User talk:StuRat/archive8

Ref desk note
"The questions was well-answered"? The problem is that the question WAS DELETED because the OP is a banned user. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:56, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Then you should say that in your edit summary. "Deny" could just mean you think it's a troll, not that they were banned.  Deletion edit summaries need to be thorough, especially when there have been many replies. StuRat (talk) 22:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * If you had bothered to look at the history, you would have seen it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:09, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * And if you had bothered to leave a complete edit summary, it wouldn't be necessary for me to do research on the deletion. StuRat (talk) 22:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * It has been stated at the ref desk talk page, time after time, that "wp:deny" is not only quite sufficient, but also that elaborating further does nothing except feed the banned user. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:15, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * For something like "Why are Jooows trying to take over the world", then yes. But not for a Q like this, with many replies. StuRat (talk) 22:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * For the ref desk, or any article or talk page on your watch list, if you start with the history, you can (1) see what's been going on; and hence (2) avoid this kind of problem. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:RD
Per WP:BRD, please engage in the discussion at WT:RD regarding the thread you want to un-hat. Let's give it some time and see where consensus lies. If consensus is to restore, we can do so. -- Jayron 32 02:19, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I'd be fine with that except that you are now actively deleting new contributions to the thread, which is not "Wait and see", it's "Do it my way or else". StuRat (talk) 02:24, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Look, if This is that important to you, have your tantrum. I don't dignify such behavior from my 8 year old with a response, and I certainly won't do so with you, who's supposed to be a grown adult.  I'm washing my hands of this.  The discussion will or will not turn out whatever way it does.  I'm fucking out.  -- Jayron 32 03:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Good. You don't seem to appreciate the horrid precedent that would set, if anyone, like Medies, can then delete any additions to threads she closes, often for faulty reasons.  Also, your language and name-calling is completely unprofessional for any Wikipedian, much less an Admin.  StuRat (talk) 03:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Deletion
No it wasn't accidental, it was deliberate. I don't like your jokes and I don't think they have any place on the ref desks. And I'm under no obligation to provide a reason if I don't want to. I'll let it stand this time, but I'll continue to zap your jokes on sight if I feel like it. --Viennese Waltz 08:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid you're mistaken. WP:TPO enumerates the valid reasons to remove another's comments, and "jokes you don't like" is not one of them. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  09:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * That's right, and you can't remove ANYTHING just because you don't like it. That's not what Wikipedia is all about.  You DO need a valid reason for a deletion.  Follow the rules, or you will be blocked. StuRat (talk) 16:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Firstly, the ref desk is not a talk page. And secondly, what is your "valid reason" for making jokes on the ref desk? I'm honestly struggling to understand why you do it. If you can enlighten me in a way that makes sense, I'd be more amenable to them. --Viennese Waltz 09:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) Yes, it is a talk page, with comparable rules to an article talk page. The signatures, threads, and not editing each other's contributions should be your first clues.


 * 2) There's no requirement that others have a valid reason for a post and you not feeling that they have one is not a justification for your removal.


 * 3) A dull, humorless Ref Desk would cause people to lose interest and leave, and thus Q's would go unasked and/or unanswered, and the Ref Desk would die. StuRat (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I would say it is more likely that people would lose interest and leave the ref desk if they occasionally read jokes. --Viennese Waltz 12:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Only people who totally lack a sense of humor, and fortunately, those are very few. StuRat (talk) 13:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

