I'll accept that. What would not be acceptable if A.Z. was kept in the dark, but we have no reason to believe that is the case. Rockpock  e  t  01:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you give me some indication of what the case was you were involved with and what privacy issues were being discussed ? I still think the Arb Comm needs to follow the principles of the United States' Freedom of Information Act, which is that every bit of info should be disclosed unless that particular bit of info would cause harm (except that they shouldn't wait until the info is requested).  Unfortunately, many in the US gov and Wikipedia apparently think the reverse, that everything should be kept private, unless they are forced to divulge it. StuRat 12:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure. It was Requests for arbitration/The Troubles, the information was an individual's home address, and the incident in question is summarized here. I would note, however, the offending edit was oversighted a week or so after it was made (completely removed from the record), so by the time that evidence was presented, it could be discussed openly because there was no way anyone could dig up the edit and find the personal information. However, before oversight was carried out, there was demands that the edit leading to the block be identified, leading to a frenzied debate on the editor in question's talk page (see here for an example, but the whole page is relevant). Its easy to oversight single edits on Wikipedia, and then they can be discussed without fear that the personal information will leak (the equivalent of Freedom of Information releases, with sensitive details blanked out). Everything gets a lot more complicated when the information cannot be oversighted and is still out there to be found. In those cases admins/ArbCom have their hands tied. This is the problem with the FOI system: it only works when you can control the flow of sensitive information.
 * To be honest, though, this is all speculation. For all I know there is no sensitive information in A.Z.'s case specifically. Rockpock  e  t  22:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's beginning to look as though the blocking Admin lied about it being on behalf of the ArbComm. A.Z. sent me an e-mail saying he had no dealings with, or notification from, the ArbComm prior to the block.  I asked one of the ArbComm members, and, while being evasive, he seems to support what A.Z. said, and not the blocking Admin. StuRat 03:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Toys Я Us advertisment
Hello, last night I was watching Saving Private Ryan and I saw the ad you were talking about. It sounds like the girl was saying "can we get some more toys" or something along those lines. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 23:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Is that all ? I was thinking it was something funny.  Thanks. StuRat 01:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Christmas Carols
Here's my own version of two songs:

Winter Wonderland


 * In the winter we can build a snow man,
 * then some kids 'll come and kick it down...
 * We'll ask 'em if they did it,
 * they'll say "no, man"...
 * then we'll rub their faces in the ground.


 * Then we'll sit, and perspire,
 * as we set their coats on fire...
 * Then we'll make 'em walk home,
 * when it's twenty below...
 * walking through a winter wonderland,
 * ...walking through a winter wonderland.

Silver Balls


 * People pointing, people laughing,
 * At the gym and doctor's,
 * I'm starting to hate...
 * being naked.


 * Silver Balls, Silver Balls...
 * I've taken too much colloidal silver.
 * Silver Balls, Silver Balls...
 * I've taken too much, by far.

StuRat (talk) 03:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Boolean logic
Hi Stu,

just a note to let you know that Vaughan Pratt has written a rather long question to you at talk:Boolean logic, requesting your input on your objections to the level of difficulty of Boolean algebra (logic). --Trovatore (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll take a look. StuRat (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Boolean algebra task force
I'd like to invite you to participate in the Boolean algebra task force that I am forming. Despite the name, a task force is just an ad hoc subcommittee of a wikiproject to work on a particular issue. In this case, I think that our articles on various aspects of Boolean algebra, propositional logic, and applications would benefit from some big-picture planning of the organization of material into various articles. The task force would not require a great time commitment. The main goal is to work out a proposal for how the material should be arranged. A second goal is for the focus to remain interdisciplinary, including computer science, logic, and mathematics. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 16:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

regarding excess water intake!
StuRat! This is temuzion & I should remind u the matter which we r dealing. "excess water intake leads to kidney troubles". Regarding that matter u told me that It might be a sign of diabetes. But it was certainly not diabetes. For more details see the original page where u saw my question Temuzion (talk) 04:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

CECB List
From Comparison of CECB units:

High Output Renal Failure
I've requested some help on the acute renal failure article at the doctor's mess. I don't know if there's a nephrologist aboard, but hopefully the article will nonetheless get some attention. - Nunh-huh 21:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Please let me know if there's any progress. StuRat (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Humour

 * Thanks ! Now if only I can think of something romantic to do with a funnel... StuRat (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You will. If anyone can, you will, : )) Julia Rossi (talk) 09:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * :-) StuRat (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You have been in extremely good form lately
As in "Waiting for Mister Right." Edison (talk) 05:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks...and if the young, fictional woman who made that comment was criticized for her actions, I suppose she could always turn the other cheek (or perhaps a deaf ear). StuRat (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

RefDesk
Thank you for your response. This has been a really difficult time for my friend and the gang has been having a difficult time consoling him. I'm going to read the article you linked me carefully. Thanks again. --Endless Dan 20:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Your welcome. You sound like a good friend. StuRat (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Update on the "flaming drink" question
I just thought I'd tell you (Franamax, StuRat, hydnjo, Atlant) how the flaming drink thing went. Well, mixed results. It's all made, but sometimes it works and some times it does not. What makes it extra odd, is that it works 100% of the time for me, but only about 50% for the girl that has to do it. So far, three shows with an audience and it only lit once. UGHH!!!

What I did: I made a fire place poker out of mostly thin PVC pipe. In the handle is a gas grill starter with wires going inside the pipe. Franamax - You mentioned the handle idea and I had already thought of that, but I didn't want to steer people towards what I was already thinking. I guess it's just a case of great minds thinking alike. ;-)

All of it is painted with "Hammered" spray paint made for outside plastic furniture. Here's a shot of it close up without the flame. http://wonderley.com/shows/2008/FarmersDaughter/Photos/Page01/shots/2008-04-17~069.jpg That's me on the couch. In the sort of V shaped tip is the igniter at the tip and the other wire coming at an angle. My invention sparks 99% of the time.

In the coffee mug is a metal jigger that I raised to the level of the top of the mug with a piece of PVC pipe. That was a mistake. I made the level of the jigger come to the level of the top of the cup so that the most amount of the flame would be visible. It should be raised, but not all the way to the top. I have to pretend to drink from this cup and the jigger (which gets scolding hot) is hard to NOT touch if the jigger is too high.

I scuffed up the inside of the mug and the other side of the jigger to get the glue to stick to it. The fact that the jigger is metal does not appear to have any effect on the spark.

In the jigger was originally only about 1/16 of an inch of "Golden Grain" booze - 95% alcohol. At my house, it ignited every time. But, not for Cheryl. I later thought about it was having it on my kitchen counter. That's higher up so I was holding the poker at more of an angle on the mug rather than straight down. So, we changed the jigger to about an half inch on alcohol. Soon before going on stage with it, she moves some of it on the side of the jigger for even more surface area.

When we do get a flame the poker flames a little as well and she blows it out. That actually looks great. The idea of adding salt is awesome - Thanks Atlant. However, I had no luck dissolving salt in the alcohol. I warmed up some alcohol with having hot water all around it in a thin glass and stirred a lot of salt in it. I then let it settle some and used a syringe with a wide tip to suck up some of the alcohol from the middle thinking I'd get the best alcohol with dissolved salt that I could. It did not appear to make any difference in the color of the flame or the ability to light it. However, we put salt in a sugar bowl. Once lit, putting a pinch of "sugar" in the flaming drink was an awesome effect.

I also tried freezing some of the booze so that the 5% that was not alcohol would be solid and use the 100% alcohol that was left - after it warmed back up and it made no difference. In fact, whatever the 5% that wasn't alcohol, appeared to be unfreezable as well.

Thanks again for all of your ideas. If you want to see more about the show, visit Wonderley.com --Wonderley (talk) 09:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The freezing method (or the more common evaporation method) isn't going to work to purify alcohol further. That's why they only sell 95% alcohol, it's difficult to get a higher percentage through distillation.  There probably are ways, but they are prohibitively expensive, like a high speed centrifuge.


 * Another suggestion, why not film the flaming drink part and show that during each showing. This will get by the problem of it not lighting all the time and the potential danger.  I realize it may not have quite the impact on film, but that's a trade-off you may have to make. StuRat (talk) 13:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

economics
I enjoyed the conversation over economics. We should have another soon. I did read your article on "diseconomies of scale", and I was impressed by your knowledge on the subject. I need about 20 more hours in the field before I complete my degree. I'd like to run by you some of the advanced elective courses and get your opinion on where my time is best spent.

Thanks

Paul Balfay NiceG3s (talk) 13:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. I will also try to convince you that Bush is an idiot.  I think you're about the only person who still thinks he was a good President.  Amazingly, fiscal conservatives aren't happy with him, due to the massive expansion of the national debt (because of Iraq and little effort to reign in social programs), and religious conservatives are mad at him for not addressing any of their issues, like banning abortion and gay marriage. StuRat (talk) 15:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

formating hints/ ref. desk
Thanks for the hint. I had figured out the colons after a while, but still sometimes forget. Your point was well made and is taken. I'll try to do better. Just have some pity for cave people like me. I stopped programming when Assembler went out of fashion. It's taking me a while to learn what all the typographical marks are used for these days. Some of the posts I look at and people might as well be speaking Vogon. And my generation used to be renowned for using a lot of acronyms. We can't hold a candle to GFDL or WP-RF. I used to joke that my aunt wasn't 'up with all that technology" and now people tell me about "namespaces" and I go "Huh??" Plus there's all that stuff you have to think of so people won't get upset with you, like logging in, signing and now colons.  Just don't run over granny when she forgets to not walk up the one way street the wrong way. Thanks :-)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisa4edit (talk • contribs) 15:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * LOL, you forgot to sign. You may find I'm closer to your generation than you think, being a Fortran programmer myself. StuRat (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Gully e-card...
Thanks very much for that. Made me smile.

Just managed to save it from my spambox as it goes. :)

It kinda reminded me of this RD topic (dunno if you've seen it). --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Glad you liked it, I thought you might. The way he fed one then a dozen more showed up seemed  spot on. StuRat (talk) 06:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * They forgot to show the first gull going into an attack stance and trying in vain to defend the food from the others, before getting pushed aside and ending up with little or nothing. Now that would be true to life... ;) --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 21:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

hi
Hi, StuRat - any chance of dropping me a line? - adambrowne666athotmail.com - ta Adambrowne666 (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't quite understand. You want me to send you an e-mail ?  If so, regarding what topic ?  Do you possibly have me confused with someone else ? StuRat (talk) 00:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal
Since you were heavily involved in the discussion at Responding to suicidal individuals some time ago I thought you might be interested in discussing the merits of a similar but slightly different proposal here. I would be very interested in your opinion. Cheers, --S.dedalus (talk) 00:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Language of the dinosaurs
Fortran? good god, I almost forgot that existed. I was taught it at university but have never used it since. You mean it actually has a use?  Sp in ni ng  Spark  13:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I used it in my last job, which was writing CAD programs for Newport News shipyards. It seems far less prone to errors from common problems like confusing pointers, addresses, and values, and failing to add a null terminator to the end of a character string. StuRat (talk) 14:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I Lol'd
. :) --Sean 13:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thx ! StuRat (talk) 13:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You're still mr. wonderfull (of toe jam) to me. Only you could pull off having your foot iin your mouth with aplombb. X-) Julia Rossi (talk) 08:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, but when Little Jack Horner embarasses himself, he puts his foot in his mouth with a plumb. :-) StuRat (talk) 13:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Haha. Are you hanging with Cookatoo lately?


 * I suppose I'll have to, as it's too late to hang with him earlyly. :-) StuRat (talk) 01:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Timbre!
Next you'll be saying that if I edit articles on abbeys in Westmeath, I must yell "fore!" first! :-D -- tiny plastic Grey Knight  &#x2296;  14:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, if that's the rule you want to implement, I'd be happy to abbey, although, I'm sure, others would want nun of it. StuRat (talk) 14:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know about a "rule", that seems like process monkery, which is a cardinal sin as you know. -- tiny plastic Grey Knight  &#x2296;  15:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:Acid Reflux
Give it time and you will be up with me soon. My problem is that the diet, exercise and sleep tips don't work well for me these days because these were the tips I originally observed back when my doc first suspected GERD (at the time, I was in the second grade). Now, as a collage student, the diet and exercise tips and sleep advice, combined with the meds, all seem to be failing. I grow more frustrated by the day that there isn;t more that I could do to relieve the problem: usually when I ask people I get this same advice, its just that for once I was hoping someone may have heard about a herbal extract or a radical new surgury or a transplant or something of that nature that I could ask my doc about instead of seeing that all to familar 'no' head shake and that look that suggestiosn I be dead in ten years.

The post at RD was technically in the wrong (I was having an attack and was venting a little), but when one loses all hope and falls in to the frustration and hopelessness that the rest of his life must be lived like a old person unless one wants to be up at 2:30 in the morning screaming in agony from what amounts to having napalm poured down one throat doesn't inspire much confidence; neither does the fact that the average person lives all the way into his 60s or 70s. Fifty years of dealing with this on top of the 15 already spent dealing with this has a tendancy to make me just a little depressed and a little suicidal. At any rate, thanks for the comments, and I will check to make sure that I try everything you suggested (though at this point I am fairly confident I have). TomStar81 (Talk) 00:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry I couldn't help more. On the plus side, if this causes you to have a healthier diet than most, perhaps you can avoid many of the health problems others suffer as a result of their poor diets. StuRat (talk) 00:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

RE: Removing medical questions
Do you not think the message you left me was a little harsh? Especially when you consider that it wasn't very clear cut whether he was asking for medical advice or not. Perhaps I was a little hasty in removing the question but personally i'd rather be safe than sorry. It is not a case of me removing anything medical, search through the archives for examples of where I responded to medical questions. Instead, it is a genuine concern for the OP. Please try and be a little less 'overzealous' yourself next time and stop assuming bad faith. Regards, <font face="Tahoma" size="2px">CycloneNimrod talk? contribs? 21:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't say anything on your talk page before, with the euthanasia question removal, but started seeing a bad pattern developing with your removals, so decided to speak up. And no, don't remove something your unsure of "just because it's better to be safe than sorry".  In cases like that, take it to the Ref Desk Talk Page and gather a consensus before removal. StuRat (talk) 21:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, consider that removing a question is like a slap in the face to the OP, and we don't want to do that type of thing unless absolutely necessary. StuRat (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * As I've said, i'm sorry for being hasty with the removal but I didn't feel the way you approached me was very respectful at all. A careful comment stating your opinion would have sufficed but instead i've been labelled overzealous. You came across in a manner which, to me, is disrespectful. However, in future I will be more careful. It seemed fairly clear-cut to me at the time that it was requesting medical advice so I went with my instinct and removed it, knowing full well it wouldn't be hard to add again if people disagreed. Regards, <font face="Tahoma" size="2px">CycloneNimrod talk?  contribs? 22:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, to soften the harshness a bit, let me say that I'm glad you left a notice that the question had been removed as medical advice, versus deleting all signs of the question. If we do run across an actual request for medical diagnosis or advice, then that is one valid way to handle it.  However, I actually prefer to leave the question, post your opinion that it's about medical advice, then redirect it.  For example, in the case of the medication dosage question, we could say "Always follow the recommended dosage on the bottle.  If you're unsure of the proper dosage, consult your pharmacist.  If you feel the dosage should be changed, consult your doctor." StuRat (talk) 22:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Happy First Day of Summer!
Happy First Day of Summer! Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Summer 2008!

If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Winter not Summer then I wish you a Happy First Day of Winter 2008!

Give this greeting to others by adding   on their Talk Page.

Summer Madness?
But it's not that simple becausse who knows where they are posting from. Not to mention a post titled "Science" on the hum desk *groan with hand to forehead*. Having fun so long as they don't make a habit of it. O..O Thank you so much fo the cows, SR   :)  Julia Rossi (talk) 11:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, they will make a habit of it. I understand when people don't quite know where to post a question about how their iPod can display different languages (Science, Computers, Entertainment, Language, Misc ?), but some just seem to pick a Desk at random for questions which obviously belong on one particular Desk. StuRat (talk) 11:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * And this one even in Tagalog. Geez, (moove)... Julia Rossi (talk) 11:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The author of that Tagalog Q will just have to tag along for the ride to the Language Desk. StuRat (talk) 23:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Where they got an astonishing eruditely magnificent answer with the Greek thrown in! Jackpot! Julia Rossi (talk) 10:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, it's all Greek to me (and probably to the OP, as well). I'm glad you MOOved it to where they got a good answer, though. StuRat (talk) 16:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Are the rich immoral?
Since this has come down to a debate, I thought I should bring it here instead of clogging up that thread (hope you don't mind). To give you some context, let me just point out that I almost invariably take a fairly liberal view to anything from abortion to capital punishment to environmentalism to gun control to income redistribution to. . . you get the picture?

Now all of the examples you've given (company towns, paying in scrip, child labour, serfdom etc) are clearly immoral. Also, I fully agree that unrestricted capitalism leads to some horrid results. All I'm saying is that you can't call the employers of the poor immoral just because they employ the poor. Looking at this from the other side: the directors of companies are under all sorts of pressure from regulators, customers, suppliers, unions, shareholders, competitors etc. They also do what they have to do to ensure their companies' survival. And if they're not being immoral then they're not being immoral.