A note
Looks like they're seeking additional targets. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:04, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've responded there. StuRat (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Providing incorrect answers on the RefDesk
I'm repeating this on your talk page, as this is the more proper place for it. Every time you provide an incorrect answer on the RefDesk you 1) spread misinformation and 2) leave a mess for other contributors to clean up. Please take the time and effort to ensure that your answers are correct, even if it means reducing the volume of answers you provide.--Wikimedes (talk) 20:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I do try not to post incorrect answers, but there are times when it's good to list possibilities, so that they may be investigated further, as you did here: . Some of those possibilities will, of course, be wrong.  Then of course, somebody will always say that any answer is wrong: "The shape of the Earth is round", "No, your wrong, it's a sphere.", "No, your wrong, it's a oblate spheroid", "No, your wrong, it has an irregular shape", "No, your wrong, it's a close approximation of an oblate spheroid".  None of those answers is actually wrong, but some are better than others, with the last one being my choice. StuRat (talk) 20:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * This was the right place to post, but since you also posted elsewhere, I now must defend myself there, too. StuRat (talk) 21:04, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi StuRat,
 * First let me begin with an apology for the way in which I have expressed myself: my recent comments have had a high level of vitriol, and that was not necessary nor helpful. That said, I really wish that you would treat seriously the criticisms that you have received from a large number of people.  On the specific issue of the curvature question, since RDBury demurred, I would be happy to detail the ways in which your answer is not a good one, if it would be useful to work with a concrete example.  However, I tried once before (more politely than my recent comments) to make this point to you, and the response was similar to what you write here: you were extremely defensive and totally closed to any suggestion of changing your behavior.  This is dispiriting, and it also helps explain why some people are actively discussing trying to get you blocked.
 * Best,
 * JBL (talk) 00:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I would appreciate if you can keep it civil. If you will provide a link to the previous discussion I will take a look. StuRat (talk) 01:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * See above. --JBL (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * It didn't look much more polite, to me. Your initial post called mine "uselessly vague", and your posts went downhill from there.  I explained precisely how my posts were useful, and in return you continued with the insults.  Would you behave like this in person ?  If you disagreed with a coworker's work, would you walk up to them and call it "uselessly vague" ?  If not, then why do you think it's appropriate here ?  If so, then you may well be looking for a new job soon.  Now put yourselves in my shoes.  If somebody insulted you like that, what would you do ?  Somehow I doubt if you would keep it as civil as I have.


 * I can even suggest ways to word the same request politely, such as "Please expand your thoughts into a specific bidding strategy, with a numeric example". Why can't you do this ?  You stated that your "recent comments have had a high level of vitriol, and that was not necessary nor helpful".  I agree.  Now please do something to improve on this.


 * To put it another way, if you don't want people to react defensively, then don't attack them, work WITH them. StuRat (talk) 18:13, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I give up: your posts are terrible, you show 0 interest in making them better, and it's extremely sad that you spend so much time producing garbage. I hope you get blocked, it will make the ref desk a better place.  I for one am going to take a break from it so I don't have to read your useless posts any more.  I hope you make some attempt to understand RDBury's last question at some point, it was a good one. --JBL (talk) 23:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I did make an effort, in the last case I did propose a specific bidding strategy, even though you were extremely rude when you requested it. I haven't seen you making a corresponding effort to be civil.  And it is possible for you to continue on the Ref Desk without reading my posts.  I for one, look at who wrote a post before I decide if it's worth my time to read it, especially the long-winded ones.  StuRat (talk) 02:04, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:ANI again
Hi Stu, just letting you know that I submitted another incident report on the Administrator's Noticeboard: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

ANI Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Medeis / μηδείς vioating WP:TPOC again. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:04, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Replacement of disputed notification
As mentioned there, I have replaced a disputed notification [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AReference_desk&type=revision&diff=807833127&oldid=807832588]. Since the purpose of the notification is simply to inform others of the discussion, my replacement notification serves the same purpose and does not get into the tricky issue of modifying the text of a signed post nor in preserving the text which has been called canvassing. I don't see that there is any text in the section I deleted which either relates to how to improve the RD, or is necessary for notifying people about the ANI discussion, or even helps us grow as a community. I did mention the earlier discussion I removed since otherwise people may get confused or complain, but intentionally did not provide a history link. If people look it up, that's their choice, I don't see there is much better we can do now which isn't going to just result in more dispute. In otherwords, either we leave it at that, or we risk blowing up the dispute even more, perhaps to the extent of derailing the ANI discussion. The choice is yours. I'm leaving this message on the talk page of everyone who participated in the section I removed. Nil Einne (talk) 11:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration
I have filed a Request for Arbitration concerning conduct at the Reference Desks. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Walk away from it.
As a member of WP:RETENTION & an editor who's been through a 'few' blocks & a year-long ban from the 'pedia, I'll offer ya some advice. Volunteer to stay away from the RefDesks & perhaps your being t-banned from them, won't occur. What's important here, is that you've got a lot of editors peeved with you. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice. I shall consider it. StuRat (talk) 19:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Accept your restriction & wait at least 6 months, before appealing it. Otherwise, you're going to start getting blocks. GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to a community editing restriction
Per this discussion at AN/I, you are indefinitely banned from editing the reference desks.

That's the formal bit done; I will add some advice as well, though I can well understand if you don't much like the messenger at this point. My advice is that you read the discussion at AN/I carefully, ponder it for some significant time - say somewhere between three and six months - take much of the advice there on board and then appeal the restriction at the administrator's noticeboard. At this point it doesn't really matter whether your approach to the reference desks is "right" or not - the community has made a pretty clear statement that your approach there is not welcome, and in Wikipedia terms that matters more than being "right". My feeling - though of course I am in no position to make promises - is that leaving some time and then making a real commitment to change your approach is likely to be successful.

I am sorry if this comes as a hard blow to you. I hope you will stay and keep helping to build Wikipedia. GoldenRing (talk) 15:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Let me know if you appeal this after a while. μηδείς (talk) 00:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


 * They're saying to wait six months. Here's what I would do if I were in your mocassins: Start compiling (on your PC, NOT here) interesting ref desk questions, with hypothetical answers you would give - with proper references and so on as per your own proposal. Then, when or if you appeal, you could use that list to show how you intend to edit in future. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestion. Reminds me of a joke: "Before you criticize somebody, walk a mile in their shoes.  That way, once you do, they will be a mile away, and barefoot, making it difficult for them to beat you up." :-)  StuRat (talk) 03:32, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


 * That is essentially my suggestion too. Over at ANI, I had just volunteered to help you review your responses. The thing is Stu, you do have a problem, and you do act badly here, frequently. This is not a hit job, this is consensus. However, I don't want you banned, I want you to do better. And even though you drive me nuts, I am willing to help ;) SemanticMantis (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


 * For those confused about why the discussion at ANI seems to now be open again, see Administrators' noticeboard [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=808085345#Closure_review_request_for_.22StuRat.27s_behaviour_on_the_Reference_Desks_.28again.29.22] where the closure (and so topic ban) was reversed to allow more time for the new proposal to be discussed. Nil Einne (talk) 06:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I suspect that this edit was the final straw that did you in. I also suspect that henceforth such a posting would violate the topic-ban and would result in a block. Please be careful in future. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * No, they had made up their minds long ago. StuRat (talk) 15:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The clique certainly did. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to a community enforced topic ban
Per this discussion, you are now indefinitely topic banned from participating at the WP:Reference Desks, including their talk pages as well as responding to questions or commenting on them at other locations. This is logged at WP:EDR. You can appeal this ban at WP:AN after a year. I would encourage you to consider the feedback from many of the participants in the thread and if/when you appeal, you may try to formulate a proposal similar to your counter proposal, including the additions proposed by other editors. I understand this is an important part of your editing interests here and this is not something to be happy about but I hope you will be able to focus your energy on other parts of the encyclopaedia and enjoy that. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  03:58, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Reverts on Christchurch
I believe I am in the right to revert the edits original posted by User:Abstractastronaut. The content added was what is genuinely believe to lack importance or notability and makes like a news article.

I requested you discuss this on the article Talk section but you have not done so. I don't appreciate being called out for edit warring. Ajf773 (talk) 06:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Therefore, per common sense, both of you forfeited both the right to criticize the other for edit warring and the right to complain about being criticized for edit warring. Great work, guys. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  07:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Per WP:EW, both of you edit warred (a little). There is no righteous edit warring, per the first paragraph there. And edit warring is not synonymous with exceeding 3RR, per the second paragraph there.