If you want to use the word "immoral" to describe the poverty that arises out of legitimate business practices, then IMHO you'll have to call the system immoral, not the business owners who are only players in the game despite the fact that they eat better food than the mineworkers. To me, it's a case of: "Don't hate the player, hate the game". Zain Ebrahim (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I certainly don't think that anyone who employs the poor is immoral. However, you seem to imply that anything a business does, so long as it's not illegal, is moral.  Here I strongly disagree.  Note that all those immoral business practices you listed were legal at the time they were practiced.  A business has more of an obligation to it's employees than just to follow the laws, IMHO.  For example, businesses that intentionally cut their employees back to one hour less than full time, so they can deny benefits legally, are skirting the law intentionally just to take advantage of their employees.  Other businesses expect employees to work unpaid overtime, and give them poor reviews if they refuse ("not a team player").  There are countless other practices designed to intentionally exploit employees.  While such practices may provide short-term benefits to the employer, I have to think they harm the business in the long run, by causing a high employee turnover rate and employees who hate the company and want it to fail. StuRat (talk) 23:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks like we're on the same side after all. I wasn't trying to imply that legal implies moral - sorry for the misunderstanding. I think that my use of the word legitimate wasn't very good because I meant it in a subjective way but I'm still struggling to articulate what I mean ("if it's not immoral then it's not immoral"?). I only entered that thread because of user:DeborahJay's use of the word "pocketed". Providers of capital definitely deserve to be rewarded for the risk they bear.


 * I think that we disagree on the scale of the problem. In my opinion (and limited experience), most business owners these days prefer to take care of their working-class employees, perhaps for the reasons you mentioned. But I think that you might disagree, right? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 10:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd say it's maybe 50-50. Underfunded pension funds (which are guaranteed to collapse when the company does) are another way companies take advantage of their employees legally.  Ironically, companies which put their employees and customers first may be more profitable, in the long run, than those which put profits first.  Unfortunately, American companies, owned by stockholders who want to make a quick buck, and controlled by CEOs who are often replaced, have a very short-term outlook which prevents them from concerning themselves with what's good for the company in the long run.  Being from Detroit, I continue to be astonished by the car company's total lack of planning for the future.  It's like they never even considered that gas prices might go up.  They should have had fuel efficient cars designed and ready to build when oil prices rose, but just kept designing huge SUVs, instead, because that strategy maximized profits for the next quarter. StuRat (talk) 16:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the car companies didn't expect demand for SUVs to change despite the increased oil price. Have Americans really changed their driving patterns or their preference for "gas-guzzlers" in response to higher oil prices? Here in South Africa (where petrol is fairly cheap), I'm starting to notice people trying to get rid of their expensive cars for cheaper and more fuel-efficient ones. Note that South African interest rates are currently very high with no signs of decreasing any time soon. In the US, petrol is very cheap and interest rates are low (with potential increases unlikely) so I don't think the car companies expected much of a change in demand. If demand did change much, could it be because of the downturn in the economy in general coupled with higher oil prices? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think many people are yet abandoning their current large SUVs, but very few are going to buy a new SUV with gas prices where they (and the threat of going much higher). This is what the car companies should have known.  It's not rocket science to know that when fuel prices go up, gas-guzzler sales will plummet.  So, if gas prices stay where they are or for the next 5-10 years, that will get most the gas-guzzlers off the road due to attrition.  If the gas price doubled, that might get people to retire their huge SUVs even earlier than planned. StuRat (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

(Remove indent)Yeah, you're right. I guess the silver lining in all of this is that people will stop wasting fossil fuels and humanity may actually survive a few more decades than anticipated. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 00:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's hope so... StuRat (talk) 04:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Phew
Thanks StuRat, I was almost expecting an op reaction, so it was nice to find your support message. Seems strange that people think the desks have fixed "staff" when most of us probably float around them all. Maybe locating properly to the so-called minor desks will help them and not dilute the main ones so much. Thanks again, Julia Rossi (talk) 23:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You're welcome, and keep up the good work ! StuRat (talk) 23:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Re refdesk talk, the Ent desk -- has it ever been so famous? : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 23:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * ...or ever so entertaining ? Personally I think the Entertainment Desk is a good place to quanrantine all our Pokemon questions, to keep them from infecting the healthy Desks. :-) StuRat (talk) 00:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Identifying internet bot
Hi, do you know how to identify Internet bot? For example an IP is editing/vandalizing some pages in a wiki, how will I understand if the IP is person or bot?  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 03:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, I do understand about wikipedia bots. But sometimes it happen that IPs make edits in wikis which are actually not operated by humans. How to identify this phenomenon? How will I understand by seeing an IP address if it is a bot or not?  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 04:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for removing the "troll" at the reference desks. It was in the way of everybody including me who wished to post and answer questions. I am glad to see Jump gyn blocked. I was checking the history. --Mayfare (talk) 01:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. I hope this is the last we see of that troll. StuRat (talk) 02:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't count on it... ZigZap (talk) 13:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

RD diagnoses
StuRat, I don't think Kainaw was suggesting that the OP couldn't tell the difference between a lodged popcorn kernel and a tooth. He merely noted that identification of a new, hard lump in the mouth is not a sure thing, and what one thinks is a tooth isn't always. (For the record, patients can and do mistake firmly lodged nuts and popcorn kernels for teeth, so Kainaw's remark wasn't completely off the wall.) Kainaw correctly noted that a bony tumor could present that way as well – though he really oughtn't be offering alternate diagnoses for the symptoms given – and there are numerous other possible explanations.

I've removed both the question and the bulk of the answers, as we have no basis for concluding that the OP's symptoms are the result of a wisdom tooth eruption, and we all should know better than to glibly offer such a diagnosis. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm disappointed that your first response here was to revert me without discussion, and to assert a consensus that was not apparent. Before you choose to revert me again, can you please participate in the discussion at WT:RD? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have: . I am very dissapointed that you removed the question without a consensus or even discussion, and then only added it to the discussion page as an afterthought.  As I've stated many times in the past, if you expect people to not revert your removals without consensus, then you need to offer the same courtesy and not delete questions without consensus.  And, in this case, it was quite obvious that this was a matter of dispute, based on the comments of myself and others at the question. StuRat (talk) 04:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * How do you see it as an 'afterthought'? I removed the diagnosis, posted here to your talk page as rapidly as possible as a courtesy, and immediately after that posted a request for comment on WT:RD.  The entire process took sixteen minutes, and I did nothing in the intervening time.


 * Your understanding of the existing guidelines is flawed. Where there is a reasonable apprehension that a question seeks medical advice, the question (and answers) should not be restored until there is a consensus to do so.  If you are certain that your position is correct, then please wait for a real consensus to be established at WT:RD&mdash;the question will be restored in due time.


 * I will be asking at AN/I for a neutral admin to step in, since you seem bent on edit warring in contravention of the guidelines. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It takes two to edit war, and I would say the person who first did the removal without consensus is the one starting the edit war, and that would be you. I'm also guessing that any guideline that says that anyone can unilaterally remove questions but nobody can restore them without a consensus was created in the same way (added without consensus, but with removal of that guideline requiring a consensus). StuRat (talk) 05:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

StuRat, it is established convention to remove questions seeking medical advice and the consensus at AN/I is that TenOfAllTrades’s action was correct. — Travis talk  13:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * However, the consensus at the Ref Desk talk page and at the question itself is that it's not a question seeking a medical diagnosis or advice. It wasn't appropriate for Ten to bypass the consensus-building process at the Ref Desk and take it to AN/I. StuRat (talk) 14:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I must disagree with your analysis of the discussion at WT:RD. The OP does not state that a new tooth has erupted or that a dentist has said that a new tooth is growing, therefore, we cannot assume that it is actually a tooth and not something else. — Travis talk  14:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, so you're going with the absurd suggestion that the OP can't properly identify a tooth. I will trust that the OP isn't an idiot. StuRat (talk) 15:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Travis, when answering, we have to assume that it is, in fact, a tooth. Things would get out of hand pretty quickly if we continuously second guessed the premises to our OPs' questions. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You two are assuming that a tooth has erupted or has otherwise been positively identified. All I’m saying is that the OP did not make it clear and that a lump under the gum is not necessarily a tooth. The OP wrote, “is growing a new tooth,” not, “had a new tooth come in.” — Travis talk  15:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, now that the OP has clarified his question, the point appears to be moot. Cheers — Travis talk  16:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Heady header
The header you added at the RD talk page seems a bit excessive. We're trying to reach consensus and that type of thing won't really help. Besides, on talk pages (like this one :) ), the OPs' opinions are refected in the headers. Just a thought, Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Had I added a header that said "Nonconsensus deletionists at it again", then I'd agree. However, my "Tooth question" header is completely neutral, while "Tooth advice" was not, and was completely false in that no advice of any type was solicited by the OP (had they asked if the tooth should be pulled, then that would be an advice question).  Opinionated headers should be avoided, as they tend to make the situation worse.  I also draw a distinction between user talk pages and article talk pages, where more effort should be made to remain neutral. StuRat (talk) 13:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This is crazy?!
I am a new editor. I saw what user:TenOfTrades done and its extremely unethical. He has acted very manipulatively, and anybody new and joining the debate would be lead straight into a fed and baited conclusion. When you left a note on my talk page, I thought you were going to disagree with me, but I'm glad you defended our merits. We are right, however depending on the choice of other editors who opine, we could very well find ourselves in the minority. I have been trying to encourage people to let this issue die, since its so obfuscated and its not worth bringing to attention how TenOfTrades has sidestepped the boundary of ethics to manipulate the POV in such a way that uses cheap tricks to "win" the fallacious argument that ultimately we're either forced to engage in or walk away from. I will continue this fight, for the sake of principle and for the sake of wikipedia only, if you do. However, if you think it will be drag out and will be a dirty fight, then I recommend we just keep an eye on the questionable user and make sure he doesn't do this often. Hopefully, he's not doing it intentionally. He has a commendable edit history, so I doubt he's trying to sabotage his good name. The discussion is probably over his head, and he is not quite ready to engage in formal, civil debates, while handling himself ethically. Sentriclecub (talk) 15:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not a positive environment for encouraging new editors to be contributing to wikipedia. I'm a college grad, very educated, and am rethinking my place here.


 * I agree completely. Removing a post is like a slap in the face, especially to newbies, and should only be done under extreme circumstances.  There are more Ref Desk users who agree with this, but, unfortunatley, those who disagree are Admins and tend to ignore the will of the majority.  Still, if we stick together and fight such unilateral actions, we can prevent things from getting even worse.  I hope you'll stick around. StuRat (talk) 15:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In the lawsuit-happy climate of the United States, we must err on the side of caution when it comes to anything that could be perceived as medical, legal, financial, or any other advice which could easily lead to litigation. — Travis talk  15:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

20 minutes before travis' response this is not about opposing viewpoints between whether or not to err on the side of caution. All 6 of us believe uniformly that it is very commendable of wikipedia to have respect for the medical community by having a large "gray area" and always sticking to answers that are completely [black]. The discussion was about another matter, which for those who don't see it, I'm not involved. Sentriclecub (talk) 16:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't imagine any way the question asked and answers given could possibly lead to Wikipedia losing a lawsuit. On the other hand, we routinely answer questions on explosives and such that could easily lead to that. StuRat (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually i can see how this "black" answer alone is not treating his question medically, but the followups after my answer undermined any chance of not relooking at the question with a monstrous slanted perception.

The illusory effect lies with comparing the question to my answer, vs comparing the question to the subsequent fallouts. The question didn't change, but put into the new thread which developed, is undeniably a "medical issue", which should then be deleted. For those whose intelligence(12+ outta 24) manifests itself in alalogies, then I can convey my point this way.

Look at this graphic.

The question along with my succinct answer was a "black square" but kineua's response minutes later was the green can.

Hope some of you liked the analogy method of explanation, and will check out this maze puzzle for more brain workouts. Sentriclecub (talk) 16:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

greenlight a movie
Thanks for your answer! So if the answer is "studio executives", then who might typically be on this panel who greenlights the project? Would it be the producer and director together? Or maybe some sort of executive in charge of finances? --Sonjaaa (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * More of the latter, I would think. At that point in the process the producer and director may not even have been chosen, yet.  I would expect a team of accountants would have to OK the pic before that. StuRat (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for saving pages
Thank you for saving pages about various Linux distributions from blatant deleting. I am sick of these "Delete because of non-notability" dictators. Megaribi (talk) 10:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks at Articles for deletion/Alinex
Please refrain from personal attacks like the one you posted at Articles for deletion/Alinex. The editor in question may be very mistaken, but it's best to assume good faith to prevent heated disputes. -- Explodicle <font size="-2">(T/C) 18:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Where you been?
Hi StuRat, missing you, hope all is well... Julia Rossi (talk) 04:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Julia, and thanks for the kind word. I injured my back and wasn't feeling up to using the computer much (sitting at the chair was painful).  It's getting better now, so hopefully I can use the computer at least a bit. StuRat (talk) 02:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Welcome back! (sorry about that goddorfl pun) of course meaning get well soon. Sorry about your injury and a big one at that. It's so nice to see your post at the ent desk. =) take care, Julia Rossi (talk) 07:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll let that crack slide. Does that mean I'm spineless ?  I wish ! Those lucky octopuses !  (Or is it octopi ? ... no, that's a pie shaped like a stop sign, isn't it ?)  {Note that I've included a link on "stop sign", just in case Aussie stop signs are shaped like wombats.} :-) StuRat (talk) 17:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it's exactly like the ones I ignore over here. ; ) but whenever there's a wombat one, I do take notice. Julia Rossi (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Then you should start a movement to have all stop signs there changed to the shape of wombats, so Aussies will actually notice them. :-) StuRat (talk) 09:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * haha, good one. Coincidentally I stopped for three ducks crossing today, (and there was a ducks sign). Awww, : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 08:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * A sign for ducks crossing right where they cross ? I'm impressed.  The Aussie road crews obviously have all their ducks in a row... :-) StuRat (talk) 14:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah SR, if you could see our crews, you'd know it was the ducks getting it together, :-) Julia Rossi (talk) 03:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Good form
I enjoy seeing you in good form on the desks, very fungi, as ever, helpful too – : )  Julia Rossi (talk) 07:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'm just glad there's 'shroom for humor at the Desks. StuRat (talk) 13:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If not, we can start a nitting circle. =) Julia Rossi (talk) 03:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm, picking nits off with nitting needles sounds as hard as picking rice up with chopsticks. :-) StuRat (talk) 02:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I presume anyone who drives through blizzards to find buzzards at Christmas is merely being modest. (You could try it with chopsticks, this is a post-modern-type nitting circle) ; ) Julia Rossi (talk) 05:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have a four-wheel drive truck, so driving through inclement weather is no problem, especially when one considers the added traction provided by all those subcompacts I drive over. StuRat (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Something like that, yes
I didn't mean to evade the questions you asked at the end of your response to my Science Ref Desk query, but as I wrote initially, I can't provide further details. The situation is characteristic of assignments on a military base, yes. I appreciate your input, StuRat, thanks. -- Deborahjay (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I don't want you to tell me, if you'd have to kill me afterwards. :-) My experience as an instructor (often working long hours, and sometimes at defense contractors) is purely anecdotal, so I guess you'll need others to point you toward the studies you seek. StuRat (talk) 01:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

flaminglawyerc neverforget is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message.


 * Thanks, and I certainly will consider giving gifts to those I've had disagreements with in the past...at least if I can find that box of exploding candy canes. :-) StuRat (talk) 04:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * and you can include my list. I found that very sin-spiring. Have yourself a merry little Christmas ti-ime. (I trust you to think parody, SR.) : )) from   Julia Rossi (talk) 07:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Have you heard my version of Winter Wonderland ?

In the winter we can build a snowman, then some kids 'll come and kick it down, we'll ask 'em if they did it, they'll say "no man", then we'll rub their faces in the ground.

Then we'll sit, and perspire, as we set their coats on fire, and we'll make 'em walk home, when it's twenty below...

Walking through a winter wonderland ! StuRat (talk) 15:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Respek! Be sure to put out the CD in time for next Christmas and I want one! : ))  Julia Rossi (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll put it out on a flash drive, made especially for flashers. :-) StuRat (talk) 02:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

You must have this...
Happy Christmas from Australia! Julia Rossi (talk) 00:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks ! I was afraid to open the card, thinking I'd find an elf peeking out of a kangaroo's pouch.  StuRat (talk) 13:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The kangaroo would be even more afraid! Ching ching ching, ching ching ching... Julia Rossi (talk) 08:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yea, those pointy elf shoes could really hurt momma roo. (Maybe that's why some of them are curled up at the end ?)  StuRat (talk) 14:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind...
This. To be honest, I'd very much like to see said infomercial. :) · <font face="Times New Roman" color="Black">AndonicO <font face="Times New Roman" color="Navy">Engage. 03:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yea, that infomercial was pretty funny alright, right up there with the Flowbee and hair in a spray paint can. StuRat (talk) 05:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Jet fuel
I wanted to say some personal Thank You! for answering my questions about jet fuel. It really helped to somewhat clear my mind and research topic farther. Vitall (talk) 08:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You're quite welcome. StuRat (talk) 14:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

 * You're welcome, and I hope such questions are never banned,


 * ...as that would leave us with questions which are only bland. StuRat (talk) 14:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

new WP:RDREG userbox
The box to the right is the newly created userbox for all RefDesk regulars. Since you are an RD regular, you are receiving this notice to remind you to put this box on your userpage! (but when you do, don't include the |no. Just say <tt> </tt> ) This adds you to Category:RD regulars, which is a must. So please, add it. Don't worry, no more spam after this - just check WP:RDREG for updates, news, etc. flaminglawyerc 07:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I added it, thanks ! StuRat (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Digitizing pad
Hi,

Following up on your edit where you mentioned your surprise at the lack of Digitizing pad article... Is it the same as a Graphics tablet? I've never seen one like in the pic you linked, so not too sure about creating a redirect.