 * Not following your logic. If I once assaulted somebody, would that mean I would not be able to file a police complaint if I was later assaulted ? StuRat (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


 * AJ, once you were reverted by me, you had 2 people who disagreed with you, me and the original author. So, at that point I would say it was up to you to garner a consensus, and to just revert it a second time without one was wrong.  Somebody else has since reverted me, so I will let that stand, but this doesn't change how I feel about your double revert. StuRat (talk) 17:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The content never existed before the first edit so the correct response was to revert this and then discuss it. This is not how we deal with disputes. Ajf773 (talk) 22:14, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The correct response to improper reverts, assuming you're correct on that point, is not more reverts. That is how we escalate disputes. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

How I would have answered some Ref Desk Q's
As was suggested previously, I'm going to list what my replies might have been to some Ref Desk Q's here:

Riding out -150°F
Reference_desk/Miscellaneous Some points: 1) Large quantities of water ice require large quantities of water, or of carbon dioxide, in the case or dry ice. If they show a foot-thick layer of ice on all walls, floors, and ceilings, that would be 100 cubic feet of ice on a 10×10 foot floor, and the same amount on the ceiling, and some 280 cubic feet on the walls, if the ceiling height was 7 feet.  So, we get around 480 cubic feet of ice, which would mean just slightly less liquid water (due to the expansion of ice when it freezes).  This is a huge amount of water.  The main source of water in such a scenario would be from people, and would be far less than that.  If you were able to take a shower or cook, all that water vapor would freeze to the walls, but still wouldn't be anywhere near that much.  This is a good thing, as so much ice would likely cause the structure to collapse, or falling ceiling ice could cause deaths.  So, while there would be ice on the walls and windows, it wouldn't be very thick. 2) The main threat would be that the windows would shatter or walls would develop gaping cracks, due to variable thermal contraction of materials. As long as that didn't happen, and the structural integrity of the building remained, it would retain it's original thermal insulation properties.  Indeed, if covered with snow, this would provide some additional insulation.  However, the temperature drop per hour inside is proportional to the difference in temps between the inside and outside, so inside temps would drop rapidly.  Interior rooms (no windows) would be better, but underground areas, such as subway tunnels, would be best. 3) One day at such exterior temps might be survivable, provided there was some source of heat, such as electric space heaters or a furnace, and the building maintained it's structural integrity. It might even be possible to stay alive with merely passive means, such as many layers of blankets, although getting air through them without also letting out the heat would be problematic. A similar problem would happen if towels were stuffed under doors to seal them better. 4) A heat exchanger would allow you to retain the heat from exhaled breath and use it to preheat fresh air, but this would likely need to be set up in advance to be very efficient. If we knew the cold period was coming well in advance, we could all have those ready to go. StuRat (talk) 17:51, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

on sugars and carbohydrates
Reference_desk/Science Don't forget the importance of dietary fiber, which slows the absorption of sugars into the bloodstream, to a rate which the person's body, and specifically pancreas, can handle (by producing insulin at a reasonable rate), to prevent a blood sugar spike and subsequent blood sugar crash. So, while there may be significant sugars (simple carbs) in a carrot, and complex carbs (starches) that convert into sugars, it will take much longer to digest them than if a spoon of table sugar was eaten directly. Of course, once a person's pancreas no longer functions normally, as in diabetics, then even carrots could be a problem, requiring insulin injections, etc. Insulin resistance is another potential issue. StuRat (talk) 18:16, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

How does a cold environment affect human health
Reference_desk/Science Note that clothes make a huge difference. Back when everyone dressed for dinner (in a suit and tie for men or even more layers for women), it would be uncomfortably warm at what we consider room temperature today. Of course, eventually the air gets so cold and dry you would need to preheat it and add humidity before breathing it, to avoid health problems. But that temperature is far colder than 15°C. StuRat (talk) 23:41, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Language#What_is_the_antonym_of_"per_se"?
Reference_desk/Language At least in US English, per se typically means "specifically", as in "I didn't buy tomatoes, per see/specifically, but I did buy tomato sauce and juice". Therefore, the antonym would be "generally": "I didn't buy tomatoes, per se, but I did buy things generally in the tomato category, such as tomato sauce and juice." StuRat (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It is Latin, not US English. It means "intrinsically" or "as such". I'm seriously thinking of asking for your talk page access to be revoked because you are not learning/you are potentially editing by proxy. - Sitush (talk) 17:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Actually, revoking TP access would be wrong. Nonetheless, I think you are skirting your editing restriction and it needs to stop. - Sitush (talk) 17:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Of course it's originally Latin, but it's usage in US English is what I am talking about here (see etymological fallacy if you believe the original, literal meaning is the only usage a term can ever have, and refer to habeas corpus for a counter-example).


 * Nobody has to read what I write here. I suggest you avoid my talk page entirely.  (It was suggested that I answer Ref Desk Q's here, so as to practice, and I took the suggestion.) StuRat (talk) 22:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Diff for that suggestion, please, and diff for consensus that it was accepted. - Sitush (talk) 05:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * It wasn't anything like that, just a personal suggestion somebody made. StuRat (talk) 05:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Then it does not apply. Do it off wiki. - Sitush (talk) 05:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

A word of caution about answering Ref Desk questions here
Continuing to answer Ref Desk questions here on your talk page – or anywhere else on Wikipedia – is a violation of your Ref Desk ban. The restrictions imposed in the AN/I discussion and logged at WP:EDR are pretty explicit about "...including talk pages and would include providing answers to or commenting on reference desk questions at other locations outside of the reference desks". If you would like to maintain a record of your own personal reactions to Ref Desk questions, that's something that you'll have to keep entirely separate from Wikipedia&mdash;at least until your topic ban is modified or lifted. If someone told you that you could or should do so here on this talk page, they were giving you bad advice. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I take that to mean talk pages other than my own, as it would seem rather extreme to ban people from talking about topics on their own talk page. I also don't recall there being much of any discussion of doing that, much less consensus. StuRat (talk) 05:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The ban on StuRat was both vague and arbitrary. He was scapegoated out of the blue without further escalating blocks to an indeffinate ban whose circumscription was not explicit.  Frankly, the ban itself should be lifted, given the continuing requests for medical advice, forum chat, and other BS that is not even being blinked at.  In any case,  please quote chapter and verse.  Otherwise the effort is not only misdirected, giving the ongoing abuse of the RD itself, it's unwarranted if not documented verbatim. μηδείς (talk) 05:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Then the solution would be further restrictions at the Desk or on individuals, not a relaxation of restrictions on StuRat. I do not understand your "chapter and verse" remark: the close linked by TenOfAllTrades appears clear to me. - Sitush (talk) 06:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * It is neither extreme nor atypical for topic bans on Wikipedia to apply across the entire project, including on the restricted editor's talk and user pages. Indeed, carving out an exception would be unusual.  It is, of course, trivially easy to invite the closing admin –  – to affirm the intended interpretation of the ban.
 * Going forward, you would also be well advised to consult with him (or another neutral admin) before you make additional edits which would seem to tread close to the boundary of your ban. Ban appeals tend to be much less successful if there is a perception that an editor has a history of testing – or overstepping – the limits of the restriction. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I would prefer somebody neutral rather than the closing Admin, since he appeared to go well beyond the consensus. I saw no consensus to ban me from discussing Ref Desk q's on my own talk page.   (There's a fundamental problem that the closing Admin doesn't need to get a consensus on the exact action taken, just a general consensus on the issue.)   Also, I really don't care to return to the Ref Desk, since they seem willing to permit the massive level of incivility to continue there.  StuRat (talk) 18:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * It doesn't work like that. The only person who can explain what the closer thought is the closer themself. If you or anyone else thinks that the close was poor in some respect then that should have been raised at the time. FWIW, I've no idea who this person was who told you it was ok to post here (you didn't provide the diff that I asked for) but your responses are just more of the same sort of thing that were highlighted in the original complaint, eg: you make claims without sources. - Sitush (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * That the entire point, it shouldn't matter what the closer wanted to do, what should matter is what the consensus was. And, just as there, I am being falsely accused of not providing any sources, when I provided many.  And people like you continue to try to find mistakes in everything I say, like that bit about per se being Latin, not English, when obviously I was talking about how the phrase is used in US English, not the etymology.  It's just bullying.  This is why I don't care to contribute to the Ref Desk. StuRat (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The closer is supposed to summarise the consensus. If they didn't do it right then it should have been raised and, if necessary, corrected at the time. It wasn't, therefore it is indeed the closer who is best placed to explain what they intended - anything else is mind reading. I've never been involved with the Ref Desk but I do know that you were pissed when you were prevented from contributing there, so saying now that you do not care to contribute to it because of bullying is outright disingenuous. Further, if you've no intention of contributing there then there is no need to "hone my skills" (paraphrase) as you claim in the section above. You're trying to have your cake and eat it. - Sitush (talk) 19:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Had I questioned the closer at the time I probably would have been blocked (even those who supported me were threatened), so that was never a viable option. Not wanting to reply on the Ref Desk doesn't mean I never want to answer Q's at all.  That I like.  It's what the Ref Desk has become, a forum for bullies, that I hate.  If the bullies were to leave, then I might be willing to return.  Of course, many of the bullies are Admins, so I won't hold my breath.  StuRat (talk) 20:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