Cheers, <font color="#000000">d <font color="#808080">avid <font color="#000000">p <font color="#808080">rior t/c 16:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that looks the same. I'll add a redirect. StuRat (talk) 16:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I added a redirect from digitizing pad. Digitizing tablet already had a redirect.  Thanks ! StuRat (talk) 16:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Just For The Record
<redacted inappropriate content> Refdesk is not for discussing users behavior. Please use their user talk pages to carry on conversations with them. --Jayron32. talk . contribs 05:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record,

"I would have omitted the word "straight". Similarly, I'd have said "a sex video featuring Japanese with purple Mohawks", if the participants looked like that, but wouldn't have said "a sex video featuring Japanese with black hair, cut in the typical fashion", if the participants looked like that. ..."

Precisely because you would have omitted the word "straight", that makes you a homophobe because your first response to my post was to warn people that it was a sex video. Obviously, I concur with Jack, viewing personal videos on company time is asking for disciplinary action, and viewing sex videos on company time especially is asking for dismissal. Note this is any, and I mean ANY, sex video. Now here is my evidence for the fact that you ARE a homophobe, and I am not being obnoxious, because I doesn't take less that 2 keystrokes to NOT type homophobic slurs.

"Warning: That looks to be the start of a gay sex video. Fortunately it stops after the two men undress each other to their boxers, but probably not the type of thing you want to view at work, unless you want everyone to look at you a little differently from now on."

- StuRat (talk) 01:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

You intend to warn other's that this is a sex video, well the start, but that is irrelevant. Well if you intended to warn other's that this was a sex video, gay, straight, bi, nonhuman, it doesn't matter. And no, I will not assume good faith. Why the hell should I assume good faith? You never took the time to consider other people, so why should I?96.53.149.117 (talk) 01:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You seem to have mistaken the Ref Desk for StuRat's talk page. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 02:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Uh? What are we talking about?  <font family="Arial"> Little Red Riding Hood  talk  03:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You know exactly what we are talking about. You even went to Stu's defense and harassingly called me obnoxious.96.53.149.117 (talk) 23:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * He got into an argument previously under another topic here. Now he's continuing it under this new topic. You can probably get the gist of it from what he posted. It's all very exciting. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 04:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I moved the above here from. StuRat (talk) 00:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Names (continued)
(carrying on from Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2008 December 23)

Well, I think this is all very revealing about your attitudes to such minorities, Stu. So, you wouldn’t mention your friend’s religion or sexuality straight up, but you might get around to it later. Fair enough. Although, I hope you wouldn't wait till the moment he stepped out of the room and then said "By the way, he's gay". Rather, it might arise naturally when the topic of sexuality was being discussed. Why is the case we’re discussing any different? The issue was that the video contains images of people having sex. That’s all you needed to say. Had the discussion proceeded on that basis, maybe the fact that the sex depicted is gay might have been mentioned down the track somewhere. Or maybe not. I don’t have a problem with that either way. It’s the fact that the very first thing you identified was not just sex, but gay sex, that caused the problem. It’s tantamount to saying that sex between a man and a woman is so standard that nothing needs to be said, but sex between two men is something that must cause red flags to be raised and alarm bells to be sounded. If you wouldn't have mentioned first up that the sex was straight (if it had been a straight video), then why take a different approach when the sex happens to be gay?


 * So if the topics of religion or sexuality never came up naturally, I shouldn't mention my friends' religions or orientations ever ? This, to me, sounds like it is considered taboo, which, in turn, implies that there is something wrong with being Jewish or gay so that it should be kept concealed.   As for omitting the word "straight", we already went over that. It's implied where absent, just like a vehicle having four wheels is implied unless you state otherwise.  And no, this doesn't mean homosexuality is an abomination before God, or anything like that, just that it's far less common than heterosexuality. StuRat (talk)


 * When you mention someone's religion or sexual orientation, your putting them in a special category. They are absolutely not particularly special in anyway.96.53.149.117 (talk) 05:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not that there's anything taboo about these matters, but it's clearly a grey area, and there can't be hard and fast rules about it. But let me pose the opposite question.  Why would you feel the need to tell someone, completely out of the blue, that your friend is gay, Jewish, or of Armenian descent?  What would be the purpose of mentioning those facts?  There would have to be some connection to the existing conversation.  Or perhaps you wanted to start a conversation about minorities, and you used your friend as an example.  But just saying these things in isolation from any other context ... what would that be about, and what would that say about the speaker?  I can think of an example where it might appear to be context-free.  You've known Fred for 20 years, but he's only very recently acknowledged he's gay and that he's felt this way ever since he was a teenager.  Now, he's proudly out and doesn't mind who knows.  You get on the phone and call your other friend Stan, and you have a conversation about how surprised you felt when you found out about Fred, and how he'd managed to conceal it from you for so long, and maybe how hurt you were that he never trusted you enough to tell you earlier.  Or whatever your feelings are.  Even there, the context is the creation of an outlet for your expression of surprise, or joy, or hurt, or whatever your feelings are.  It's not just to point some finger at Fred because of his gayness (with a possible subtext of "Obviously, we'll be having a lot less - and maybe nothing - to do with him from now on; and obviously, he's off my Christmas card list forever".)  --  JackofOz (talk) 22:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd just list it along with other identifying attributes. "That's a gift from my friend Fred.  Do you remember him ?  He's tall, thin, has black hair, is Jewish, Armenian, and gay."  Of course, this would only help to identify him if he was effeminate or if he had previously been identified as gay.  Similarly, being Jewish would only help to identify him if he looked Jewish (such as an Hasidic Jew with the curls of hair at the sides) or if his Jewishness had already been established. StuRat (talk) 01:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Why would referring to someone as gay "only help to identify him if he was effeminate"? Do you really think that all gay men display feminine characteristics or that all men who do must be gay? Have you ever actually met a homosexual person in the flesh, StuRat, because your language strongly suggests your scope of reference is rather narrow. If you intend to use homosexuality to define a behavioural stereotype in future, you might wish to make yourself familiar with these guys, for example, or these guys. Because, just like heterosexuals, homosexuals come in all flavours. Rockpock  e  t  02:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Because, obviously, describing someone as gay wouldn't help to identify them if they were not effeminate. Rock, I don't think you're really here to help, but just here to stir up trouble (most likely as a result of my recent efforts against unilateral deletionism on the Ref Desk Talk Page).  Therefore, please go away. StuRat (talk) 03:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Describing someone as gay wouldn't help to identify them if they were effeminate, either, StuRat, unless your view of gay people is entirely based on a stereotype. Thats my point. My intention is not to stir up trouble, either, but to try and reinforce (as others have) that the way you have referred to homosexual people is likely to be seen as offensive. If you don't wish to take that under consideration, that is up to you, but its only likely to lead to further bad feeling towards you. That said, if my presence is unwelcome here then I will take my leave henceforth. Rockpock  e  t  06:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You still don't seem to appreciate that the issue with watching sex videos at work is that it's that fact that the images are about sexual activity (as opposed to people digging ditches or playing music) that makes them inappropriate - it doesn't matter whether it's boy-girl, boy-boy or girl-girl. Even watching a non-porn sex education video at work could get you the sack in many places, and, again, whether it's straight or gay would make absolutely no difference. You seemed to understand that when you wrote "There's nothing homophobic about not wanting people to think you're the type of person who views sex videos at work". But now, you've drifted quite considerably to: "Many adults won't want to watch gay sex videos who would want to watch straight sex videos". That is certainly true speaking generally, but this whole discussion has been about watching videos at work, specifically at work. What might apply in the general case often has absolutely no relevance in a specific context; and vice-versa. So, either you're confusing generalities with specifics, or your original warning meant something other than that which I've gone to extreme lengths to continue to assume. Your first respondent, the one who called you a homophobe, was not so charitable, but it's understandable why they formed that instant conclusion. Very understandable. If you use that sort of seemingly discriminatory language in future, you can expect exactly the same reaction. Don't say you weren't warned.

Re "I don't think telling people what the link they are about to click will do is ever a bad thing; the more info they have the better decision they can make." This gets me back to my point about all sex videos being inappropriate for workplace viewing. Your argument now seems to be that some people would choose to risk the sack by watching a video at work that they know is straight, but they wouldn't take such a risk if they know it's gay. In the first case, the worst case scenario is that they'd lose their job; in the second case, they'd not only lose their job but also get branded as a homo, and that’s too high a price to pay. Well, maybe, but don't you think this is their decision? A general warning is fine, but one warning for straight videos and a different one for gay videos is not fine. That does definitely display a discriminatory attitude, and one that will not serve you well.


 * It's their decision, absolutely, but they have a right to know the content before they click on the link, so they can make an informed decision. StuRat (talk) 04:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * They have no right to know what content it is before they click it. Your reason was to warn them it was a sex video.  Gay or striaght, it doesn't matter.  All you wanted to warn them about was that it was "the start of a sex video".  So what does it matter what kind of sex video it was?  You'll still get the sack.96.53.149.117 (talk) 06:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Just going slightly off topic for a moment, but it's still about the use of discriminatory language. I don't know what your religion is (assuming you have one), nor do I want to know, but let's say you're a Mormon, and you have a friend who constantly refers to you as "my Mormon friend Stu", where the subject of religion was not part of the conversation. I would be quite offended by such gratuitous references; it would imply that one's Mormon-ness puts them into a different category of friendship than merely "friend". And I would certainly ask them to refrain from categorising me in such a way. Same for "my gay friend Jack" or "my Chinese friend Fred". I had the greatest difficulty in ever explaining this to Loomis, both on WP and in private emails. He constantly brought up the subject of my gay sexuality in contexts where it had absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. I asked him to stop, and he agreed, but he couldn't (or maybe wouldn't) help himself. He, on the other hand, seemed obsessed by his Jewishness, and almost never failed to mention it, no matter what we were talking about. If he wants to think of himself first and foremost as a Jew, and as a Canadian, a man, a heterosexual, and a human being in lower places in the order, that's his choice. But most people don't primarily identify themselves by whatever minority groups they belong to, and it's wrong to assume they do. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW, I'm agnostic with a slight Buddhist leaning and you can tell everyone you meet that I am, and I won't be insulted one bit. I'm also of French, Scottish, and English ancestry, so go ahead and tell everyone and I promise not to be mad at you for spilling my secrets.  I also like girls.  Go ahead and tell the whole world.


 * Ok, let me try my warning again, in as politically correct manner as I can manage:

"For those of you considering watching this at work, or at home with kids, this is the start of a sex video. However, the people in the video, whose genders I won't mention, stop once they get down to each other's underwear, of a type I won't mention, since that might indicate their gender and hence their sexual orientation.  Now, for those of you at work, skip the next warning."

"For those of you watching at home, without kids, this is the start of a gay sex video. If you wish to watch, enjoy.  If watching such things is against your religion or moral beliefs, then don't watch." StuRat (talk) 04:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * For you first warning, that is just completely ridiculous. You are just being ridiculous to prove a point.  And the second warning is ridiculous.  People can decide for themselves if it is offensive to them are not.  You are not to judge.96.53.149.117 (talk) 04:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Now I suspect we differ on that last warning. I know that many adults who would like to watch straight sex videos object to watching gay sex videos.  I respect their opinion and feel that they should therefore know which video they are selecting.  It sounds to me like you would prefer to surprise them.  Here we disagree.  StuRat (talk) 04:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You are arguing for the sake of arguing. We know why you put up those warnings, to warn people at work.  Now I accused you for that and you didn't even elaborate.  So now your saying that the warning was actually to warn people really for the type of sex?  Well obviously, I can't really call you anything else but a really sick homophobe.96.53.149.117 (talk) 04:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You bet we do, and not just on the last warning. What would be wrong with:
 * "This appears to be the start of a sex video, however, it stops before they remove all their clothes or perform any sexual acts". End of story.  Anything more opens up cans of worms.
 * I respect your intent in wishing to protect people from seeing things they may not like, but I think you're veering into actually taking responsibility for their feelings, and, possibly, pandering to their prejudices. A general warning is fine; but once you start to get into specifics, it can say more about the speaker than about the thing they're speaking about.  Let me fabricate another example.  Say I tell you I'm going to be visiting New York for the first time, and ask you for some suggestions for places to visit and places not to visit.  You happen to know that I'm anti-semitic (I'm not, of course, in real life).  Would you buy into my prejudice and advise me not to go to predominantly Jewish areas of the city, because I would probably see random Jews on the street and maybe need to buy things from Jewish shop-keepers, and that would spoil my holiday?  Hardly.  Similarly, if you were visiting Sydney, and I knew you were homophobic, I would not advise you not to go anywhere near Oxford Street.  But equally, I wouldn't lead you into a "trap" by suggesting you do go there, while making no mention of the fact that it's the gay centre of Sydney.  I just wouldn't mention it at all, and if you just happened to wander in there by chance, you'd be on your own in terms of reaction to the people you passed in the street. --  JackofOz (talk) 22:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If I knew you were uncomfortable around Jews (let's say you were a Palestinian whose family had been killed by Jews), then you bet I'd tell you which areas to avoid, so we wouldn't have an incident. StuRat (talk) 01:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That is for them to decide: if they are uncomfortable around jews, that is there problem. Your just involving yourself in their problem.  And in anycase, at the end, they are wrong.  They have a problem with their own prejudices.  You don't have to perpetuate it.96.53.149.117 (talk) 05:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That might be a special case. Assume I have no connection to the Middle East, but I just hate Jews because ... well, just because I do.  It's just blind, stupid anti-semitism, but you know I'm not the sort to actually create trouble, and you know any Jews I happen to come across will be quite safe.  Do you tell me not to go to such areas, or do you say nothing and let me take my chances?  --  JackofOz (talk) 07:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * First, I don't think I'd be friends with such a person. But, for the sake of argument, if I was, I wouldn't "warn them not to go there", but I would tell them that was the Jewish area, and let them make their own decisions. StuRat (talk) 07:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. But if the person were not an anti-semite (or they were but you didn't know they were), can I assume you'd not necessarily make any mention of the Jewish area at all?  (Unless you would have anyway, because you think it's a nice place for anyone to visit.  Or unless they were Jewish themselves.)  If you'd particularly mention it to person that you know to be anti-semitic, doesn't that acknowledge and legitimise their prejudice and bigotry?  In the same way that particularly mentioning it to a person that you know to be Jewish acknowledges their Jewishness.  Being even-handed and helpful is fine as a general principle, but how would you justify being helpful and even-handed to a known bigot in the pursuit and perpetuation of their prejudice?  --  JackofOz (talk) 21:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I might very well mention the Jewish area just in passing. In Detroit, for example, I might mention that they may want to avoid the Jewish residential area, because of a lack of major roads in the area.  (Apparently there is a rule that they must walk to Temple, and major roads pose a barrier to that.)  But I seem to detect that you are judging anyone who chooses not to watch a gay sex video (but who would watch a straight sex video) as being bigoted, or homophobic.  Here we disagree.  If they choose to or not to watch is their business, and I won't judge them for it either way, but will provide the information for them to make an informed decision. StuRat (talk) 23:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I certainly do not judge people in the way you suggest, and I'm not sure how you could have arrived at that conclusion. People have the absolute right to watch whatever they want to watch.  I'm all for providing people with appropriate warnings, but to say any more about what to say in such warnings, and what not to say, would be to go over old ground that I seem to have failed to have had much if any impression on you.  That's ok, we all fail.  But my position is on the record if you ever want to review it.  This has probably reached its natural conclusion now, Stu.  Thanks for an amicable discussion.  I wish all strong disagreements could be conducted in such a positive way.  I'll just end by reiterating the warning I stated earlier: If you were to issue a warning about a gay video in future, using the sort of words you did that started this whole discussion off, remember that you're likely to once again be branded a homophobe.  Not by me, but by someone.  Something to think about.  Cheers.  --  JackofOz (talk) 23:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for keeping it civil. But I'm still mystified as to how it can be up to each individual to decide whether they want to watch gay sex videos or not, and yet me telling them that this is what will happen when they pick the link, so they have the info needed to make such a decision, is somehow wrong. StuRat (talk) 23:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, what can we say. You fail at understanding.  Tough luck.96.53.149.117 (talk) 05:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

(deindent) No, that's not an accurate description of what you did. It wasn't a case of you informing people who might be interested in gay videos that this was such a video. It was a case of you warning them against watching it in the event that gay videos are not their cup of tea. You've already acknowledged that you wouldn't have issued a similar "warning" had the video been straight (your words from 1 Jan: I would have omitted the word "straight"). That's the crux of the discrimination, and that's obviously why the anon called you a homophobe. It's one thing to simply label a sex video as straight, gay or whatever it is, without further comment. But when you start warning people what not to watch, you walk a very, very precarious line unless you're particularly careful with your choice of words. Maybe it's clearer to me because I'm sensitised to these sorts of issues through years of intimate personal experience, plus professional training in fostering inclusivity and embracing diversity. Without for a moment being condescending or patronising, let me suggest there are Discrimination Awareness courses you can take to make you more alive to these issues and how best to avoid them. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, let me take one more stab at convincing you. Let's say someone posted a movie clip on the Entertainment Desk and asked what was being said in the clip.  If the clip was in French, you might "warn" people of that (because non-Francophones would be utterly wasting their time trying to understand it), right ?  If it was in English, would you also mention that ?  Let's say the answer is no.  Does this mean that you are prejudiced against the French because you only "warn" when movies are in French and not in English ?  No, of course not, it's just that posting an English language movie is more common (at least on English Wikipedia), so it's just not worth mentioning. StuRat (talk) 08:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't mention any of this information. Infact, I would very much be happy that the video is in french and it wouldn't be for a sec a waste of my time.


 * If we took your concept, I could really describe this French video clip to infinite parameter until I die I still wouldn't be finished. I could say that this video clip contains a some Tandorii Chicken on a plate, just incase someone hates Indian food.  Then a glass of spanish wine is eaten with the meal, once again, I must warn people because somepeople just don't like spanish people or culture.  Well, how detailed should we get?  Or maybe you didn't do your job?96.53.149.117 (talk) 05:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That's not a good analogy, Stu. This is English-language Wikipedia, and the assumption is that English is used - except where otherwise indicated.  There's no anti-French bias going on, or anti-any other language.  The major languages and many minor ones have their own WPs, specifically designed for their use.  There's a language "apartheid", if you like, on WP.  It makes sense to structure the project that way.  But there's no sexual orientation "apartheid" here.  In the case in question, you've combined (a) a warning that the video is a sex video, with (b) information that it depicts gay characters, into (c) a warning about a gay sex video.  A sex video is something you warn people about, but the fact that it's gay is not something you warn people about unless you want to be seen, by some people at least, as a homophobe. "Warn" applies to sex videos; it does not apply to gay videos particularly, because "warn" suggests that, if you do the thing you're about to talk about, something bad might happen.  The "badness" (e.g. for children) is the sex, not the gayness per se. It becomes even more open to misinterpretation when you immediately follow that with "Fortunately it stops after the two men undress each other to their boxers".  The use of the word "fortunately" may have been in jest, but that's not clear.  If it wasn't meant that way, it reads like "This is a gay video, but thank God we don't see them actually having sex".  It's fine to not personally like watching gay sex, but it's not fine to make the assumption that the people you're warning would also feel this way.  That's the way it actually reads, whatever your intention may have been.  The bit that goes "but probably not the type of thing you want to view at work, unless you want everyone to look at you a little differently from now on" was probably meant to be in reference to the fact that it's a sex video, not in reference to the fact that it's a gay video.  But because of the ambiguity in the wording of the first part, the latter interpretation is very available, and nobody could be blamed for reading it that way.  That is, anyone who shows any interest in gay sex is to be viewed "a little differently from now on".  Why?  Because the entire world is heterosexual unless otherwise indicated - NOT.  Pardon my sarcasm, but that's the way it reads, mate.  I've known you (if that's the right expression) long enough to get that you're not homophobic, so I have always accepted that there was no homophobic intent in your message.  But you do yourself a disservice when you word things in such a way that you virtually invite those who don't know you to assume you are a homophobe, and call you nasty names.  You might not care if you get called names (sticks and stones, etc), but at the very least it's a really bad example for others in how to talk about these things. --  JackofOz (talk) 19:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * How about assuming good faith, Jack ? It seems to me that the OP, and even you, have gone out of your way to interpret what I said in the worst way possible.  Is that really what we should try to do with each other's posts ?  Or should we interpret them in the best way possible, and have a little faith in our fellow editors ?  Your comparison of Jewishness with homosexuality, for example, could upset many readers.  However, I didn't attack you for making such a comparison, did I ?  StuRat (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think Jack actually compared Judaism to homosexuality. Really, there is no relationship except for that fact that judaism prohibits homosexuality, i reckon.96.53.149.117 (talk) 06:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Now, I think you may be getting a tad defensive, Stu. I have gone out of my way, and made it explicitly clear, more than once, that I do not believe you are homophobic, or that you were speaking from that attitude when you issued your warning. If that's not assuming good faith, I don't know what else I could possibly say.  We're not discussing whether you are or are not homophobic, or anything else about you personally at all.  We're discussing a post that you made, and the immediate response it produced ("Homophobe").  The meaning of a communication - particularly here, where we have none of the usual non-verbal cues to help us make sense, and which normally account for over 90% of the meaning of a communication - is NOT what the speaker intended it to mean, but the response it elicits.  What you've yet to acknowledge is that your warning did in fact produce that response.  That's what we're dealing with, nothing else.  My first entry into the discussion was to say "Lesson: If the issue is about warning people not to watch sex videos at work, then whether the content is straight, gay, or even weird stuff like pedophilia or bestiality, is irrelevant, and does not need to be mentioned. It just creates more trouble than it's worth".  I stand by that comment 1000%.
 * I did not compare Jewishness with homosexuality. I was using things Loomis used to say as a specific example of how irrelevant topics are sometimes introduced into conversations.
 * I have not attacked you. I have not interpreted anything "in the worst way possible" - rather, that's what the OP did, and I've taken extreme pains to try to explain why he/she probably did that, in an effort to help you to understand why it's important to take care with these sorts of issues; otherwise, as I've said twice before, you can expect the same kneejerk abusive reaction every time. I have never for a moment condoned the OP's response; for the record, I have always deplored it.  I have been remiss in not actually stating that earlier.  My focus was on Covey's dictum "The single most important principle I have learned in the field of interpersonal relations is: Seek first to understand, then to be understood".  That's where I've always come from.  If I've not explained myself as clearly as I might have, I'm sorry.  --  JackofOz (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not buying it, Jack. I see a great deal of effort aimed at getting me to "reform" my behavior, even to the extent of suggesting that I need to take Discrimination Awareness courses.  Yet I see precious little effort to reform the behavior of the OP.  If you really believe his was a knee-jerk abusive reaction, and I'm not homophobic, then you should have spent all this time working on him, not me.  As is, he evidently took your one-sided approach as supporting his POV: "Precisely because you would have omitted the word "straight", that makes you a homophobe because your first response to my post was to warn people that it was a sex video. Obviously, I concur with Jack, viewing personal videos on company time is asking for disciplinary action, and viewing sex videos on company time especially is asking for dismissal. Note this is any, and I mean ANY, sex video. Now here is my evidence for the fact that you ARE a homophobe, and I am not being obnoxious, because I doesn't take less that 2 keystrokes to NOT type homophobic slurs."


 * BTW, I sure as heck would warn people if there was pedophilia in that video, as that could get any viewer arrested, at least in the US. Are you saying you'd rather let that happen than warn them ?   StuRat (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Talking to anonymous OPs is not usually fruitful, as I'm sure you know. I've already apologised for not stating earlier that his comment was highly inappropriate.  And I should certainly have spoken up to disassociate myself from his support, since my silence has obviously been interpreted as condoning his original comment. I apologise for not doing so.  But since you now appear to be accusing me of lying when I say I've never doubted your good motives, I wonder where this leaves your call for assuming good faith.  I mentioned pedophilia (and bestiality) simply as examples of other sorts of irrelevancies to the issue at hand (watching sex videos at work; and remember, it was you who first talked of the workplace scenario, so I kept it to that, and didn't extend it to general viewing), but since they weren't actually depicted in the video, I could see no reason to discuss them.  Of course, if they had been part of the video, then watching it at work would have been inadvisable for more than one reason, and watching it at home would still have been asking for trouble; you would been right to warn people of that specific content.  But that was a hypothetical in the context of this particular case.  I really hoped that, by now, you might have said something to the effect of "Despite my good intentions, my post was sub-optimally worded, and because it was the first response to the OP's question, I must assume some level of responsibility for what came after it".  I'm sorry this has taken a turn for the worse, and I will discuss issues till the cows come home if necessary, but I don't intend to participate in an atmosphere of distrust.  I'm done here.  See you around.  --  JackofOz (talk) 01:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not accusing you of lying, just of, as you said "not stating earlier that his comment was highly inappropriate" and of not having "spoken up to disassociate ... from his support, since ... silence has obviously been interpreted as condoning his original comment". And, since you've now apologized for that, I accept your apology.  Now, as for me, let me say this: "Despite my good intentions, my post was sub-optimally worded, such that the OP, who was bound and determined to find someone to accuse of homophobia, was thus able to take advantage of my words to do so". StuRat (talk) 01:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying the lying issue. Your acknowledgment implicitly admits the possibility that the form of words you chose was open to misinterpretation.  So that's out of the way.  But can you really assume that the OP "was bound and determined to find someone to accuse of homophobia"?  Not that I support what he wrote, but what evidence is there that he would have found any excuse to do so?  You referred to this early on, I suspect that the OP posted here specifically so he could accuse the first responder of being homophobic. In that context, there's little I could do to stop him.  That sounds like you've made this assumption, and then assumed your assumption necessarily represents the truth.  There's no way of knowing how close to the truth it is.  This sounds like you've never assumed good faith on the OP's part, and used his responses to your post to justify your denial of that good faith.  It doesn't work that way.  Privately suspect all you like, but out in the open you have to operate within the good faith rules, particularly if you later scold others for not showing you good faith.  You can't have it both ways.--  JackofOz (talk) 04:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's look at the evidence against the OP:


 * 1) First he posts a video which some people are sure to find offensive. However, not so offensive that it is likely to be removed immediately.


 * 2) He doesn't tell anybody the content, but asks a question which requires us to look at it.


 * 3) His question seems like one which is unlikely to be answered at the Ref Desk, but likely that he could get answered elsewhere, such as at the video site. So, then, why did he really post it here ?


 * 4) He then spends a great deal of time and effort to accuse me of homophobia, including posting a second attack on me and reposting it after Jayron removed it as inappropriate. By contrast, he seems to have lost any interest he once had in the original question.


 * I don't know how you see it, but he sure looks like a troll, to me, just trying to find a way to pick a fight and cause trouble. If you are going to tell me to "assume good faith", regarding the OP, I'll tell you "don't feed the trolls". StuRat (talk) 06:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The last sentence is fair comment. I don't feed trolls who've revealed their true colours, or where there's reasonable evidence it's about to become trollish.  But just posting a video and asking the names of the actors is not, in itself, trollish behaviour.  If someone had said "I don't know, and it's unlikely anyone here would know.  Have you considered asking your question at the video site?", then he would have had no comeback, and whatever fiendish trollish designs he may have had would have had no outlet.  Just on #1, are you saying that the video would have been offensive to some people because of its obviously gay content, or because of its (leading up to) sexual content no matter what variety of sex it was?  --  JackofOz (talk) 07:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that "...just posting a video and asking the names of the actors is not, in itself, trollish behavior". But you omitted the important factors, that it's a video many will find offensive, and the poster didn't tell anyone that.  It's the total of all the items which is evidence of trollish behavior.  You don't seem to have paid much attention to 4.  I was assuming good faith until then, but the virulence of his reaction convinced me he was a troll.  As for your question, some people are offended by all sex videos, and some just by gay sex videos.  You apparently consider the latter group to be homophobic.  I don't, any more than I would consider those who don't like watching straight sex videos "heterophobic".  I consider people who want to kill, imprison, or label homosexuals as mentally ill to be homophobic, but not those who merely find watching gay sex to be offensive. StuRat (talk) 16:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I certainly don't defend anyone calling anyone else "homophobe" without very good reason, and I've already made that clear. The OP misinterpreted your warning and jumped on you, believing his interpretation was the only valid one.  It may have been a deliberate misinterpretation.  You probably think it was.  I'm not entirely convinced, because the sequence of events makes it hard (impossible, actually) to know what would have happened if your warning had been differently worded, in the way I've previously suggested.  Anyway, whether it was malicious or because he was genuinely offended, calling you a homophobe was way out of line.  No argument there.  You voiced your suspicions about him before his big-guns attack (the one that Jayron redacted) came out. Up till then, there was nothing "virulent" about his posts.  His second ("You're missing what he wrote", 25 Dec) seems to be an attempt to explain why he thought you were a homophobe, but it didn't actually explain anything.  Still, there was nothing particularly inappropriate about this post.  His 3rd response (26 Dec) quoted your words and pointed out where he thought you were being homophobic.  This was a slightly more successful attempt at explaining his position.  Again, even if he was off-track in his belief that you were displaying homophobia (and he was), I see nothing wrong in people explaining why they believe what they believe or why they feel the way they do.  Generally, such explanations are a positive thing.  But it certainly doesn't justify calling you a homophobe in the first place.  His next foray (the main offender, the one that really was "virulent") was not till 2 January, two days after you and I got into this discussion, and two days after you voiced your suspicions of him.  You'd already pretty much (or perhaps totally) made up your mind about him before the virulent stuff came out.  This says a lot about your astuteness.  But after all this discussion, I still can't help feeling that none of this stuff would ever have happened if the warning you issued was just that little bit more judiciously worded.  Some take the view that trolls are out there, lurking, lying in wait, and we have to flush them out by goading them into revealing themselves - we have to act as agents provocateurs.  I don't see it that way at all.  Trolls can be very effectively disarmed by playing a straight bat (that's a cricketing analogy that you may not understand; it means that, although we may suspect very strongly that they're here to make trouble, our responses can be worded in such a way that they have nowhere to go but away.  And the cause of world peace is perhaps one toenail closer.  Whereas, when verbals wars happen, world peace is pushed many steps backward).
 * "... some people are offended by all sex videos, and some just by gay sex videos". Yes, that is an accurate statement.  But what about those who are offended by straight videos?  You're thinking about all people, or about straight people in particular, but you're forgetting about gay people in particular.  I'm not suggesting that gay people are necessarily offended by straight videos, any more than straight people are necessarily offended by gay videos.  But for those who are offended by seeing the wrong combination of sexes in a video, let's be even-handed about it.
 * "You apparently consider the later group to be homophobic." Where have I gone so badly wrong in giving you that utterly inaccurate impression of me?


 * You said "Being even-handed and helpful is fine as a general principle, but how would you justify being helpful and even-handed to a known bigot in the pursuit and perpetuation of their prejudice?". If this statement isn't meant to say that those who are offended by watching gay sex videos (but not straight sex videos) are bigots/homophobes, then I don't know why you brought it up in this discussion about that topic. StuRat (talk) 01:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, you've taken that competely out of the context in which it appeared. It was part of a discussion (one that was an aside to the main discussion, which I acknowledged at the outset), about the use of discriminatory language in general, not about the particular issue that got this whole thread started off. It was about being careful not to legitimise a person's known prejudice/bigotry by giving them information that they could then use for evil/illegal/immoral/negative/destructive purposes. And I think you know that. If someone asked a seemingly innocuous question on the Ref Desk like "Where is the headquarters of the main German neo-Nazi organisation?", but you checked their user page and saw "I hate neo-Nazis and I’d like to bomb them all to kingdom come", you’d hardly provide the address, would you.  Probably a bad example (because neo-Nazis are themselves a supreme example of bigotry), but I think you know what I’m getting at.  Just for the record, I have never said or even implied that anyone who is offended by a gay sex video, but not a straight sex video, is a homophobe.  I've never even thought that.  They just like what they like, and dislike what they dislike.  Everybody has their particular set of likes and dislikes.  Some dislikes are so strong as to be offensive.  End of story.  --  JackofOz (talk) 01:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "I consider people who want to kill, imprison, or label homosexuals as mentally ill to be homophobic, but not those who merely find watching gay sex to be offensive". I agree with this 100%. --  JackofOz (talk) 01:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There wasn't a single point where I became certain he was a troll. At first, I didn't know he was a troll, but thought he was just misinterpreting my comments.  Then I started to suspect he was a troll, and now I'm virtually certain of it.  I'm amazed that you aren't. StuRat (talk) 02:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't want to be seen to defending him. The explanatory posts were marginally less unacceptable.  They were attempting to explain and justify inappropriate behaviour, although he never conceded it was inappropriate.  An explanation in itself is ok ("Why did you murder you mother?" - Well, because she ...), but there is no justification for inappropriate behaviour, so it wouldn't have mattered what he wrote, nothing could have made his slur ok.  The others were certainly not ok, particularly the one where he came right out and said he was not going to show you good faith.  Whether or not he's a troll is a moot point.  We'll never really know what his original intent was.  It may well have been to create trouble at all costs, in which case I'd damn him even more quickly than you would.  But I just don't think the evidence is there to make that judgment with 100% conviction.  It's possible, on the evidence I've seen, that he was simply offended by your warning and violently over-reacted; he then went even further in the wrong direction, doing whatever his cause was no good at all, and a lot of damage, which resulted in his later posts being redacted.  That really was the whole point of my "Lesson: If the issue is about warning people not to watch sex videos at work, then ... ", and what we've actually been discussing all this time.  It's possible that his over-reaction would never have occurred had your warning been differently worded.  That's all I'm really saying.  And the lesson is, if you don't want to be at the receiving end of such a reaction, then choose your words slightly more carefully.  Because you believe the OP was always going to cause trouble, then you believe it was immaterial what you wrote, because he would have eventually called someone a homophobe no matter what.  I acknowledge that's certainly a possibility.  I see alternative possibilities, that's all.  And all I've ever recommended is to find a way of answering a question that never creates an opportunity for a troll to have an outlet in the first place.  I've made a couple of suggestions that might apply in this case; there are doubtless various others that would have done just as well.
 * Just in case it hasn't been clear all this time, Stu, I've been on your side all along. I've been trying to be helpful to you.  I have certainly not been on the OP's side, and I wouldn't want you think that's where I've been coming from.  Millions of people have tried to understand why Hitler did what he did, and have written probably billions of words about it, but none of them (those in their right minds, anyway) ever condone for a second what he did.  --  JackofOz (talk) 01:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Look, I think this has probably gone as far as it can. We've both made our positions clear, I think.  All I can do is to argue my position as persuasively as I know how, but at the end of the day, what anyone does is entirely their own affair.  I may have strong views on some subjects, but I am not some sort of oracle.  You can take my advice, or you can ignore it, that's up to you.  Unless you wanted to respond to what I said above, I'm happy to leave it at that.  Thanks for a most interesting debate.  Cheers.  --  JackofOz (talk) 01:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and I appreciate that you were trying to help. However, I felt I had handled the troll correctly by largely ignoring him (after a brief attempt to point out his error).  The incident would have been forgotten by now, except for this 10,000 word discussion we've had, which also allowed Rockpocket an opportunity to come in and take a shot at me.  But, the trolls have both been put to bed now, so thanks again for trying to help. StuRat (talk) 06:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What was it you wrote up there....How about assuming good faith, Jack ? It seems to me that the OP, and even you, have gone out of your way to interpret what I said in the worst way possible. Is that really what we should try to do with each other's posts ? Or should we interpret them in the best way possible, and have a little faith in our fellow editors ? Does that only work one way? Rockpock  e  t  07:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * At the risk of this going on forever: Stu, I stayed silent when you dismissed Rockpocket earlier on.  You attributed motives to him, related to a completely irrelevant interaction you and he had had in some other place at some other time.  That's almost the classic definition of bad faith.  However, I bit my tongue because he agreed to leave the discussion, at your request.  Now, after all that, you've come right out and called him a troll.  That's a gratuitous and unprovoked attack on a fellow user, and an admin at that. Rockpocket can take care of himself, but I'm not going to let my silence this time be seen as condoning what you wrote.  Not OK, Stu.  Not OK.  And it was an extremely ungracious and disappointing way to end what was a healthy and overwhelmingly positive discussion between you and me.  Lack of grace, in my books, is the worst sin of all. --  JackofOz (talk) 19:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "...and an admin at that" ? That sounds like you think they deserve more respect than your basic Editor, and can't possibly also be trolls; here we disagree.  Everyone deserves the same amount of respect.  I do expect more of Admins, but am constantly disappointed in this regard.  Let's see my evidence of trolldom:
 * Yes, I do expect a higher standard from admins, otherwise what's the point of having admins in the first place. And, in my experience, that's usually the case.  But you're right, admins do not automatically merit some higher degree of respect just because they're admins.  They're governed by the same rules as we all are, and if they break them, they are deserving of the same sanctions. RP's comments might have been "negative" in the sense that he was arguing against your position, but they weren't inappropriate in themselves.  --  JackofOz (talk) 07:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't hear from Rockpocket for many months on my talk page, then shortly after our "completely irrelevant interaction", as you put it, he comes here and adds some very negative comments to what was a civil discussion. And it wasn't "at another time", either, it was immediately before he showed up here.
 * That's beside the point. Whatever issues you have with RP have nothing to do with this discussion, so assuming that, because he may have fallen foul of some expectation of yours elsewhere, he will necessarily do so anywhere else, is assuming bad faith.  --  JackofOz (talk) 07:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) When I ask him to leave, he promises to do so, but then breaks his word. Not good form at all, and also classic troll behavior.
 * He left with a parting comment, explaining what he came here for in the first place. And a friendly warning, not at all dissimilar to the friendly warnings I've been giving you for 2 weeks.  There was nothing at all troll-like in that.  He returned, but only in response to the same nasty comments from you that got me going again.  Those comments were actually about him.  Do you think it's reasonable that you can sling off at third parties, and expect them to remain silent?  I certainly don't. I note that you've issued a somewhat qualified apology to RP below, but an apology none the less, so I'll leave now.  --  JackofOz (talk) 07:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * While RP isn't as bad as some other Admins, many allow their personal agendas to interfere with their duties to an alarming extent. I'm amazed at how they don't even attempt neutrality.    As you can tell, the low quality of our Admins here is a real sore spot with me.  I consider this to be the biggest flaw in Wikipedia, and, in particular, with the "Admins for life" policy.  If they had to stand for periodic re-election, we would have better Admins, either by the current Admins behaving themselves so they can get re-elected, or, if they fail to do so, by new Admins being elected to replace them.  Ok, that's my rant-for-the-day, but there's no need to open up another 10,000 word discussion on Admins. StuRat (talk) 04:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * RP: if I'm mistaken, and you didn't show up here just to stir up trouble, and my general mistrust of Admins based on their past behavior (as a group) has caused me to misinterpret your actions, then I apologize. I hope that this is, indeed, the case.  I imagine that time will tell if I was mistaken or not.  StuRat (talk) 04:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Any relation to our previous exchange is limited only to my recent increase in activity on the RD pages, which drew my attention to both. No more, no less. I did return to comment again. I'm sorry my response here "breaks [my] word," in your opinion, but when I offered to leave, I did not expect you to revisit our discussion in the guise of an unprovoked personal attack. But for that, I would have been only too happy to stay away. You say, "Everyone deserves the same amount of respect", but your own comments don't quite live up to what you expect of others, since you appear to have tarred me largely for being an admin. I can't help feeling that your general distrust of adminship has resulted in a paranoia that we are, collectively, "out to get you". Let me assure you that is not true, both for me specifically and for admins in general. That said I'll accept your apology with a hope we can put this exchange behind us. Rockpock  e  t  07:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As for French and English, there is some bad feeling and distrust between Francophones and Anglophones, particularly in Canada. I once saw a road sign in Ontario that said "Squeeze Right", instead of "Merge", because "merge" is of French origin and they didn't want any French on their signs.  So, just because it isn't an issue where you live, don't assume that it's not an issue anywhere else. StuRat (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * StuRat, I think your English-French story, while amusing, is perhaps apocryphal. There have been times in my lifetime when Francophones, principally in Québec, objected to including words in their French that were English in origin. (Le weekend for le fin de semain and le hot dog for le chien chaud are two I particularly recall.) I am not aware of any problems going the other way. In your example, for example, "squeeze right" is a term sometimes found on traffic signs in the lane that is about to disappear. The more usual, and always in the case of the lane that is doubling up its traffic load, is a sign saying "Merge". (This is OR, true, but I have been driving in Ontario for over 40 years.) The word "merge" is from Latin, not French, according to my Concise Oxford, and neither my Mircro-Robert (a primordial French dictionary) nor my Harraps (English/French) dictionary lists merge or anything similar as having any meaning in French. If you have a source for your story, or someone with native fluency in French has better information, I'd be pleased to learn more. ៛ Bielle (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you are right. I just happened to see one of those "Squeeze Right" signs while driving through Ontario, where a "Merge" sign was expected, during the controversy over Bill 101, and assumed it to be related.  I also had the misfortune to drive through Quebec during that period, and the lack of English on the signs made navigation difficult.  I also noticed that no radio station would broadcast English constantly, so I needed to change stations repeatedly to get English weather forecasts, etc.  From the POV of an American, I wished they'd just get over it and have French and English on all signs in both provinces. StuRat (talk) 22:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * For your next visit, may I suggest the following radio stations in the Montreal area that broadcast only in English all the time: CHOM 97.7 FM; CJAD 800 AM and the CBC's Montreal station 98.5 FM. As far as we can recall, these have been English-only since the mid 1970s or earlier. There is at least one other, but I can't recall its call letters and its current transformation is of relatively recent vintage. There is also the Montreal Gazette should you prefer your news or weather reports in writing. Bilingualism in Canada is of the mosaic sort; even geographically it is in discrete sections. (Except, of course, for official federal paper which is available nationwide in English and French at a minimum.) It is unlikely, even to encourage the important American tourist, that either of the founding cultures is likely to "get over it" and concede equal signage to the other except where there are equal numbers of residents for each founding language. Perhaps that is part of what makes Canada an interesting (and different) place for tourists. Does Mexico have traffic signs in both English and Spanish? I can't recall. ៛ Bielle (talk) 04:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I suspect that they do, at least in tourist areas. Now for the real question: Just what is the "meat" in "boiled meat" ?  The lady at the Pratt & Whitney cafeteria in Montreal either didn't know or wouldn't say. StuRat (talk) 06:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * For a visitor, the whole of a country is a tourist area. As for the "boiled meat", that might be a problem of understanding even in a cafeteria where the only language was English -a variation on the infamous "mystery meat" of airline and hospital notoriety. My first asumption was that your "boiled meat" might be a pot roast, but I think not after a bit of research. The word "le bouilli" in French specifically means "boiled beef" as in the beef from which "le bouillon" is made. Perhaps the cafeteria's translator had limited knowledge of English cooking terms and was working just with with "bouiller" as the root, meaning "to boil" and didn't realize that there could be more than one kind of boiled meat using the English terminology. How long have you waited to find out? ៛ Bielle (talk) 22:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * About 15 years. The cafeteria worker who told me it was "boiled meat" certainly didn't seem to have much of a grasp of English, so you may be right again.  I disagree that the whole of a country is a tourist area to visitors, though.  Most countries have the majority of their tourists in a few specific areas.  In those areas, you're more likely to find signs in English and hotel rooms with their own bathrooms, but also higher prices, unfortunately. StuRat (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know how many countries you have visited where the official language is not English. Except around borders with English-speaking countries, and in countries (like Thailand, for example) where it would be rare for a visitor even to be able to sound out the signs, I don't recall much in the way of English signage. (I may ask my question about the road signs in Mexico on the Ref Desk to see if anyone knows the answer.) As a visitor, I expect to have to sort out street names, and edifices and directions of the compass (and, yes, road signs) in the local language, along with basic foods and emergency words. That's part of the getting ready to be a tourist for me. As a business visitor the emphasis is different, but I would still expect most people not to speak English, and am pleasantly surprised at how often I am wrong.) Hotels catering to tourists, rather than nationals, will usually have English-speaking help at the front desks, at least. As for your comment about the hotel with private bathrooms being more expensive, what else would you expect? It would seem true everywhere that the more extensive and the more private the amenities, the higher the price. There just aren't many hotels with shared bathrooms in Canada and the U.S., though many B&Bs have them, and such rooms cost less than those with private facilities. ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not surprised at the price being higher for a hotel room with a private bathroom, but was commenting on how everything in the tourist areas is far more expensive. StuRat (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It is so easy to misinterpret, isn't it, even when the subject is in no way inflammatory? Thanks for the exchanges. ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Au revoir. StuRat (talk) 00:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Pian issim o forte
Trust you to invent music terrorism, >)) Julia Rossi (talk) 08:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, by dropping a piano on a crowd. And here I thought "musical" terrorism was those people who play their car stereos so loud that their tires rarely touch the ground. StuRat (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You might also appreciate my Unclyclopedia entry for Ethan Allen: . StuRat (talk) 17:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I see EA is your thought-ancestor of furniture terrorism. Did he invent buzzword terrorism in defeating the French oops British? Looks like music terrorism keeps its definition as per the bouncing car and there's an item I don't know the name of, an enclosed van with levels to burst people's ear drums in the few seconds they stay inside. Apparently the noise forces them to enjoy brief pain, then quickly quit. Is there an article on this kind of thing? *hint hint* :) Julia Rossi (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Strangely, my Unclyclopedia article appears to have been expunged, with no reason given. I'm guessing that they have a "no violence jokes" policy that even extends to historical, fictional violence during war. StuRat (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That was quick. Can you get a pee review? Julia Rossi (talk) 09:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * A pee review ? "It was a pale yellow, with a nice frothy head of foam...". :-) StuRat (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This one, for bringing doomed articles back from extinction (apparently). Ewww, Julia Rossi (talk) 01:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * And do they call for a pee review when they suspect "yellow journalism" ? :-) StuRat (talk) 14:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you SR
I completely forgot about disturbing the peace, disrupting traffic, and all sorts of offenses that only apply when the prosecutor is hard up. Come to think of it, if he played badly enough he would be making one big noise that would eliminate many smaller noises (i.e. his playing). Maybe he can use that as a positive defense. Phil_burnstein (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This reminds me of the Lorena Bobbitt case. If nothing else, they should have at least convicted her of littering. :-) StuRat (talk) 15:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't soapbox on the Ref Desk
I've really had it with your opinionating like "...Hamas is more interested in provoking war than working for peace...". Your responses to Ref Desk queries tend to include a whole lot of cutesy punchlines or downright gratuitous joking. Let me put it plainly: if you're sincere about contributing here and sharing knowledge, try writing responsibly, e.g. phrasing speculations as just that. Plenty of good examples are offered by regular editors, and you would do well to emulate them rather than, what, shooting from the lip? Frankly, I find your writing sloppy and offensive. In the name of dignity and respect for the question-and-answer process, kindly try to write in kind instead of merely spouting. Those of us living under rocket fire this morning aren't so free to participate in the discussion (and there are at least two visiting European Wikipedians, to my personal knowledge, who need my urgent advice now more than the Ref Desk does), and it's discouraging to see those who do write, spewing flak. -- Thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 11:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm rather confused here. You are an Israeli Jew ?  If so, do you think that Hamas is interested in peace ?  That's a very unusual position for an Israeli Jew, and doesn't seem to match your comment:


 * "...the common understanding on the Israeli street that Hamas is an Islamist-nationalist militant organization that actively seeks the destruction of Israel and has been firing rockets and occasionally mortar shells—from its positions deeply embedded in densely populated (civilian) locations— into Israeli civilian territory (e.g. the city of Sderot) for the past eight years, stepped up after Israel's unilateral withdrawal from the Gush Katif region in mid-2005. Operation Cast Lead is a long-restrained IDF response to those attacks. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)"


 * We both seem to have provided negative opinions about Hamas, without proof, but with links to related articles. So, do you think I'm right or wrong in my opinion about Hamas ?  BTW, I thought it was obvious enough that my statement was an opinion that it didn't need to be stated explicitly.  Also, while you called yours an "unsourced response", this isn't quite the same as saying it's solely your own opinion.


 * Perhaps you're misreading my comments on Hamas as applying to all Palestinians ? Just in case, I've added the following statement at the subsequent Ref Desk discussion: "...I'm only talking about Hamas here, not Fatah and certainly not the Palestinians in general. (I do, however, have an equally low opinion of Hezbollah)".


 * Also note that I make a lot of contributions to the Ref Desk, most of which are uncontroversial. Here are a couple of recent thanks from OPs, for noncontroversial contributions of mine: Jet_fuel.  StuRat (talk) 15:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As for my use of humor on the Ref Desk (in just a portion of my answers): I feel that it makes the Ref Desk a more enjoyable place to work, both if one is allowed to have occasional fun and to enjoy the jokes of others. My feeling is that, if the Ref Desk becomes a dull and humorless place, we will lose needed contributors.  I've gotten quite a bit of positive feedback from others on this, far more positive than negative .  I do try to avoid humor in cases where it seems unwarranted, such as the article we were discussing above.  I believe in being serious where the situation demands it and being lighthearted otherwise.  Of course, any jokes are certain to offend someone (as are many statements of fact, like any scientific evidence we provide that proves the Earth is older than the few thousand years old that literal Bible readers assume to be the case).  If I amuse more than I offend, then I consider myself to have done some good in this world. StuRat (talk) 16:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all, please accept my sincere apology for not having extended you the assumption of good faith that your efforts deserve. You obviously have a serious commitment to helping and that sort of dedication isn't all that common and merits support. Now if I may try to clarify what I'm about - I hope this will help us understand each other, much in the spirit of what you've written above:
 * What I wrote in response to the query is what I understand about the actions and policies of Hamas, as a resident citizen of Israel with at least an average understanding of the news and current events. (Besides having been under rocket attack this very morning, and the mother of two [non-combatant] IDF soldiers on active duty, one of whom just got assigned temporarily to the Home Front Command in the Jewish communities under Hamas attack.) That is not the same, as I see it, as speculating about whether Hamas "wants peace." The actual and valid point is whether they would agree to a ceasefire and under what terms.


 * While whether they would agree to a cease-fire is one concern, their interest, or lack of interest, in long-term peace with Israel is perhaps more important. If Hamas only wants a cease-fire long enough to smuggle in more and better weapons, then perhaps it is not in Israel's interest to agree to such a cease-fire. StuRat (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There is ample evidence that the readers of the WP RDs include (a) non-native speakers of English, (b) young and perhaps otherwise minimally educated people, and (c) people—the OP and others—who really want to understand something about the topic being queried. For these reasons, I try to write my answers as seriously and clearly as possible, including explicitly qualifying what is opinion.
 * As a professional translator and editor with a B.A. degree from a U.S. public university, I'm qualified to write effectively (though am not infallible). Having graduated high school in 1970, I've been around quite a while to have acquired a broad knowledge base in the Humanities and related fields. As a professional publicist and research assistant on the staff of an internationally recognized Holocaust heritage institution, I have a commitment to promoting knowledge on behalf of the victims and survivors, as well as those who aided them, for the sake of combatting antisemitism and genocide. As an American Israeli Jew, I have a vested interest in presenting this country's problems in as honest and convincing a way as I possibly can and thus to work toward their solution. (E.g. two reports of mine were solicited and published in the print edition of The Jerusalem Post during the Second Lebanon War in July/August 2006.)


 * I consider myself to be a talented writer, too, although I don't believe that the same level of formality should apply to the Ref Desk as, say, when writing an article. Perhaps this informality is what you called "sloppy".  I also consider myself to have a level of knowledge about Israel/Palestine that is well above that of most Americans.  I know the Shia from the Sunni, Gaza from the West Bank, The Golan Heights from East Jerusalem, Hamas from Fatah and Hezbollah, and the positions of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iran, etc.  I also know quite a bit about the Holocaust, and other instances of genocide.  Just before I wrote this I was watching the BBC's The World at War documentary, and am now watching Genocide (The World at War episode).  If I ever make a factual error, please let me know, as I want to improve my knowledge wherever possible. StuRat (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * One other comment: You haven't said so, but there's always the possibility that you might think me incompetent to speak on the Humanities, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict specifically, due to my career having been in computer programming.  If so, please don't "judge a book by it's cover".  I, for one, wouldn't assume that you are incompetent to use a computer, just because your background is elsewhere. StuRat (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Please note that I've communicated with you on your User talk page not a few times. I frequent the Ref Desks (Humanitites/Language/ sometimes Miscellaneous / rarely Science and Entertainment) on both sides of the footlights, and I've long noted your contributions: I think you do a decent service in responding to queries that have been neglected. I've gotten my share of thanks, as you may or may not have noticed -- and one Wikipedian who appreciated my recent responses subsequently contacted me and is now touring Israel partly under my personal guidance.
 * It isn't that I have no sense of humor, but it tends to be dry and academic. More to the point is that I'm not lighthearted, hardly ever, and am uncomfortable in the company of those who are. It comes, as they say, with the territory.
 * With all due respect to both parties, I'd say we probably have a lot in common but each pursue it according to our personal lights. I'll admit to having a pessimistic idealist's tendency to mount barricades (or even soapboxes) rather than build bridges, but I'm enough of a humanist to keep hoping for better, even of myself. Thanks for reading this far, and I wish you well. -- Deborahjay (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I think I understand you a bit better, now. Since you've been around the Ref Desk for quite a while now, I'm sure you've seen my serious, caring side on occasion, too, such as when I suggested the book On Death and Dying to a grief-striken poster who came looking for help.  I do think everyone could benefit from a lighthearted approach to life, though, as this can help us through the hard times.  Have you, by any chance, seen the movie Life is Beautiful ?  I admire the way the father was able to use humor to protect his family, both in the physical sense and from the psychological trauma that would otherwise have afflicted them, during the Holocaust.  I'd strongly recommend it, if you haven't seen it already. StuRat (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Acid Reflux
Thanks. I will certainly try that out, since I desperate for anything new that may work. I hope you are having a Happy New Year. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, let me know if it works. And you have a good year, too. StuRat (talk) 03:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello.
Hello friend StuRat, I am a new user in Wikipedia. Today I've been gazing through the computing reference desk and watching the others to contribute. I've seen that you are interested in the field of Science and Maths (as posted by you in your User Page). In fact, I am interested in those fields too. Then if I personally discuss with you about Science and Maths on your talk page, will you mind something? If not, will you kindly permit me to do the same? Thank you. Anirban16chatterjee (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, we can discuss science or math here. However, if you have a specific question, the Ref Desk Science or Math pages might be better, as then you will get my contributions and the contributions of others.  The others can be a bit mean, though, at times, so you can come here to talk if you feel abused.  Also, thanks for the barnstar ! StuRat (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot friend! I often use the reference desk, but I think it is good for me to keep in touch with someone like you, who is endowed with the golden light of knowledge, for my betterment. And, you obviously deserved the barnstar. Thank you friend, see you again. -Best Regards, Anirban16chatterjee (talk) 16:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

My issue
My issue with your answers is that when they are on topics that could potentially affect people or animals or pets or what have you, you have often responded in terms that made it sound like you knew what you were talking about when it was clear you were, as we say, talking out of your hat. I know that we all parade about with conviction even though it is often not well founded but on questions where there are potential beings to be harmed, a simple, "it would seem to me, though I don't know for sure" would go a long way. There is no sin in emphasizing that one's opinions are provisional. There is much in pretending to be an authority on something that one is not. I happily give opinions on things I am not certain of, but I always preface it with a comment about whether I am speaking from any particular specialized knowledge or whether I am just reasoning my way through it. It's an important distinction. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 17:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand, but even saying "I'm not an expert" seems to give too much credence to the so-called experts, which are often wrong, and too little to the rest of us, which are often right. I feel that arguments should stand or fall on the strengths of the arguments, not on who said them.  Think about how many "expert opinions" from a century ago have since been totally refuted.  Back then it was widely believed by experts that geography was largely static (no plate tectonics), blacks were genetically inferior, homosexuality was a mental disease, the atom was like a mini solar system, and the universe behaved according to Newtonian physics.  But, thanks to some people who reasoned for themselves, rather than accept the word of the "experts", we now know all that to be wrong.  A century from now I expect much of what our current experts say to have been similarly discredited.  Note that I don't lie, and claim to be an expert, which would be easy to do in such an anonymous forum.  Those who feel that they are experts are free to list their qualifications, but my qualification will remain my mind alone.


 * Going back just a bit beyond a century, I like to give the example of the Wright brothers. They, like all other would-be aviators of the time, used tables of lift and drag which had been prepared by an "expert" (Otto Lilienthal) some time before.  This got them nowhere.  They then abandoned the expert tables, improvised their own method of testing, and recreated the tables, this time with the correct numbers (see Wright_brothers, starting from the 2nd paragraph).  This allowed them to make the first airplane.  Had they just assumed the expert must be right, as others had done, they would have failed.  You might say that the Wright brothers were also experts, but, at the time, they weren't, they were just two guys who ran a bicycle shop.  This shows how there is entirely too much respect for expert opinions, and too little emphasis on individual logic and research. StuRat (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As Carl Sagan put it: "They laughed at Galileo. They laughed at Newton. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." Seriously, Stu, you aren't a Wright brother and this ain't no bicycle shop. If you're going to give people opinion on things like animal care you should know a bit more about animals than you do. Experts certainly make mistakes at times but a degree in animal physiology does wonders when trying to diagnose the many difficult problems one could have with farm animal behavior. Don't be an arrogant buffoon—know the limits of what you know and what your own ad hoc reasoning can get you. Think of something that you have a lot of specialized knowledge in (say, FORTRAN) and imagine how wrong one could go if someone tried to answer a question about it when they didn't know the first thing about it. "Oh, in FORTRAN they probably have for-then loops, because most languages have those. Also, since FORTRAN is a rather old programming language, it probably isn't used today anymore." Logic without additional information can only take you so far, and knowing only a little information is more dangerous than anything else.
 * Listen, I don't care if you B.S. until the cows come home on most questions—it is usually patently obvious (like your wonderfully pedestrian answer on heat and information awhile back, which was clearly a question about information theory and entropy and not about whether a hot tailpipe "gave information" about how long ago a car was used). Honestly, I don't care about that stuff—it gives me a chuckle to see you make such a fool of yourself. But when you are giving information that could have real consequences, do the right thing and point out the limitations of your knowledge. I didn't ask you to announce you were not an expert. I asked you to name your methodology when the answer might matter. There's a big difference in saying, "the answer is X" and saying, "well, I'm just reasoning on this, but it would seem to me that the answer would be X." One of them is honest about what the speaker knows and the other is not. You can be anti-expertise all you want—it's a very naive position to take to expertise, and you have a naive understanding of the history of science, but that's your prerogative—but don't present yourself as an expert when you're not one on issues where real suffering could result. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I responded in a civil way and you, in turn, called me a "arrogant buffoon" and my answers "BS" ? You also said I have a "naive understanding of the history of science", even though I've provided links to support my specific example.  Your "naive" statements about FORTRAN are both correct, incidentally, so should I insult you for having made correct statements, just because you lack a degree in that field ?  As for the question on heat and information, it was quite vaguely worded, and could have meant just about anything.  I gave my tongue-in-cheek answer to try to convince the OP to be more specific in their question.  I also fully supported my arguments on protein deficiency leading to cannibalism in pigs, both with logic and an expert opinion, so, if you aren't interested in having civil and logical discussion, but just want to insult me, then I see no further point in talking with you. StuRat (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply from Anirban.
Friend StuRat, sorry for not being able to reply to your kind invitation earlier.A Actually, I was on a vacation along with my family. Thank you for inviting me to play chess with you. I am most delighted to know that you are also a chess player. Therefore, would you mind setting the time and date? (But one fact my friend, I am from India, so my time zone may be different from yours). And friend, I've found out a new rule in Organic Chemistry, which I'll feel great to share with you (since you are interested in Science). The rule is this "We can directly calculate whether a given hydrocarbon is Alkane, Alkene or Alkyne from their vapour densities. If the Vapour Density of the hydrocarbon is n, then # If (n+1) is exactly divisible by 7, then the Hydrocarbon is an alkane. # If n is itself exactly divisible by 7, then the hydrocarbon is an alkene. # If (n-1) is exactly divisible by 7, then the hydrocarbon is an alkyne.". Thank you friend, for taking your valuable time in going through my message. I'll wait for your reply. Anirban16chatterjee (talk) 12:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I replied on your talk page about chess. As for Organic Chem, does that rule also apply to rings of hydrocarbons, like benzene ? StuRat (talk) 15:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the rule applies only to the aliphatic hydrocarbons. I hope to find out a new rule for the cyclic hydrocarbons well. And, I'll set up the account in pogo in a short while. After I set up the account, I''' certainly tell you my account name. Thank you friend. Anirban16chatterjee (talk) 02:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Bodes Law.
Hello Sir, as per your desire, I'm posting the Bodes Law here with some examples. The law states that "The planets' distances from the Sun in the Solar system are interrelated to each other by the series 0,3,6,12,24,48,96... and so on. From the series, the constants for the cosmic bodies are as follows:-

Mercury = 0

Venus = 3

Earth = 6

Mars = 12

Ceres = 24

Jupiter = 48

Saturn = 96

Uranus = 192

The distance of Neptune, Pluto and Vulcan-X are not properly related to this series. Now, to find out the distance of any planet from the Sun, take the constant of the Planet and after that add 4 to it. Now, multiply to it 1/10th of Earth's distance from the Sun, (roughly taken 14,96,00,000 Km to 15,00,00,000 Km). For example, to find out the distance of Mars, simply take its constant, i.e, 12, and it's distance is:

(12+4)*1/10*15,00,00,000 Km = 24,00,00,000 Km. But all this distances are approximate, and may not be exactly equal to the original distances. And, it is more convenient to express distances obtained by this method by using A.U (astronomical unit, 1 au =Distance of Earth from Sun). And my whole-hearted gratitude to you, for teaching me numerous important topics yesterday! Sorry for not posting the rule earlier, since today is the Great Republic Day of Our Nation India, and we were watching the Republic Day Parade of the Indian Army. Best Regards. Anirban16chatterjee (talk) 07:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I did my own Bode's Law calcs, using 15 million km.  I included all the planets, including our "former planets", Ceres and Pluto:

Mercury = 0+4=    4*15=60    vs 46-70     (ave=58)      -3%

Venus  = 3+4=     7*15=105   vs 107-109   (ave=108)     +3%

Earth  = 6+4=    10*15=150   vs 147-152   (ave=149.5)   +0%

Mars   = 12+4=   16*15=240   vs 207-249   (ave=228)     -5%

Ceres  = 24+4=   28*15=420   vs 381-448   (ave=414.5)   -1%

Jupiter = 48+4=  52*15=780   vs 741-817   (ave=779)     +0%

Saturn = 96+4=  100*15=1500  vs 1354-1514 (ave=1434)    -4%

Uranus = 192+4= 196*15=2940  vs 2749-3004 (ave=2876.5)  -2%

Neptune = 384+4= 388*15=5820 vs 4453-4554 (ave=4503.5) -23%

Pluto  = 768+4= 772*15=11580 vs 4437-7376 (ave=5906.5) -49%


 * Pluto is the furthest outside the law, but that's to be expected, because it's of unusual origin (possibly a former moon of Neptune), so we can easily exclude that one. Neptune is also quite far outside the law, as you had noted.  I don't see how the starting constant of zero for Mercury matches the series, however, it should be 1.5 to go along with doubling each value, which would then give us 82.5 million km.  When I compared this with the average distance, Mercury falls even farther outside the law (30% under), than Neptune.  So, we would need to exclude both Mercury and Neptune to make this law work.  What justification can we use for this ?  Since they are the innermost and outermost planets (excluding the "minor planet", Pluto), it could be argued that laws for the spacing of planets will break down at both ends, since there's no other planet there to control the spacing.  So, with Mercury, Neptune, and Pluto excluded, and using Ceres as another planet, we get from -5% to +3% deviation (which can be changed to ±4% deviation if we alter the constant slightly).  That's pretty good.  To tell if it's just a coincidence or not, we need to know the spacing of planets in other solar systems, to see if they also obey this law. StuRat (talk) 15:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind help, Sir. Actually, by answering the questions made by a fake IP address holder, on the Computing Reference desk, I've fallen in a great trouble with some of the other users. Since you are an experienced user, I need your advice related to this matter. May we discuss this on the Chess Board on Pogo, about this? Anirban16chatterjee (talk) 09:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Offering advice
The Ref desk really isn't the place to be offering advice on personal issues on serious real life issues, when we have no personal knowledge of the people involved. However, if one is one thing to offer advice, but scaremongering along the lines of Somebody could end up dead is really, really nonconstructive. There is nothing whatsoever to suggest that course of events could lead from her situation, and implying there is - especially to someone who might be in a distraught state of mind already - is really irresponsible and, quite frankly, cruel. Please consider removing it. Rockpock e  t  21:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You don't think it's a possibility that someone, upon finding out that their wife (if they get married, as in my scenario) had slept with their brother, might kill themself, the brother, and/or the wife, or even the kids ? This is exactly the type of situation which often leads to such crimes.  Using the "better to be safe than sorry" motto, which is also the reason we don't give medical advice, it only seems prudent to warn of this possibility. StuRat (talk) 21:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No. So your bottom line is: "split up with him now or you risk being murdered by him the future." That is an utterly inappropriate response. It might be an exercise in logic for you, but this is someone's life you are talking about. Show some sensitivity. Better safe than sorry would be to keep your fingers off the keyboard when what you have to offer could do harm. It is not forcing people into following your advice with scare tactics on the basis of some hypothetical scenario you have dreamed up. Offer your opinion, if you must, but please reword it to avoid such histrionics. Rockpock  e  t  21:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Taking up Stu's recent suggestion to discuss on his talk page, and treading where I'm not involved: Stu's advice was inappropriate, but no more inappropriate than every single word of every other answer on that thread. Not only was there medical advice being proferred, much much worse, there is relationship advice! That's totally inappropriate for the RefDesk's - we're supposed to offer knowledge, not opinions. Regardless of whether StuRat proceeds on a logical basis (where I eventually decided he was largely correct recently) - logic has nothing to do with relationships, and no RefDesk contributor has "knowledge" of relationships - they have opinions based on personal experience, and since most relationships don't persist through a lifetime, none of them should be offering opinions which might persist across a lifetime.
 * That was a forum-style post and should have been templated on sight... Franamax (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not "my opinion" (nor did I figure it out with logic), that infidelity is a major cause of divorce, homicide, and suicide; it's a fact. Here's a source which says just that (at the bottom of page 262): .   If you two provide me with evidence that infidelity is in no way related to divorce, homicide, and suicide, then I will consider removing my post. StuRat (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's another source: "Marital infidelity is a leading cause of divorce, spousal battery, and homicide (e.g., Daly &. Wilson, 1988)": 4th item -> . StuRat (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The difference here is not that someone's wife screwed around and is wondering whether to tell him or not (where your statistics are correct and the only correct advice is "talk to a counsellor"), nor that someone in a long-term monogamous relationship screwed around (where your statistics are correct and the only correct advice is "talk to a counsellor"); instead it's a 20-year-old girl who "thinks" a guy might like her, but whose relationship is tenuous enough with him that they all went out to get piss-falling-down-drunk, the guy and his sister apparently vanished for the night, she and the guy's brother went home and fucked on the couch, she's now worried that she may a) have a veneral disease; b) may be pregnant; c) may still have a future with guy #1 because he seems to fancy her and I dunno, maybe she can cover it all up including next time they argue and they both head off to fuck random people when they're piss-drunk at a bar - in which case the only correct advice is "talk to a doctor, a counsellor, and another counsellor about your drinking problem - or enjoy the ride!".
 * No matter what the scenario, where does the Reference Desk come into play? All of that is stuff we're not equipped to answer. Yours and everyone else's answers were inappropriate. In the case of your own Stu - advising a breakup or non-breakup, advising a confession or secrecy, presenting statistics on infidelity and murder: so what? Do you have the counter-statistics to show a lower murder rate among those who've been unfaithful, terminated that relationship and gone on to another? Do you have a discriminant value for whether they get murdered more or less if they keep on screwing other guys on the couch when they're drunk? Franamax (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW, you could do with a little trimming to archives. :) Franamax (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I was just thinking that myself, due mainly to conversations like this one. StuRat (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I hardly think much logic is needed to conclude that someone will be less upset to find out some ex-g/f of theirs was unfaithful than that their current wife was. StuRat (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Franamax is right. There is no appropriate answer to this type of question that we, as RefDesk helpers, can offer. I focused on yours, specifically, because the three previous to it had more or less said: see a doctor, speak to a friend or a professional. All advice, but of the most innocuous kind. You, however, gave specific relationship advice that would result in serious consequences if heeded. Whether you can justify your hypothesis with statistical support is completely beside the point. She isn't married and didn't ask about getting marriage, so you spelling out that worst case scenario is at best irrelevant. At worst it makes a bad situation much, much worse, because it risks putting an already vulnerable person under pressure to act by proposing a ridiculous consequence if she doesn't. So whats more likely to result in harm: that this little dalliance would lead to her murder if you didn't weight in with your opinion, or you do weigh in, she takes your advice, dumps him and that creates a shitstorm over which you are ignorant of any extenuating circumstances? If better to be safe than sorry was really applied here, the sensible thing to do is offer no advice at all.
 * When I was a student, I was intensively trained to act as a volunteer who manned a crisis helpline. Despite this training there was one take home message that was drummed into us: Offer access to resources, offer factual information and offer sympathy but never tell people what to do because you risk doing more harm than good. Since you refuse to remove that comment yourself I at least hope you will mull this over next time this type of question is asked. Rockpock  e  t  23:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * CRISIS-LINE CALLER: "I have a gun pointed to my head, should I pull the trigger ?"


 * YOUR ANSWER TO THEM: "Well, I really couldn't say whether you should pull the trigger or not, but I have some phone numbers I can give you." StuRat (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The situation doesn't lend itself to flippancy. Suffice to say there are plenty of ways to help people help themselves without telling them what to do. If you don't have the empathy to realize that, you really shouldn't be offering personal advice to anyone. Rockpock  e  t  00:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Geez, did somebody whiz in your corn flakes this morning ? Can you lighten up a bit, please ?  I gave what I thought was good advice, and she can take it or ignore it as she chooses.  There's no need for you to make this so personal. StuRat (talk) 01:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Its not personal to me, but it is extremely personal to the young lady, which is why it is not a matter that invites levity. Too many people seem to forget, in this age of internet anonymity, that words on a monitor don't just magically appear; there are real people out there behind them and real consequences if they are enacted. And if someone is distraught enough to seek direction from an unqualified nobody on the internet, do think it is appropriate to imply that the wrong choice can lead to a death but then shrug, "she can take it or ignore it as she chooses"? You can justify it with statistical support, but as a human being did you think about the real-life consequences?
 * I just wish you would consider, sometimes, that just because you can write whatever you want, whenever you want, doesn't mean to say you should. You seem more interested in defending your prerogative to give your opinion, rather than consider the interests of the OP. Rockpock  e  t  01:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If I just said whatever I wanted, it would have been more to the effect of her being a "total slut", but I managed to keep that out of my answer, now didn't I ? I consider it to be in the OP's best interest, and of all those involved, for her to leave the relationship.  Do you think I gave that advice to try to harm everyone ?  Question my advice, but not my motives, please. StuRat (talk) 01:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't doubt you intended your answer to be helpful. But you failed because of what you don't know. You don't know how to deal with such situations appropriately, and the reason for that is because you are not a professional who has been trained to do so. Consequently, you did the exact opposite of what any professional would advise. And for the same reason we don't offer amateur medical or legal advice — to avoid unintentional harm from the best of motivations — we should not tell vulnerable people what to do when real lives are involved. The three people that answered that before you all appreciated that to some extent (since they all directed the OP to someone who are better qualified to offer advice). Myself and Franamax read the question and appreciated that, and declined to offer advice because we knew we were not qualified to do so in a helpful way. But you didn't. Why do you think that is (and that is a genuine question, not a rhetorical device)? Rockpock  e  t  02:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Your "being a trained professional" apparently just means you refuse to answer any question and tell them to go ask somebody else. Since enough people had already told them to go ask somebody else, you and Fran apparently didn't feel the need to do so again.  I don't consider telling people to go away to be helpful at all, but do consider answering the question to be helpful.  If they wanted advice elsewhere, they would have gone elsewhere. StuRat (talk) 02:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What is "apparent" to you is flawed because you don't understand what "a trained professional" does, so you don't have the requisite knowledge to dismiss it. I'm not sure there is any other way to explain this, so I'm going to be blunt: You don't appear to have any respect for expertise. Most people understand that there are things they don't know, but other people do. There are many subjects I could, from a position of blissful ignorance, offer my thoughts in a manner that appears, to me, good advice. But because there are things I don't know, there is no way I can know if one of those things makes my advice terribly harmful. So I have a choice: I stick to what I do know, or else I risk offering bad, and sometimes harmful, advice. I choose the former. You, like me and everyone else, have limited expertise. Therefore you face the same choice. But today you chose the latter. I find that choice tedious and irritating when it concerns academic subjects, but when it has the potential to impact on lives, and uses emotional blackmail as a tool, then I consider it unacceptable.
 * I came here and asked multiple times for you to rephrase or remove that and you declined. I'm not going to edit war over it (I just hope the poor girl has the good sense to ignore it). But if I see that sort of terrible personal advice again then I'm going to open a behavioral RfC and request wider comment. I urge you to think about it next time, so it doesn't come to that. Rockpock  e  t  03:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Rock, now you're resorting to threats ? What's with all this negativity from you recently ?  The only time I hear from you here now is when you say unpleasant things to me.  You'd think from your posts that I never give any answers you like, filled with links, and devoid of opinion and original research.  I give those type of answers all the time, such as this one just today: Reference_desk/Computing.  So, can't you make an effort to balance your criticisms with something a bit more positive from time to time ? StuRat (talk)


 * Some of your answers are indeed excellent, and its also true that you don't hear from me noting that. So let me say it now. You are among the most, if not the most, prolific contributor to the Desks. Most of you answers are prefectly fine, many are good and some are excellent, which taken together means you have probably contributed the most value to our OPs out of anyone on the project. I don't think you get the recognition for that you deserve.
 * But most of the excellent answers are in subjects you are clearly educated in. And, like everyone else (myself included) you occasionally make a right pigs ear of an answer. And since your contributors are a factor more numerous than most others, like your excellent answers, your poor answers are more prolific too. Your policy of offering opinions on all subjects enhances this. Since no one is an expert at everything, and the least we know about subjects, the more likely we are going to offer misleading information.
 * So I don't mean to pick on you, and if I noted the same pattern of anyone else I would make the same point to them too. And I don't mean to threaten you either. Wikipedia has a series of mechanisms to deal with perceived issues. I (and others) see this as an issue that is harmful to the project, so I have tried to discuss it with you as we are asked to do. I don't get the feeling this discussion will have much of an effect, and so if and when I see (what I consider to be) this issue rise again, I'll move to the next mechanism or resolution. Thats an RfC. At least that way both of us will know how the wider community stands on the issue and we can adjust our expectations accordingly. Rockpock  e  t  05:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well thanks for that recognition. However, the only "other" I see complaining about this particular contribution is Fran, and they didn't seem nearly as concerned about it as you.  Also, if you look through each question on the Ref Desk, you will find I leave most of them untouched, with a higher percentage left untouched in areas I'm less familiar with, like the Language and Humanities Desks (there are, of course, some areas of Language, like English, I'm familiar with, and also some areas of the Humanities). StuRat (talk) 05:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The RefDesk

 * Thanks ! StuRat (talk) 05:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi
I posted comments here (Reference desk/Language)--202.168.229.245 (talk) 11:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Reference desk/Language
Hi there, I have added bit there. It would be great if you take a look that issue. Thank you--202.168.229.245 (talk) 19:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Microwave tray
Hi, If memory serves me right you were looking for microwave sleeves. Check out Red Baron deep dish microwavable pizzas (3 per box). Hope you like pizza. (Michelina's e.g. has the crisper inside the box, so they wouldn't work for you.) Lisa4edit 76.97.245.5 (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Yes, I do like pizza, I even had microwave pizza for dinner.  Unfortunately, it was a brand that comes without a crisper sleeve. StuRat 05:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

re Reference desk/Miscellaneous
In response to this, which is now far beyond the original question and no longer appropriate for the reference desk so I'm continuing here, that's true only if you take the signing of the Arusha Accords as both the pro forma and actual end of the Rwandan Civil War. One is then left with trying to explain away the advance of the Rwandan Patriotic Front across the Arusha Accords demilitarized zone after the beginning of the Rwandan Genocide. The one chosen by apologists of Hutu power is to lump the renewed fighting between rebel and government forces in with the slaughter of civilians by government forces, thereby implying that the civilians deserved to be killed by association with the rebels. Others, who believe treaty dates, end up just failing to explain what happened and sounding incoherent. Most sources I've read politely describe the pretty signatures on the Arusha Accord and then go on to describe the civil war as continuing through at least the capture of the country by the RPF, often dated to the fall of Kigali, the capture of Ruhengeri or the end of Opération Turquoise. The notion that the civil war and genocide can be separated, as implied by your comment, simply isn't borne out by the facts. - BanyanTree 13:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Possibly you could argue that there was another Rwandan Civil War after the settlement of the first one, which you linked to. However, the formal settlement was accepted as the end of the first Rwandan Civil War, as indicated in the first paragraph of our article.  If you don't agree, then you should change our article. StuRat (talk) 13:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If I point out that I started our article, will you accept that I'm correct in the characterization of the conflict? I can add the article to my queue. - BanyanTree 21:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, no, I don't think just having started an article necessarily makes you the definitive authority on the subject. However, even you said "the RPA restarted their campaign", indicating that they had stopped it at one point.  If that corresponded with the Arusha Accord, then a formal settlement and the cessation of hostilities (even if only temporary) is enough for me to say the war had ended.  Apparently others agree with this interpretation since that's what the article said the last time I read it.  I would call the period after the RPA restarted their campaign a second civil war.  Certainly you're free to categorize it differently, and, if enough people agree with you, you can change the article and it should stick (I, for one, won't revert you). StuRat (talk) 23:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sleep question on RD/S
Hi StuRat, sorry I seem to have offended you with this removal - your tone was pretty strongly negative. I have a lot of respect for your work on RD/S and elsewhere, but I think your reply on the talk page was disproportionately negative, almost argumentative. Seems like a pretty small thing, really - I did what I thought was proper, and you pointed out some things I could have done better. Thanks for the constructive parts of the feedback. --Scray (talk) 03:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I sounded too negative. I tried to lead with the things I think you did well, such as listing the removal on the talk page, including the diff, including a link to the Q, and including the title of the Q in the title of the talk page section.  Believe me, many people aren't willing or able to do that much, so I appreciate you making the effort. StuRat (talk) 04:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of "Evolution Under Attack!!!"
You know I'm almost as vehemently opposed to ridiculous removals as you are, but I'm not sure that restoring this question was the right move. It seems to me that this response might be overcompensation for the inherent unfairness in our current removal process. While I'd like to see that process revised as much as anyone, I think supporting questions that clearly cross the line is unlikely to improve the situation and might prove even more divisive. –  7 4   15:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't restore the Q, only the answers, although I did put the Q in a "hidden box" so that anyone trying to understand the answers can see it. StuRat (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, restoring the question inside a drop-down box would count as restoring the question to me at least. I think such treatment would be warranted for most "Wikipedia RD doesn't answer that type of question" removals (though I am admittedly biased), but when the 'question' has no question and no real value (and no really valuable answers) I think ("full") removal is the best option. Anyway, I'm not trying to argue the point, just to remind you that sometimes it's best to pick your battles. –  7 4   16:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I certainly agree that it's prudent to pick one's battles, but don't think that this edit was particularly controversial. I believe most people accept a question moved to a drop-down box as a removal, as evidenced by no serious opposition to this action at the talk page and by nobody reverting it. StuRat (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Multiple standards
Hey Stu, you argue for a logical approach to all RefDesk questions, you discourse quite passionately on the talk page how everyone else is wrong to remove Q's, you restore removed threads in the name of freedom. Then you answer a perfectly legitimate question with an echoing resonance of nothing at all. Seriously, why would you bother to provide that answer? What is your purpose here? Sorry, but my respect-level has gone down a notch, unless you have a rationale for that. Franamax (talk) 10:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * My reasons for just saying no:


 * 1) I really feel that the answer is no, but have no way to prove it. Therefore, there isn't much more I can say.  I was hoping others would offer some proof.


 * 2) The OP (Acceptable) is a Ref Desk regular, so I didn't worry too much about him getting pissed and leaving the Ref Desk forever after the first response, but knew he would stay and read all the responses.


 * 3) My answer was proper, in that they only asked a yes or no question, and did not request an explanation. I also find it funny to answer a question like that literally, but apparently you don't.


 * 4) It was late at night here, and I was in need of sleep. So, I figured I'd come back the next day and add more detail, when I'd hopefully be able to form my thoughts properly.


 * I've now gone back and added something to it: .  Also, I don't see how offering (possibly overly) concise answers is in any way inconsistent with using logic to answer Qs or opposing unilateral deletions (except in extraordinary cases).  StuRat (talk) 14:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Please
You're an English native speaker. and I need help.

Is this text right?

In one of his speeches, with the name,, Message to the Grass Roots`` (in Detroit on10th November, 1963), Malcolm X differentiated sarcastically between the contradicting characters from ,, house Negroes`` and ,, field Negroes ``.This is a allusion to Martin Luther King and his followers, who want to achieve their aims of freedom and equality in a peaceful way. Malcolm X called Martin Luther King as a house slave, the house slaves usually lived better than field slaves. They usually had better food and were sometimes given the family cast-off clothing, sometimes they close bonds of affection and the slave-owners and the slaves were friends. In contrast to the field slaves the house slaves lived well and they felt no need to leave the plantation.

He wanted to explain with this statement that Martin Luther King and his followers were embodiment of the house slave. Malcolm X despises King and his followers who were the so-called civil-rights activist. He accuses the activists that they collaborate unconsciously with the power holder because they are house slaves who admire ,, the white devils ``. Malcolm X characterizes Martin Luther King and the civil-rights movement as implement of the opressor.The main objective of him would be to expose oppressors' past and present inhumanities and injustices. Malcolm X refers the fact that blacks are still discriminated and segregated at present time and for that reason he wants to resort to violence because this is in his opinion the only way to achieve equality. In an other speech he uses an allusion to make the social connection between black and white clear. Coffee is the only thing I like integrated.(Malcolm X zit. N. Haley 1987: 13).

I KNOW IT'S LONG, BUT PLEASE I WILL NEVER BOTHER YOU AGAIN, PLEASE. IS IT RIGHT? I WRITED IT --190.49.114.59 (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll give it a try. One general comment, are you sure Malcolm X said "Negroes" ?  It seems to me that, as outspoken as he was, the more likely word would have been "niggers".  That is, of course, quite an offensive word in English, which is probably why he would have chosen to use it.  Also, the entire speech should be in past tense, as both people are now dead.  Finally, you might want to say Martin Luther King, Jr., as there is also a Martin Luther King, Sr.  I only changed to the past tense, though, in my version.  So, here's my "corrected" version:

In his speech, "Message to the Grass Roots" (given in Detroit on November 10th, 1963), Malcolm X differentiated sarcastically between the contradicting characteristics of "house Negroes" and "field Negroes". This is an allusion to Martin Luther King and his followers, who wanted to achieve their aims of freedom and equality through peaceful means. Malcolm X called Martin Luther King a "house slave", since the house slaves usually lived better than field slaves. They usually had better food and were sometimes given the family's cast-off clothing. Sometimes they even had close bonds of affection with their white masters. In contrast to the field slaves, the house slaves lived comparatively well and felt no compulsion to leave the plantation.

He claimed that Martin Luther King and his followers were the embodiment of the house slave. Malcolm X despised King and his followers, the so-called "civil-rights activists". He accused the activists of unconsciously collaborating with those in power because they were house slaves who admired "the white devils". Malcolm X characterized Martin Luther King and the civil-rights movement as "implements of the oppressor". Malcolm's main objective was to expose the oppressors' past and present inhumanities and injustices. Malcolm X referred to the fact that blacks were still discriminated against and segregated at that time. For that reason, he wanted to use violence because this, in his opinion, was the only way to achieve equality. In another speech he used an allusion to make the social connection between black and white clear: "Coffee is the only thing I like integrated". StuRat (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. God Bless You. I love Wikipedia and its articles, the best encyclopedia ever. I love to read about terrorism, Bin laden, etc. Thank you again! --190.49.114.59 (talk) 01:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You're quite welcome. StuRat (talk) 01:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You maybe interested in the Article Rescue Squadron

 * Sounds interesting. But how do you keep an AfD article from being deleted mid-improvement ?  StuRat (talk) 12:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That depends if it is speedy delete or regular delete (Afd), if it is speedy delete you can add, if it is a  regular delete (Afd), you can add  . the rescue tag alerts squadron members to come and help you complete the article, by adding well referenced sources.
 * But as PC PRO journalist Dick Pountain found:
 * "For an example of the dark side [of Web 2.0] running out of control, though, check out Wikipedia...In the NYRB article Baker explains how Wikipedia continually struggles to repel vandalisation...but as a result is now ruled by bands of vigilantes who delete all new material without mercy or insight. This is such a strong claim that it needed checking, so I decided to attempt an edit myself…I wrote a roughly 100-word potted history of [The Political Quarterly]… within five minutes I received a message to the effect that this entry has no content…and has been put up for "express deletion…It seems Wikipedia has completed the journey by arriving at an online equivalent of the midnight door-knock and the book bonfire".
 * See also Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:Reevaluation, and User:I'm Spartacus!/Why I hate Speedy Deleters
 * If an article is deleted, you have several avenues of recourse available: User:Ikip/AfD
 * I hope I (over) answered your question. Please message me on my talk page, if you wish to continue this conversation. Ikip (talk) 18:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

To you, :-) to me and others, :-P
I wonder if in imagination, you ever think about the horrific and really cruel realities of the Mossad and the inhumane mechanisms of the so-called intelligence operations all these warring sides carry out. For example, current reports of Hamas assassinations and torture of those Fatah members they suspect and accuse of providing information to Israel. Or how about the coercion allegedly applied by Israel on Palestinians to get their services as informers? Your "smiley" emoticon with which you signed your remark may go down great with others who think (or imagine) as you do... but for people close to the conflict, occasionally under rocket attack though far more often suffering the consequences of living in a militarized society in the constrained circumstances of being surrounded by hostile and violent elements bent on our destruction while "we" oppress innocents who happen to be on the wrong side... no, StuRat, it's not a smiley matter, whatever you may like to do or write on the Ref Desks. What's for you a joking matter is life and death for others. I feel that your jokey remarks cheapen and degrade what a lot of people are suffering.-- Deborahjay (talk) 23:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)''


 * Haven't we already covered this issue ? This seems to be virtually identical to your post here: User_talk:StuRat, to the effect that humor is out-of-line in any discussion of Israel/Palestine.  I believe my final comment there, which you may have missed, also applies here.  I just can't understand how anyone could endure such a situation without humor. StuRat (talk) 00:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You're not an Israeli Jew or Palestinian, are you? I'm sure you know about African-Americans calling each other the N-word. You publicly, on what's supposed to be a Reference Desk, exercise your judgment in humor that some find insensitive and offensive, so make no mistake about that when you post your little sallies. Perhaps, as you yourself state above, that you "just can't understand" - and I'm trying to make the point that maybe you might care to try harder. It might help, for one excellent example that's accessible in English, to read Koby Niv's book, Life is Beautiful, but Not for Jews". (Mention of it has evidently been removed from the page of the film you so enthusiastically recommend, I'll have to see why...) That film was a sham and distortion of the actualities of the camps and the brutalities done there; the victims weren't taken conveniently off camera. You prescribe humor for the victims as a means of making it easier to endure being oppressed or being on the side of the oppressors? Your attitude, expressed here and elsewhere, makes me wonder whether you have a clue that such humor, if unacceptable to those involved, is little more than a cheap shot, and even those hurt. I'm aware that there's a big market for vicarious kicks for jaded Americans: reading thrillers, going to "action" (= violence) movies, and virtual Army-surplus jock-sniffing with deluxe video war games, but I believe its ilk doesn't belong on the Ref Desk. You play the percentages, "if [you] amuse more than offend," and even see the so-called humor on the Ref Desk as an attraction lest people (contributors and readers alike) avoid it for being dull. Perhaps it's a matter of taboo subjects: I draw the line differently than you do, and I suggest that those who give you positive feedback aren't necessarily living in a war zone. Just be sure that you know that your fun is other people's sorrow, and your jokes and recommending that they help others endure their distress, is patently patronizing. -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Whether I'm an Israeli Jew or Palestinian is irrelevant, to my mind. Suffice it to say that I'm perfectly willing to make or hear jokes about my ethnic group(s).  I am partially Scottish, and presently have a joke on the Ref Desk about me being thrifty and another about Scots wearing kilts, since these are alleged characteristic of the Scots.  I could refrain from making such jokes and accuse anyone who does of being a racist who propagates ethnic stereotypes, or could only do that if those who make the jokes aren't partially Scottish themselves.  But how would that help to increase understanding between groups ?  The world would still think we Scots were cheap and wear kilts everyday, and then would think we were humorless, too.  StuRat (talk) 13:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It appears you really don't get it, when you make these comparisons and consider it irrelevant that some people are regularly subjected to terror, whether individually or indiscriminately (and I'm talking about daily rocket fire or marauding vigilante bands armed with machetes, not 9/11), and you talk about "increase our understanding between groups" by "making fun" of stereotypes. Can you get real? The main reason I knock myself out trying to cope with anti-Zionism and antisemitism on the ref desks, is that there might be someone who will read and understand what I'm trying to explain, plus the misery I feel when there are no rebuttals to what I consider falsehoods and distortions (like your vaunted film "Life is Beautiful"). People who make jokes based on stereotypes and late-night standup one-liners aren't necessarily racists, but they're not really helping; they're the sort of good guys who don't have a clue about the seriousness of it all (or worse, don't care enough to show that they understand others' pain and the risks they face). Are you going to go on patronizing me and my kind by giving us jokes and conduct a circus for all in an information forum? I give you credit for the understanding and compassion you've claimed; I'm disappointed (and somewhat disgusted) that you prefer the joke route to sincerity. But that's your choice. Thanks for your explanation; I'll stop bothering (about) you. -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I would say that you don't get it, when you say that humor and sincerity are somehow incompatible. If you don't like my example of "Life is Beautiful", another is the movie "The Great Dictator".  At the end, Charlie Chaplin, in the guise of Hitler, gives a powerful speech against the coming Holocaust, seen by millions.  Had he given such a speech in a forum without humor, nobody would have listened.  Had other actors done the same, a few years earlier, perhaps public opinion could have been swayed to the extent that Hitler could have been stopped early on, when still weak, perhaps when he remilitarized the Rhineland, in violation of the Treaty of Versailles.


 * For another example, look at the satire in the book A Modest Proposal, by Jonathon Swift. A humorless book on the same topic wouldn't have had nearly the same impact.  Tragedy and injustice, without humor, merely makes people turn their heads away. StuRat (talk) 14:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Section headers
Please don't change other people's comments (including section headers) on talk pages. Friday (talk) 16:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As you are well aware, the talk page guidelines specifically say that section headers are NOT the property of the person who writes them, and that they can be changed by others when they lack neutrality or violate other guidelines. StuRat (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

template
Good template. Accords respect to the OP, offers helpful links so they don't feel as though no one cares and which may assist them in their discussions with the dr, and prevents any refdesker overstepping and providing advice. Can we develop something formal along these lines? Gwinva (talk) 06:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I can't take all the credit. It was discussed just a couple days ago on the Ref Desk talk page, and I copied it from there. StuRat (talk) 06:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Ooops.
I accidentally clobbered a post of yours to the Ref Desk.

I tried to Put it back. You might want to double check to make sure I didn't mangle it. Sorry. APL (talk) 13:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks like you fixed it, so no problem. This is the method I use to avoid such probs:

1) Don't ever edit after an edit conflict. The problem here is that it escalates to an edit of the entire Ref Desk page, which is quite likely to have endless edit conflicts.

2) Instead, hit the back browser arrow and cut your new text, then hit the "discussion" tab to reload the page, then pick "edit" on the Q, and paste your comments back in.

3) Only add one chunk of contiguous text at a time. Adding discontiguous text with other people's comments in-between makes resolving edit conflicts much uglier. StuRat (talk) 13:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It was weird. I didn't get the usual red edit conflict warning. It just let me save normally. I didn't even know anything had gone wrong until someone told me about it.  I must have done something wrong, but I can't think what.
 * If it happens again I'll ask on either the help-desk, or the village pump, depending on whether or not I want to admit that it's my fault. APL (talk) 19:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Which one forces you to admit the error of your ways ? :-) StuRat (talk) 21:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice...
I'd prefer your search engine personally. I like cats better than porn. I use Ask. I don't know why but it REALLY sucks. <(^_^)> Pokegeek42 (talk) 23:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC) 19:10pm March 23, 2009


 * I'd use Google. The one advantage Ask.com had was that it was a bit better at parsing natural language queries, like "What's the biggest lake in Honduras ?". StuRat (talk) 23:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Report cards
Sturat, I noticed you often reply to users who remove medical questions from the refdesk with report cards detailing all manner of issues you had with the removal process. Is this really necessary everytime? Clearly, the removers don't agree with you so there is no real purpose to do this? But even if you have to give users feedback after removing questions, could you please do so on their user talk pages?

Btw, you say that there should be links to and fro between the talk page and the desk - I think this is unnecessary work for the remover. There is no guideline supporting this so incessantly nagging users to do this is not appropriate. If you think this should be part of the guidelines, you're welcome to make a formal request to include them. As long as there is a diff, we could easily find the question on the desk. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 22:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It's just common courtesy to include links back and forth. How else is the OP, if they are a newbie, going to find the discussion ?  I include the info on the talk page in the hope that some reader (not necessarily the person who failed to be courteous to the OP in this case) will act responsibly when they remove a post in the future.  Who knows, it might even be you. :-) StuRat (talk) 07:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I endorse Zain's comments, and urge you to consider the possibility that your version of "common courtesy" may not be the consensus view. The wisdom in some of your comments is getting lost in the vitriol of the others.  Just my opinion, of course - feel free to ignore me.  --Scray (talk) 03:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Scray, did you also say to Ten that "The wisdom in some of your comments is getting lost in the vitriol of the others" ? If so, I will tend to consider your opinion to be a neutral one, and weigh it more heavily. StuRat (talk) 05:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Neutrality does not require equivalent treatment. While I agree that linking from the removal to the talk page discussion is helpful (especially for users unfamiliar with our system), the "report cards" do tend come across as confrontational. Probably making the suggested modifications (which you do) with a polite comment noting the action would convey your position more effectively than a "report card" post. (And no, I did not advise TenOfAllTrades to avoid confrontational "report card" posts.  ;-)   –   7 4   06:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * "Neutrality does not require equivalent treatment" ? I just don't get that statement.  Can you explain further ? StuRat (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't speak for 74 but I agree with the comment. I'll posit that people are not identical in behavior or demeanor, so treatment by a neutral person is rarely identical.  --Scray (talk) 16:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * But in cases where there is identical behavior, such as "vitriol", why shouldn't the same action be applied to both ? StuRat (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Applying the "same action" to both is no indication of neutrality (such as the "action" "don't edit section headers"), nor is not applying the "same action" (even to identical behavior) proof of bias (for example, a "neutral party" may only have so much time to spend attempting to resolve conflicts). "Neutrality" does not equate to "fairness"; it only indicates a lack of bias. I agree that it is unfair to hold you solely responsible for the conflict; however, it is not intrinsically non-neutral to hold you responsible for your own actions (and the neutrality thereof is not dependent upon the treatment of anyone else). –  7 4   21:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Applying the same action seems reasonable when both parties are guilty of the same thing, as in the case of "vitriol", doesn't it ? If not, why not ?  StuRat (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree it seems reasonable (under the given premises). It is not, however, part of the definition of neutrality. You are, of course, free to weigh advice in any manner you deem appropriate&mdash;"neutrality" just probably isn't the best word for it. –  7 4   02:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps "equivalent response" would be a better phrase than "same response". For example, it would make little sense to tell both the Palestinians and Israelis to stop with air strikes, but telling the Palestinians to stop with the rocket attacks and the Israelis to stop with the air strikes would make perfect sense. StuRat (talk) 17:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sturat, your consistently confrontational tone is self-defeating, IMHO. I really do think that some self-examination will help you to become a much more effective editor.  --Scray (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I will try to tone it down. However, don't you see any vitriol in Ten's statements ?  I certainly do.  So, why don't you say the same thing to him ? StuRat (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * My comments are either accurate or inaccurate - I suggest you focus on deciding whether you see an opportunity to improve as a WP editor. Focusing on how Ten behaves or how s/he is addressed does not help you achieve the goal of being a better editor.  --Scray (talk) 16:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * At the moment I'm focusing on your behavior. As for mine, I've already said I will try to tone it down a bit. StuRat (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Nastiness off the Desk proper
I agree with you that keeping the nastiness off the Ref Desk itself is important and worthwhile, though I think we both understand that nastiness elsewhere is no more acceptable. Our history is peppered with unpleasantnesses, and I think it's time to call a halt.

I am well aware that you have no great love of me, and from my perspective it seems you are willing to go out of your way to offend – and be offended by – me. It's unproductive and unhelpful, and I would like to find a way to put it to an end. Frankly, I don't expect to convince you that I'm a rational, reasonable, intelligent human being, worthy of courteous treatment. I'm quite willing to settle for any end to hostilities in some way that doesn't do further harm to Wikipedia and the editors at the Ref Desks.

I do not wish to shut you out of any reasonable discussion on the Ref Desk or elsewhere, nor do I want (or expect) any shiny, happy declarations of mutual, undying friendship, or regret, or apology. I recommend a practical approach, with an aim to minimizing bickering and maximizing continued participation by both of us. Here is what I propose:


 * 1) Neither one of us will enter a thread started by the other on WT:RD unless at least three other editors have commented, or unless 48 hours have passed since the last comment.
 * 2) Neither of us will assert a 'consensus' has been established in any thread in which the other has participated.
 * 3) Neither of us will post to the other's talk page.
 * 4) Neither of us will respond directly to a comment posted by the other unless directly involved (implicitly or explicitly) in that comment. Both of us will endeavour to avoid commenting on each other under all but the most dire circumstances.
 * 5) Neither of us will revert the other on any page on Wikipedia.

I believe that those arrangements should eliminate the vast majority of areas where we are suffering from utterly fruitless friction. Point #1 leaves open the door for comment where a genuine debate has opened, but leaves neither of us the opportunity for sheer bloodyminded contrariness. Point #2 lets others 'make the call'; neither one of us need take a 'final' decision. Points #3, #4, and #5 are intended to discourage poking and prodding in either direction. (If a message needs to be conveyed or an edit needs to be reverted, the matter ought to be sufficiently obvious that someone else can do it.)

What say you? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Those conditions seem biased to help you out. For example, the "no revert" rule helps you, since you love to post those talk page section titles with your personal opinion in them, and this rule would let them stand.  I'm fine with not posting on each other's talk pages.  I'll agree to that item, but I expect something in return.  Can you agree to post factual section titles on talk pages, instead of your own opinion ?  If you can just do that, you will find I won't revert those section titles. StuRat (talk) 05:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I imagine we can work something out on the section headers; are you okay with the other terms? I'm trying to get away from the bickering, so it would be extremely helpful to me if you would outline what you see as an acceptable framework. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 11:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought I did outline what I see as an acceptable framework, and made it clear that I was not OK with the other terms. Here it is again in a list numbered to match your own, with a new item added:


 * 3) Neither of us will post to the other's talk page.


 * 5a) Neither of us will revert the other on the Wikipedia Reference Desk Talk Page, unless one of us places their opinion in a section title.


 * 5b) Neither of us will revert the other on the Wikipedia Reference Desk proper, unless one of us first performs a deletion prior to achieving a consensus on the Ref Desk Talk Page that such a deletion is warranted.


 * 6) Neither of us will accuse the other of "playing games", "gaming the system", "trying to undermine the system", etc.


 * If you don't agree to all of those items, we can just go with whichever ones you do agree with. StuRat (talk) 14:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm concerned that trimming the list back that way won't significantly fetter our ability to jump at each other's throats on WT:RD. The point of #1 is to give each of us a bit of breathing space around the other &mdash; let other editors sound off on our postings and proposals and hopefully diffuse some of the fire.  The role of #2 is to keep us from letting our personal feelings about each other color the evaluation of consensus.  (Even if we both are confident we can evaluate the other's position coolly and neutrally, there is a gread deal to be said for avoiding the appearance of any conflict of interest, no?  In any case, where a genuine consensus has evolved, it ought to be apparent to others.)  #4 was a first draft of a way to further avoid unpleasant back-and-forth, but I'd be open to other strategies there.  I would read that #6 is essentially implicit within #4.
 * Am I reading correctly that you're describing #5a and #5b as additional provisos on #5, rather than in lieu of it? If so, I'm generally amenable, but I have worries about the wording of #5b.  As written, you appear to be seeking a veto over any deletion I might make from the Reference Desk proper.  I don't think that such a veto is necessary nor would it be likely to be helpful.  It strikes me that your attempts to enforce such a veto in the past have led to some unpleasant edit warring.  Nevertheless, if you would like to include #5b, it will require the following conditions:
 * 5b.i) Provision 5b will not apply where the deletion in question involves the removal of vandalism; undoing a violation of the 3RR; removal of posts from a banned or block-evading user; or the removal of a thread seeking medical advice (persuant to the Ref Desk's guidelines for handling medical advice requests).
 * Are we getting somewhere? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It sounds like we agree on 3, 5a, and maybe 6. I'm not "seeking a veto" but merely wish to preserve my existing right to revert unwarranted deletions.  As such, I don't agree with your additions to 5b.  If you don't agree to my version, let's just skip 5b altogether.  As for 6, yes 4 might accomplish that, too, but would also stop normal responses.  I'm only interested in stopping unpleasant responses. StuRat (talk) 20:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * StuRat, you're trying to claim as a right a privilege that you don't have. Unless and until the medical advice rules change, any editor can remove a thread he believes in good faith to be a request for medical advice; such removals don't require prior consensus for reasons which have been beaten to death already, and those removals remains in effect unless a consensus to reverse them develops on WT:RD.  What you're asking for amounts to special permission for you to ignore the guideline and edit war with me, while barring me from making any criticism of that action.  That's a recipe for an increase in conflict, not a decrease, and I can't accept that.
 * Could you have a second look at #1 and #2? You haven't specifically addressed them, and I'm wondering if you could describe how you would see such provisions as being harmful.  Of all of them, I suspect that they might be the most helpful in reducing conflict. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * So, like I said, leave out 5b. Here's your 1 and 2 and why I don't like them:


 * 1) "Neither one of us will enter a thread started by the other on WT:RD unless at least three other editors have commented, or unless 48 hours have passed since the last comment." That would favor you, since you start more threads, usually medical deletion threads.  I don't see why I should be excluded from participating in those threads, or not allowed to participate until the OP has given up and left Wikipedia for good.


 * 2) "Neither of us will assert a 'consensus' has been established in any thread in which the other has participated." That would favor deletion, since you don't think deletion requires a consensus but do think a restore requires it.  It's already damned near impossible to ever get a consensus either way, meaning once something is deleted it is unlikely to ever be restored, much less in a timely manner.  Now if we make it even more difficult to get a consensus by excluding people from declaring one, it will never happen at all. StuRat (talk) 23:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)