StuRat and others. I am sorry that I posted above with the maths question. I didn't know about the ban. For what it's worth, StuRat has always been most helpful to me. My apologies for causing disruption. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * As long as the Q wasn't also posted on the Ref Desk, I don't think it applies to what they are talking about (they mean the section above yours). While your Q is related to a Ref Desk Q I answered long ago, that was long before the ban, so that doesn't seem to matter, either. StuRat (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Thank you, my friend. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * And my thanks to you. Glad I could answer your Q for you, and have some fun in the process.  I only wish the Ref Desk could work like that. StuRat (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * It was helpful, fun, and educational to me and others here. Cheers. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

= Q & A rules =

Rules:

1) Anyone can post questions or answers here. I may even post my own Q's.

2) The goal here is to give correct answers. Good references are encouraged, where appropriate, but not required.  Bad references are discouraged and considered worse than none at all.  When you give a ref, include the exact location in that ref that supports your position.  (For example, the time in a video, or the page and paragraph in a PDF file, containing a specific quotation you cite.)

3) Incivility will absolutely not be tolerated and will be removed. If you disagree, politely state that you disagree, and provide your reasons, with evidence, where possible.

4) As this is a user's talk page, it should be understood that no answer provided here is an official Wikipedia answer, just what those who provide the answers believe to be true. Use these answers at your own risk.

5) Humor is encouraged, as long as it doesn't insult anyone here.

6) If you make a mistake and get an answer wrong, we will try to be understanding. Just try to do your best.  Striking out your own wrong answers is the best way to "remove" them, once they've had a response.

7) If a Q looks like homework, we will try to help without giving the answers directly.

8) Don't double-post Q's here and on the Ref Desk. One or the other, please.

9) If Q's here lead to improvement in Wikipedia articles, all the better.

If you don't like this concept, don't participate. Feel free to create your own version with your own rules on your talk page. If you would like to change the rules here, ask me. If I agree, I will change them. StuRat (talk) 23:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The meeting in the park, again
Hi StuRat. I'm so sorry to bother you again with this. It is about this. I wonder if you could help. We need two figures only, no breakdown necessary. And if you think Chinese people are great at maths, think again. We were in hysterics and everyone was talking at once and someone would suddenly dominate the conversation and explain things and end with saying "...no wait. That's not right." Nobody could conclude anything. I think we're all daft on this end. :)

The bottom line we are after is the chance of the meeting taking place in these two circumstances:

A. Two people usually meet. If one can't make it, then the meeting is off because nobody wants to sit in the park alone. Each has a 90% chance of showing up.

B. Three people usually meet. If two can't make it, then the meeting is off because nobody wants to sit in the park alone. Each has a 90% chance of showing up.

Many, many super huge thanks if you can solve this one.

And in return, if you ever need anything like sourcing or formatting or tables made or anything at all, please ask. I am at your service.

Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:55, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * A) Probabilities, assuming both events are independent (whether X shows up has no effect on whether Y does):

X and Y both show = 0.9 × 0.9 = 0.81  = Probability of exactly 2 showing = 0.81 X shows, Y doesn't = 0.9 × 0.1 = 0.09 \ > Probability of exactly 1 showing = 0.18 X doesn't, Y does = 0.1 × 0.9 = 0.09 / Neither shows up  = 0.1 × 0.1 = 0.01  = Probability of exactly 0 showing = 0.01 1.00                                      1.00
 * B) Probabilities, assuming all 3 events are independent:

X, Y and Z all show = 0.9 × 0.9 × 0.9 = 0.729 = Probability of exactly 3 showing             = 0.729 All but Z show up  = 0.9 × 0.9 × 0.1 = 0.081 \ All but Y show up  = 0.9 × 0.1 × 0.9 = 0.081  > Probability of exactly 2 showing = 3 × 0.081 = 0.243 All but X show up  = 0.1 × 0.9 × 0.9 = 0.081 / Only X shows up    = 0.9 × 0.1 × 0.1 = 0.009 \ Only Y shows up    = 0.1 × 0.9 × 0.1 = 0.009  > Probability of exactly 1 showing = 3 × 0.009 = 0.027 Only Z shows up    = 0.1 × 0.1 × 0.9 = 0.009 / None show up       = 0.1 × 0.1 × 0.1 = 0.001  = Probability of exactly 0 showing             = 0.001 -                                                  -                                         1.000                                                   1.000
 * You may need to use "CTRL -" to zoom out if this wraps around and makes a mess. Does this answer the Q ? StuRat (talk) 00:27, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

So with A, chance of meeting taking place is 81%. With B, chance of meeting taking place is 97.2%. Is that right? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Correct. Incidentally, a quorum is the minimum number of people necessary for a meeting to take place (no math is presented in our article, but I thought you should know the term, if you don't already). StuRat (talk) 00:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I do know the term quorum. Thank you so, so much. Please think of me when you need some legwork done and I will help best I can. Cheers to you! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:53, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks. May I ask what this is for ? StuRat (talk) 00:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Actually for a little yoga thing, but it's not in the park. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I see. So you actually want to know the chances you can have a yoga session, with either 2 or 3 people invited, and guess that each has an independent 90% chance of showing up ?  I would question the idea that they are really independent, though, again referring to rainy days as an example of when many may not show.  So, if everyone's 10% is rainy days, then on sunny days you'd do far better than the above calcs would indicate.  And, on rainy days, who cares anyway ?  (BTW, I do stretches alone when waiting to board a plane, and I don't care if anyone stares at me.) StuRat (talk) 01:20, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Of course if it is raining then others think the same way and may also not come, but it is assuming each has their own reasons like a stomach ache or something. :) And good on ya for the stretches before a flight. I detest flying and exercise before hand can certainly make it more bearable. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * You can't hate flying as much as me. They've made it into torture with the ever-smaller seats.  I don't want to get a DVT.  I'd like to see sleeper compartments, like on trains.  I could stand being packed in like a sardine if lying flat, so my weight was distributed more evenly. StuRat (talk) 05:04, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I just stand for most of the flight, even if it's ten hours. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:15, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * They allow that ? Whenever I stand up they tell me to sit down. StuRat (talk) 05:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * You must be flying FascistAir. They're awful. I know someone who complained about their headphones and they were shot. Seriously, sure you can stand. There's usually a bit of space near the kitchen or that outside door with the large, tempting aluminum handle. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:13, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * So your airline allows you to stand there for hours ? Which airline is this ? StuRat (talk) 23:44, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Hainan Airlines and all others I have tried it on. If they are not talking off and landing, or corkscrewing out of the sky, they're fine with it. Find an out-of-the-way spot and try. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


 * That would be the problem. I know of no such out-of-the-way areas.  The "galley" has a constant traffic of flight attendants getting coffee, snacks, meals, etc., to serve to passengers.  The only place I can think of is the bathroom, and I doubt if they would be happy with me standing in there the whole flight. StuRat (talk) 01:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Odd. I always seem to find a little nook, near but not in, the galley. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I have a solution. Next time I'll just dress up as a stewardess and they will think I belong there ! :-) StuRat (talk) 00:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Good plan. You could help yourself to drinks and tell others to get back to their seats. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. - Sitush (talk) 23:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Better link: (Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents) 00:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC)