Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010 July 27

= July 27 =

What is the appropriate course of action?
The Superior Court of California, County of Butte, has "Granted" numerous orders about "Media Coverage" of the trial of Kevin and Elizabeth Schatz. I believe that these kinds of orders have been issued in order to insure that Mr. and Mrs. Schatz will be able to receive a fair trial. I am very concerned about the first sentence of the paragraph about Lydia Schatz, in the article titled List of deaths by corporal punishment. I have requested that the author of that sentence remove the entire paragraph (see "Not Guilty Pleas and the Right to a Fair Trial", Talk:List of deaths by corporal punishment). I am reluctant to remove that paragraph myself because of the court orders about media coverage and because I do not know what the legal ramifications of my removing that paragraph might be. I therefore request that you evaluate this situation and take whatever action you think is appropriate. DPS145192 (talk) 08:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The best approach would be to raise your concerns on the talk page of the article concerned. If you are, or represent, these people, then you can follow the instructions at Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject) to raise your legal concerns. Warofdreams talk 11:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are concerned that an article may be violating a court order then you should contact the Wikimedia Foundation. You can do that by emailing info-en-q@wikimedia.org.uk. Please include as many details as possible in your email. --Tango (talk) 14:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not a lawyer but "gag orders" in the U.S. generally only apply to people involved in the trial, such as lawyers and jurors. Others are generally free to comment at will to the general public. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

values
What is the importance of values and principles in our life? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.233.57 (talk) 10:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you read value (personal and cultural)? Warofdreams talk 11:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Pay and pump gas or pump gas and pay?
In Europe, the second scenario seems to me to be the most common. I've heard that in the US, the first choice is the standard one. However, how can you fill completely your tank if you have to pay first?--Quest09 (talk) 10:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * By either paying with a credit card ("pay at the pump") or if paying with cash, by intentionally overpaying the cashier beforehand, then returning to the counter for any unspent money.  Kingsfold  (Quack quack!)  11:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It depends where you are in the USA. It used to be that pre-payment was only required in the big cities or high-crime areas. Once the in-the-pump credit card scanners were introduced, that made things more flexible. Of course, you do get some places that don't allow self-service at all. Oregon used to be that way, I don't know if they still are, but their official reason was "safety". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you pay by credit or debit at the pump first, the machine just takes the information from your card, and charges whatever amount after you finish pumping the gas; or, you can select a specific amount of money, and the pump will stop once it reaches that amount. (This is how it works in Canada, anyway.) Adam Bishop (talk) 12:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A key question for the OP would be whether Europe has credit card scanners available on the pumps, or whether you're required to go inside and pay. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * All pumps in Denmark has credit card scanners. There are even several chains of stations where they only have scanners for either credit cards or membership cards, with no cash options. --
 * In the UK, some chains use pre-pey more than others. At Tesco petrol stations, for example, you can choose before you begin pumping whether you want to pre-pay (credit/debit card only) or pay afterwards.  If you pre-pay, you enter your card and authorise it.  Then the pump unlocks and you can begin pumping.  Interestingly the pump limits the amount of fuel you can pump.  When I lost drove, the pump would lock out when you got to £58 worth of fuel.  I don't know if that amount is different now (I haven't driven since last December), but I assume the reasoning behind is so that Tesco don't lose out too much if a card later turns out to be forged/out of funds etc.  In any case, they would have the card details so they could (hopefully) chase down the customer. SamUK 13:45, 27 Jult 2010 (UTC)
 * It was £99 at my local Tesco on Friday. Alansplodge (talk) 20:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * £99 of fuel! You must drive to work in an aircraft carrier! APL (talk) 01:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Like everyone else has said, if you insist on not using your credit card, and completely filling the tank, you will have to over-pay and then get some change. The gas stations actually like this model because it gets you into their little store where you'll probably buy a candy bar or something.
 * Some stations in rural, low-crime areas still use pump-first because it's a lot more convenient, but I'll bet that will eventually mostly go away as convenience-minded customers just use their credit-cards.
 * (Of course, there are still two US states where customers don't pump their own gas anyway.) APL (talk) 15:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, gas stations always seem to have conspicuous signs up explaining if you're expected to pay-first or pump-first. So it's not as confusing as you might think. APL (talk) 16:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify for the benefit of non-UK readers, in the UK the default procedure for decades has been to fill up first and then go to the counter to pay; I have never personally encountered a filling station where prepayment was required, nor one that was not self-service, although attendant service must once have been the norm. The option to pay at the pump by credit/debit card was rarely encountered more than ten years ago, and in my estimation is still available at well under half of all filling stations. (I know, anecdote not data :-) .) 87.81.230.195 (talk) 08:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I waited a while at a UK petrol station but strangely the man never came out to take my order for a number of gallons and to check my oil. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As an American whose parents always use a credit card, I always wondered the same thing as the OP until I started driving some months ago. Since then, it's become obvious to me, especially as I don't have a credit card; I'll always overpay, and this helps me to remember to get a receipt, which I use to help remind myself to track my fuel efficiency.  If I don't have enough money to fill the tank, or if I only want a small amount of fuel, the pump will stop pumping as soon as it's given me as much fuel as I've paid for.  Nyttend (talk) 01:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Are we free to choose our values?
If we really are free for that, why do the 4 Cardinal virtues of Prudence, Justice, Temperance, and Fortitude, sound much more virtuous than the 4 virtues of blowing balls with chewing gum, riding a bike without your hands, binge drinking, and playing darts? (the latter 4 virtues are invented, don't focus your life around them).--Quest09 (talk) 11:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Because that's how God says things have to be. 92.29.115.186 (talk) 11:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My OR is that we base our values on other values. My value of fortitude may have evolved from an earlier value of riding a bike with no hands, because one always seeks to extrapolate and find more generally applicable theories, and also to bring any current ones into coherence. Valuing justice may evolve from a visceral antipathy to busybodies who try to prevent binge drinking, and so on. More virtuous means more true; we are "free" to believe what we like about the world, but most of us will be less comfortable with the more ridiculous beliefs, so in a way we aren't free. 81.131.66.172 (talk) 12:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Because you were raised in a society which considered them virtues. 86.164.66.83 (talk) 12:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In strictly practical terms, a virtue is something you cultivate in yourself that improves society at large. Prudence, justice, temperance and fortitude are things that we all can see are universal virtues.  You will never get in a situation, for instance, where prudence will (by itself) produce anguish among other members of the society, and it is usually a helpful attitude to have.  hands-free bike-riding, a decent tolerance for alcohol, prowess at darts, and etc., are also skills you can cultivate, and in certain situations they will be seen as virtues, but they are either societally neutral (no one except a friend cares if you're a good darts player) or have harmful side effects (high tolerance for alcohol is impressive, but sets up the conditions for your own early death, the early deaths of others, and other social harms).  They are not universal virtues.


 * really, it comes down to this: if you have free will you can choose to do what you want to do in a thoughtless and uninhibited way, or you can choose to do what you want to do with a proper consideration for the effects of your behaviors on others. The former is actually less free (it's either animalistic or neurotic, depending on how cognizant you are of its damaging effects), whereas the latter is more free (because society will support you and allow you to do what you want, rather than take steps to restrict you). -- Ludwigs 2  15:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * But they aren't universal virtues. They're not even universal Christian virtues, which is what English-speakers often mean when they talk about universal ethics. What did you think the whole 'turn the other cheek' thing was about? It might be justice to hit the other person back exactly as hard as they hit you, but there are plenty of people who would consider that not at all virtuous. I don't speak for other Christian groups, but Roman Catholics have a prayer that says "Show us not justice, but mercy." 86.164.66.83 (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Our values are to some extent hardwired into our brains. In other ways, they come from our earliest training, from our parents.  And in some ways, we choose our values ourselves.  It's all quite complex, not the simple binary you assume in your question.  -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The Cardinal virtues are derived from Plato (see Protagoras 330b) who didn't have chewing gum or a bicycle. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The OP asks whether we're free to choose our values. The key question: What, if anything, is stopping him from choosing his values? The answer to that will lead to the answer to his question. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The OP has invented 4 virtues but choosing to enact them simultaneously looks perilous. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It might be, but that doesn't necessarily stop him from choosing them. It's his choice. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Quest09, in asking about the freedom to choose our values, which of the following possibilities do you mean?
 * a privilege granted to us by God
 * a right granted to us by God
 * a privilege granted to us by a human authority
 * a right granted to us by a human authority
 * —Wavelength (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

relationship
what are women looking for in a relationship? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristoff4545 (talk • contribs) 13:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The answer is so variable to make the question unanswerable. Why don't you ask some women directly? Exxolon (talk) 14:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Even that might not be enough. They might not even know what they want, but they will expect YOU to know.  Googlemeister (talk) 14:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ha! I think this is the mos insightful answer I have ever seen on the Refernce Desk! Adam Bishop (talk) 03:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It depends on the woman. --Tango (talk) 14:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * PEOPLE all want the same things: To be appreciated, respected, trusted, and to feel safe, secure and loved. Different people have different measures of these things, of course, but in general the more you try to hide or compartmentalize different aspect of your life, the more you will violate these basics, and the less successful your relationships will be.  -- Ludwigs 2  15:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you can say ALL those are wanted by all people. respected, feeling safe, and feeling secure I could imagine are things that some people might not always want (the "dangerous" ones, etc.) Chris M. (talk) 17:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't forgot the more simple things: fun, sexual gratification, etc.. --Tango (talk) 15:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Different women want different things in different relationships. They're a lot like men in that regard.  Ask 'what are people looking for in a relationship?' and you'll have your answer. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I am looking for efun! Drop me a message!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mocteau (talk • contribs) 20:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There are over 3 billion of them on this planet, so it's hard to tell. The obvious answer is to ask a woman. Btw. What kind of relationship are you talking about? Co-worker, roommates, relatives, spouses, friends-with-benefits, voter-politician, etc?205.189.194.208 (talk) 00:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Molière wrote that every woman's ambition is to inspire Love. Man's ambition is to find one who inspires for free. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the argument that some people have made that men and women want the same things, because women have supply and demand on their side. If you go to a bar or dance, you'll see that it's always the guys who are trying to pick up women, and the women are playing hard-to-get and waiting for a good catch. So, all men can do is set some minimum threshold and then take what they can get, whereas women can select for looks, conversation skills, income, and compatibility of interests out of all of the single men in their age-range. 142.104.55.7 (talk) 00:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * But that's because women mostly don't look for men in bars. If you go somewhere where women do look for men, you find much more active pursuit. In my personal experience, most women dance because they want to dance, especially with their friends. Sometimes, going to a bar or dance features in part of a woman's plan for getting together with a man, but it will generally be a specific man she already knows and has arranged for them to both be there. Women even seek out places to dance where there are few or no straight men, because they don't want to be hassled by men trying to have sex with them. This hassle seems to come about because a lot of men assume the purpose of dancing is finding a mate, and so they assume the women are looking for men. For the women, it's like if you went to the cinema to watch a film and people kept coming up to you to talk about something else, or (sadly) groping you and staring at you. Why won't they let you watch the film? If you wanted to talk about (subject of conversation), you would have gone somewhere else. Likewise, if a woman is looking for potential men, she is likely to be somewhere other than a bar or club. Partly because the men who show an interest in bars and clubs tend to be desperate creepers who grope people. 86.164.66.83 (talk) 16:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In non-creepy environments, like a mutual friend's house or a hobby group, women still have supply and demand on their side and can take their pick of the single men. That's why men have to pay for meals and buy gifts; because if he doesn't there are plenty of guys willing to do so. Women, conversely, can make men happy just by providing companionship and not paying for anything because female companionship is a rare commodity. --142.104.53.238 (talk) 22:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, you don't go to anything like the same houses or clubs that I do. Most of the (hobby-based) clubs I've joined, and the friends I've visited, had either roughly 50/50 men and women, or mostly women. Since women make up about 50% of the population, I suppose the mostly-women situations imply the existence of mostly-men situations. Maybe, if you think female companionship is a rare commodity, you should explore other clubs? Because, really, there are as many of us as of you. And single women are often looking for decent single men. I think I've only been in one relationship where the guy pretty much insisted on paying for everything, and it didn't last long because it made me really uncomfortable. Your IP puts you in Australia, so I suppose social situations will be different, but I'm pretty sure Australian men don't massively outnumber Australian women. Women are not rare, they are not a different species, they are not prizes to be won, they are not goods to be bought, they are half of your human population. If you don't get to see them in quantity, or acting like normal human being with libidos, that isn't their fault. 86.164.66.83 (talk) 23:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it's anyone's fault, I think it's just the way the math works out. I suspect that women are less likely to be looking at any given time, making the effective ratio less than 50/50 when you only count people that are looking. Women seem to be able to go years without dating while they focus on friends or work or whatever, whereas men seem to get antsy way before that. Of the men and women I know, the women are far more likely to spend a friday evening alone with other women and unavailable men, whereas the men seem to prefer going places with some single women. On an unrelated point, I wonder why my school library is running off an Australian IP; that's odd. --142.104.53.238 (talk) 23:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Most famous quartet
Which group of four people is probably the most famous "quartet" in history? The Beatles, the Four Evangelists? Who else might come into question? --KnightMove (talk) 18:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is tough to beat the beatles, even if you are not limiting this to music. Googlemeister (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The answer to this question very much depends on the definition of "famous". --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's easy to beat the Beatles among people who don't give as much credit for playing some catchy tunes and forgetting to go to the barber. 142.104.55.7 (talk) 00:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Concerning your two suggestions, OP, see bigger than Jesus. Other possibilities from religion include the four horsemen of the Apocalypse, the four matriarchs, and the Four Righteous Caliphs. Another famous foursome is Mt. Rushmore, though surely that's not as famous as any of the ones listed above.&mdash;msh210 &#x2120; 19:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Chinese history often has groups of two/three/four/five/eight things. There are a bunch for four, from ancient to modern - the Four Beauties, the Four Books of Confucianism (not people, but still), and more recently the Four Heavenly Kings of Cantopop. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ...and most recently the Gang of Four. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * FWIW: Our article on the Beatles gives their total sales as 1 billion.  The article on the best selling books puts the bible (OT and NT) at 2.5 to 6 billion.
 * PS: Servus aus Wien . --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hence the most famous "quartet" might be Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd speculate that Washington, Lincoln, Hamilton and Jackson compose an extremely significant quartet. While I'm not disputing that the Beatles and the four primary disciples are both exceedingly famous, but there are certainly some (Hasidic Jews, for example) who could not pick either of these four out of a line-up of ten. US currency, however dismal the exchange rate may be, is, I believe, universally recognized as a firm entity upon which to depend. I think it's a distinct possibility that more people around the world know the figures on US currency (if not by name, then at least by face) than either of the two aforementioned examples.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 02:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd question that. Although as a 50+ year-old Brit I'm obviously aware that US currency is widely used globally, and vaguely knew that Washington features on the $1 bill, I've never had any idea of who is on other 3 bills, and doubt that many Brits who haven't actually visited the USA (or who deal with foreign currencies professionally) would know either; I suspect your dictum would not apply to most countries with firm currencies of their own. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 09:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, you forgot Jefferson, Grant and Franklin, so it really is more a septet. Googlemeister (talk) 13:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. As a Brit, I'm only dimly aware of Jackson, but I've never heard of Hamilton. Or Grant. --Dweller (talk) 16:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, after checking I have heard of Grant after all. --Dweller (talk) 16:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a good thing you used quotes around 'quartet', KnightMove, because otherwise the only possible answer would have been the members of the Amadeus Quartet: Norbert Brainin, Siegmund Nissel, Peter Schidlof and Martin Lovett. --  Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   08:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That last of course is so famous that he doesn't have an article yet. :) I think the answer (not that there will be one) is going to depend on how you want to define the terms. As a group, the four Beatles are arguably more widely recognized (after all, we have pictures of them), though I'd bet many people, especially under the age of 30 or so, couldn't name them (i.e. John, Paul, George, and Ringo). My point is that they're a group of four which are famous as a group. The four evangelists, on the other hand, are famous for being "Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John", while many people are probably a little unclear on exactly who they were ("Disciples? Gospels? Is Gospel the person or the book?" that kind of thing) as a group. Slight difference there. Matt Deres (talk) 15:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Four Tops. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Are they more famous than The Four Seasons (band) or Gladys Knight & the Pips? In any event, I doubt is more famous than the Beatles.&mdash;msh210 &#x2120; 16:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Completely subjective. Thread should be deleted ASAP.--Daisychainer (talk) 01:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Trolling: RDs are not a discussion forum--Daisychainer (talk) 01:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The thread is ok just as far as and including the sensible post by Saddhiyama.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Being the most famous foursome is not a subjective criterion, if you can decide on a definition of "famous". Being the best foursome, for example, is subjective. But if you can decide on a definition of "famous" for foursomes (say, the number of people who can remember having heard of it as a foursome, or the number of people who can name its members, or whatever), then you've got an objective criterion.&mdash;msh210 &#x2120; 16:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia / Wikileaks connection
Is Wikipedia and Wikileaks in any way associated with each other? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.166.223 (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Wiki in the names merely refers to the nature of the software used.  See our articles on Wikipedia and Wikileaks for more information. &mdash; Lomn 19:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * They should be associated with each other. B-Machine (talk) 20:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Why? Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit.  Wikileaks is a dumping ground for information that some people are trying to keep confidential.  I don't see how these two sites have any overlap in their missions.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * One could, for the sake of argument, suggest that both consider free access to information and a lack of censorship to be key to their goals and values. But I agree that it is kind of a stretch beyond that, and in this case, the specifics do matter quite a bit. There is no real connection between them. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Wiki" refers to the software. Anyone can download and use the wiki software to create a web site, and lots of people do, for many different reasons.  Wikipedia uses the wiki software to make an encyclopedia. WikiLeaks uses the software to disseminate classified information.  Encyclopedia Dramatica uses the software for comedy.  Conservapedia uses it to spread misinformation.  List of wikis makes interesting reading in itself as a collection of some of the more significant web sites that are using wiki software for a variety of interesting purposes. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, wikis (from wiki-wiki, Hawai'ian for 'quickly') are either a type of website, which can be easily edited by their users, or the software that they run on. MediaWiki is one such program; there are many others. MediaWiki was developed by the WikiMedia Foundation, who run Wikipedia, Wikiquote, and the other WikiMedia projects. However, MediaWiki is used by a lot of other projects, not all of which are connected to WikiMedia. CS Miller (talk) 18:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I am aware, the people who started and are in charge of Wikipedia have nothing in common with the people who started and are in charge of Wikileaks. Falconus p t   c 17:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The WikiLeaks website says it combines the protection and anonymity of cutting-edge cryptographic technologies with the comfortable presentation style of Wikipedia, although the two are not otherwise related. (my emphasis). Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I seem to recall hearing that one of the people who was an early developer of Wikileaks was also a Wikipedia admin. That doesn't imply any official relationship, and isn't a very strong connection since there are well over 1000 admins, but it would imply that the two pools of people are not totally independent.  Dragons flight (talk) 17:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But the organizations are independent. That the "pools" are not independent is pretty meaningless (the Wikipedia editor pool is probably not independent of employees of the FBI, CIA, US Army, potentially even al Qaeda... it's a big pool!). --Mr.98 (talk) 22:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

They both want to make information freely available. --138.110.25.31 (talk) 20:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It would not be surprising if we helped them set up the software - after all we helped the CIA set up theirs (Intellipedia) 75.41.110.200 (talk) 20:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Nobody working for Wikipedia helped the CIA set up their software. They used Mediawiki as a code base, but that's the only connection to Wikipedia. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems the similarity in names frequently confuse people. It would probably help to read Wikipmediawiki. Reach Out to the Truth 15:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A Yahoo News headline says Sweden's Pirate Party Offers Asylum To Wikipedia. The news item is actually about WikiLeaks not Wikipedia. This nonsense is dated 28 July and is still up. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Should I be private (anonymous-pseudonymous) or public?
I’ve been thinking a lot about this question: for the past several years in fact. I’m in a unique position, insofar that I have been (in my view) quite inconsequential in life, and relative to my contemporaries—I’m in my mid-40’s—have achieved little—indeed even many of those 20 years younger than I have achieved (at least statistically) more than I. I’m a high school drop-out, with no significant work history. Not only am I unmarried, I’ve never had sex (at least with a person). I have no photo ID. I haven’t traveled internationally in +25 years, and even then it was only crossing the Canada-US border, never had a drivers licence, and never needed an age of majority card. Though I’m Canadian, I haven’t been to a doctor in +20 years, nor have had a check-up in +25 years. I have a computer in my bachelor apartment (government housing at that), but I’ve never been on the internet with it—my internet access is wholly by other computers—most of them such as libraries (using no library card either) and employment centres. I haven’t even had a functioning phone in over 4 years, land line in almost 10 years, a landline in my name in almost 15 years. With very rare exceptions, I’ve never used my name in emails and the like. Indeed, if I sent a regular mail letter, over half the time, I used a pseudonym (one I’ve been using for so many years, if he was a real person, he could not only legally drink in the US, but maybe have gotten a BA. :-). I only googled myself this year, and while my name is somewhat unique to (most) North Americans, I didn’t show up, but strangely 2 others with my first and last name did—both by the way having PhD’s and seemingly well-paying jobs (though I suppose others with our common name, but less eminent than those two, might also no online presence (at least with their real names) due to inconsequentiality). Again, I feel that I’m in a unique position. I could be wrong, but if someone did a background check on me, they’d likely find very little. Given all of this, and a bit more to be mentioned, I have two choices. Either one would involve a cessation of much of this pondering and soul-searching. Publicity or Privacy. In the latter, I could create a pseudonymous identity, or more aptly, more identities, and following some protocols (use other internet access; maybe, just maybe, use proxy servers; tell few, if any, online my real identity, or those I know personally about my online identities). I can post all sorts of things to my heart’s desire, and if I get in trouble with such posts, they will, at worse, be removed, and maybe I create a new identity if any one that I’m using becomes unusable. True, I’ve done this already, but the newer identities would be better organized, coordinated, stable, and longer-termed (at least they are intended as long term). With some use of anonymous and pseudonymous postings, I have been able to post some outrageous things—though not typical of my postings—with neither police visits, or getting my ass kicked. I could take the route of anonymity-pseudonymity—at least outside of my employment or whatever-passes-for-business concerns of mine—and even then, I might practice a fair degree of online privacy. While I’m far from an expert on these matters, I have, over the decade, given a few 100’s of hours of thought on how I’d do it. I occasionally flatter myself that I have ideas that even the Mafia or Al Qaeda, if they came across such, would find interesting. At the very least, there is likely little online about me, that some super computer could cross-reference with any of my varying identities, to create a profile (or significant profile at least) of my real identity. So in this, I would be a free man of international mystery—or so I flatter myself. On the other hand, why spend so much time and so much work at maintaining anonymity-psuedonymity? Mark Twain said something like “The nice thing about telling the truth is that you don’t have to remember what you said,” and Sloan sung “It’s a hard life living a lie”: though it’s not so that I’d be living a lie, but rather a life of (mostly) online anonymity or pseudonymity; and if all, or pretty well all, know it’s pseudonymous, then it’s not really a lie, as it would be for, say an ID based on a fake name—such as a first and last name randomly taken from the phone book. For example, if I called myself “AceButchChipSpike” most would figure it’s a fake name—so I’m not really deceiving anyone, or at least most. However, if I called myself, say, “Rob Miller”, it sounds like a real name, though I simply took Rob Ford’s first name and Dave Miller’s last, combined them, and wa-la, a fake name I can use to deceive. However, I could forgo the whole (or much of) the anonymity-pseudonymity thing and go public, and if I did, I could get internet access for my apartment. I could start to use my real name and even photos. I could register on Facebook, Yahoo! Answers, Youtube, etc, and truthfully give my name. As much of what I would post, or search, would not be (all that) controversial, I doubt I’d get into much trouble. Much of that which would be controversial would at least be legal, or at least semi-legal. As for a few of the illegal activities (mostly hardcore porn downloads and file sharing—with Stephen Harper as our PM, and Ignatieff as his deferential “Opposition” such could indeed get quite illegal): many do it—possible safety in numbers, there is likely support from a community, I’m not too afraid of talking to police, and maybe, I’d just do those particular things anonymously—though likely saying that I do so in the pages of my public identity (like someone admitting to smoking pot, but not naming their dealer(s) and/or if they grow it); but if the issue is not of legality or insignificance, I’d post it—even if I’d otherwise be shy, embarrassed, or even a little afraid to do so—credibility would demand as much. Unlike others, I don’t have to be worried (at least as much) about offending people: As I have no wife, children, employer, or co-workers, I’d have no wife, children, employer, or co-workers to worry about offending. Ditto my distant relatives—if they are so offended that they’d never write to me again—and that’s not entirely certain, then so what: in +10 years we’ve exchanged little more than greeting cards (they being perhaps as distant from me personally as they are physically). There’s also the possibility that 1% of my 2nd, 3rd, and 4th cousins might take a great and quick liking to me. My father’s been dead for over 10 years, my mother’s in a nursing home with possible senile dementia, and I’m estranged from my brother. The church I go to for a weekly meal and food bank purposes know well that I’m a liberal left-wing (somewhat) atheist—and yet we maintain a fair degree of amicability and even respect. As I live in a big city, in a public housing complex, filled with sad stories, I have little concern about what my neighbours think. So, in my view, I’m in a wonderful position to start this. In exchange for being public: (1) there would be far less energy and time diverted in maintaining anonymity-pseudonymity; (2) along those lines, I could use just one identity, and fuse some of my older ones. (3) as well as acquiring opponents, I’d get supporters (4) less time and energy (and worry) about the relationship between my online and real world contacts (7) I could use the internet from home. This means I’d have the convenience of 24/7 access in any state I’m in, or weather. It also work well with multi-tasking (such as baking a cake while using the internet, drying off after a shower, watching TV (or listening to it), listening to music out of speakers, doing laundry (the time interval when the machine’s in use, et), while waiting on hold, for a response from the agency that considers my call so important, doing something boring and monotonous while thinking of a good response to post, etc). As an anonymous-pseudonymous account, I’d have to forgo these. My choices would be limited to: (a) using a computer at home, but it wouldn’t be connected, and thus my online time (on another computer) would be limited, and spent on fast downloads for latter perusals, or fast uploading content that I hope would be still relevant; (b) waste lots of time in uni-tasking; (c) rent another apartment—a bit over $600 a month—in another name, for the sole purpose of anonymous-pseudonymous internet use and multitasking; (d) or figure out a way of somewhat connecting to the internet from my current apartment where the traffic isn’t associated with my real name or address, or even close to my address (currently I’m thinking very strong wii signals, satellite connections, stringing my own cable from a place at least 300 yards from where I live). (8) I’d be nice to be able to use email for real life contacts, instead of writing letters, sending packages, and hoping that they would respond the same (though I suppose with so many people getting so many emails, so much spam, and it being deletable, letters and packages would be more noticeable). (9) By fusing my online identities and aspects of my real life identities, such as me as the person, me as the small businessman, me as the founder (or co-founder) of small organizations, me as the amateur artist and musician, contacts in one of these might be able to help in another. For instance, 10 applicants are looking for a job. One is less qualified than most of the others, but he manages to get into a chat with the employer about their mutual love of soccer. Guess who gets hired. He has his own website with links to profile pages. Women online find a page of his while googling. They then check out his site and profiles on other sites. For a split second, some think of a sexual relationship with him. Most are disgusted at the thought—a few even retch. More still aren’t as visceral, but still figure it’s undesirable. But a few might like the idea. No lies, little time wasted. (10) I could join varying sites that require to members to give names and the like. True, I could lie for such membership already, but I like to be a truthful as possible—either give them the info or not join (or come up with a justification for lying that was based on several 10’s of hours soul-searching, perusing the Terms of Service/Use, or if the entity really ‘’deserves’’ my truth). (11) Travel and access the sites I currently access. So even if there was a way that I’d be making a trail insofar that a super-computer could cross-reference the places where my pages were access and perhaps modified, and then to my entry and exits of a country, it wouldn’t matter.

My questions here are (1) Do I have a good assessment of the situation? (2) What course would you advise—particularly given that there is on one hand, little on the internet about me—at least my real name; while on the other, no one close to me would be terribly offended by my posts if I started to generate content on the internet that would be associated with me, and some which would be controversial. (3) Points, tips, and insights? (4) Anybody who was in my situation, or something like it, who made a choice, and if so, what was it, and how did it turn out? (5) Are things revocable? For instance, while people may be haunted by stuff they post, there may be, if you will, an evanescence (it ain’t just the name of a band ) of memory—or at least its relevance. For instance, if there are, say, 10 billion security cameras, each with over, say, 6 000 hours of video a year, for a creation of, say, 60 trillion hours of video, how many full time employees would it require to monitor and analyze the contents for criminals, perverts, or those engaged in un-patriotic and/or counter-revolutionary (or those considered to be) activities? The way I figure it, if computers could squish it 1 000 fold, it’d still be 60 billion hours. Pay them $10/hr, and it’d be $0.6 trillion. If each monitor worked 2 000 hours a year, you’d need 30 million of them. If as little as 1% of them were corrupt, it’d be 300 000 of them. Mind you, analyses of text would likely be quicker—I suppose. Would the DEA be interested that I smoked marijuana 26 years ago. Once “outted” could I go back into the closet? (No, I’m not gay, but arguably as perverted as one—at least a contemporary of mine, such as Sarah Palin, might think so :-)

Thank you for any help and comments, and for reading this long post. To increase my chances at good responses, I’ve posted the same question in a few other places. RationalWiki's Saloon Bar, Anarchopedia's Community Portal, and Libertapedia. As per the protocols for cross-posting, the posting in the Wikipedia Reference desk will be the main posting, though I will, of course, read and consider all. If there are objections to my cross-posting, please let me know. 70.54.181.70 (talk) 20:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 70.54, unfortunately I am going to venture that this long letter is not really right for the Reference Desk. We're here to provide referenced answers to questions about facts, and we are not really an advice column.  Despite the 5 numbered questions, what you are really asking is "What should I do with my life", which we are really badly equipped to answer, as we are pseudonymous random strangers on the Internet who have no insight into your life other than what you happened to write in your letter.  Because you're looking for life advice, I'd recommend you talk to a friend; and if you have few or no friends (which is a guess that I am reading into your letter), I'd recommend you seek out a counselor of some sort, perhaps in Canada's medical system, to set up a few hour-long sessions to let them get to know you and then maybe offer some advice that is way more tailored to you and your situation than we could possibly give.  Sorry.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree. The one very easy question to answer in all of that which I saw was "Would the DEA be interested that I smoked marijuana 26 years ago." My understanding is that they would not care. Sensitive positions these days (e.g. FBI, State Department, etc.) ask only about things done in the last 5 to 10 years, if I remember correctly (from a friend who recently got a security clearance), and marijuana is pretty low on their list of concerns providing you aren't doing it regularly now. (Similarly they would be dubious if you presently had a drinking habit.) --Mr.98 (talk) 21:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There also seems to be a question here about the likely consequences of using one's real name online. Many people choose to stay anonymous online because, as you correctly pointed out, your internet history lingers for years, and it's not unusual for prospective employers to google your name when considering you for a job.  Additionally, there can be safety concerns, depending on how you use the internet.  People who have your real name may be able to use it to contact you by mail, by phone, or in person, which might be singularly unpleasant for you.  I don't use my real name at Wikipedia, for example, because I often delete the rantings of mentally ill people, some of whom wouldn't understand that I don't want them to call me or visit my home to object.  If you choose to use your real name, be aware of both of these issues. The answer to your question # 5 is no- there isn't a good way to make things you've put on line 'disappear' effectively- a determined searcher will always be able to find them. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Same person, different IP. Hmmmmm. What should I do with my life? Yes, I've wrestled with that question--I suppose we all have at some point; but I figure that I've more or less stuck to the overaching question of whether I should be anonymous-pseudonymous, and continue as such, on the internet and in a few off-line instances; or be public. As for being "pseudonymous random strangers on the Internet", we have such in common--at least to an extent, and your answers are thus likely more likely to be useful than some counselor who might view the internet as dimly as TV, or my desire for privacy, when he or she is likely public--if only to an extent, as suspicious. Indeed, I wonder what internet issues would they deal with save for things like internet addiction.205.189.194.208 (talk) 22:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think everyone who doesn't absolutely need to should avoid putting anything personal online in a public way. Most people are only really starting to realise just how dramatically your online presence can fuck things up later, or lead to people making trouble for you in the real world. For one extreme, the little girl whose family get frequent obscene calls to the house about her, hundreds of dollars of pizzas ordered in their name to be delivered, anonymous packages sent to them... Another sort, employees can potentially experience trouble over things they post online, and it isn't as unusual as you might think. Both angles make it sensible to limit the links between your online identities and your realworld identities. And never draw enough negative attention to make people hunt you down, because there is almost nothing you can do that will prevent them, and they might not be nice. 86.164.66.83 (talk) 22:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Join a dating site like PlentyofFish, show your photo, and eventually you may get a girlfriend. Then you will have a life. Or just doing something that interests you rather than sitting at home. 92.29.116.34 (talk) 23:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Good warning 86.164.66.83. :-) 92.29.116.34, A girlfriend is the last thing I need now. :-D, but thanks anyway 205.189.194.208 (talk) 00:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Like you, I've always been careful to keep my real name off the internet, so I was horrified to find that a charity had put my name and address on-line without my permission (though it is a very obscure list). I do leave clues around on-line for people who know me (and a few other people involved in selected activities) to trace me if they are really determined to do so.  I would advise that you should get involved in some activities both on-line and face-to-face, and don't become a total recluse.    D b f i r s   07:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * OP, you might be interested in the following two ongoing posts-and-discussions at the Making Light blog, which seem pertinent to some of the issues you raise:
 * http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/012517.html#012517
 * http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/012518.html#012518
 * 87.81.230.195 (talk) 09:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you User:Dbfirs and User talk:87.81.230.195. The thing is, I'm not really afraid of cyber bullying if I have my own site to refute it, and I can fight back ("ur a fag" "No I'm not,  you're  the fag. Besides are all homophobes as illiterate as you?" ). It's more the police and vigilantees. If I, say, had a video where I smoked pot, or boasted about my Limewire uses, will they investigate me, perhaps search my place? There's one person I've communicated with online who gets racist death threats on the account that he's a Roma ("Gypsy"), yet if he's suffered any violence in the big US city he lives in, it's most likely not racially based, but more ambient. Besides, he says that he tends to win most fights as Roma apparantly tend to be good with martial arts.  The benefits of publicity would be possible supporters. "I like that guy, he says the right things (most of the time) and he has the moxy to be up front about it."  The thing is, as a named identity, my offline contacts, however few or empheral, will know my more controversial online views, while those online will know who I am. If, however, my online identity is but a fraction of my offline, then that would seem a bit disingenuous--at least incomplete. On the other hand, if I keep them seperate, my offline contacts must never know my online activities and vice-versa--save for a few on both sides. Yet how much and how few? Can 2nd tiers be possible.  Thanks so far. :-) 70.54.181.70 (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have always gone by my own name online ("Stephen J Baker" - everyone calls me "Steve") - my website is my name (sjbaker.org) and my email (steve@sjbaker.org) is right there for everyone to see. It's been that way for around 15 years...and I've had no problems whatever as a result.  I get no more spam than people I know who obfuscate everything.  If you are honest and truthful in your dealings with people online - what have you to be ashamed of or need to hide?  I think the world would be a better place if people's true names were always known.  Someone is much less likely to say "ur a fag" if they are doing so in their own name to a person who has a real name.  What you do online is always traceable - you might think you can hide it - but there are so many ways to search and to correlate that one teeny-tiny slipup is all it takes.  Sooner or later, you'll apply for that dream job and they are going to find out who called who a fag.  So, be honest, keep it real - show the world who you are.  SteveBaker (talk) 00:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Same guy, yet another IP. Nice site, and you have your own wiki. Again, I don't fear the masses: perhaps I'm being foolish in that. To fear thousands reading all my stuff is to engage in self-flattery. Those few who would read it would likely find it innocuous, or if bothersome, only slightly so. It's the vigilantees, shitheads, and police that I'm concerned with. For example, I'm that guy who occasionally defaces gangster graffiti, yells at loud motorcyclist from the sidewalk ( "SHUT THE F--K UP!!" ), likes downloading porn where the models are barefoot, and who doesn't report all my income to Revenue Canada (our IRS), or my welfare caseworker. Am I ashamed of any of these. Hardly. Would I post it under my real name--'tis the question.205.189.194.208 (talk) 21:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * But that's an entirely false sense of security! You just gave us two different IP addresses that you post from - the first one is a Bell Canada address - so I deduced you were from Canada...but your second address revealed that you often edit from the Toronto Public Library - and a quick look at your edit histories confirms an interest in many subjects related to the Toronto area and a habit of sometimes using one address and sometimes the others at fairly predictable times of day.


 * Every time you use another IP and link it to the first, it gives the searchers more information! Then, if I look at the edit history of the Public library IP, there is a curious edit from 10 days ago in which someone who was using that same computer to edit an exceedingly obscure article about a Toronto man who died 30 years ago.  The text that was added was a list of relatives of that person - with names and occupations!  Why would someone do that?  It's gotta be a close relative doing a bit of 'vanity editing' - and that says that one of those people listed in that article is very likely to have been using the computer numbered 205.189.194.208 in that library on 9:30am (central time) on July 19th 2010.


 * If that was you (and I believe that's the case from connections with the timing of your edits combined with your comment here about particular tastes in porn and your statement about your relatives and the fact that you have an unusual surname) then that gives me a clue as to who you might be. If you're male then I think the odds are pretty good that I already know your name.  You've given us SO much information about yourself, I'm sure I could easily confirm that if I cared to do so.


 * I can find that out with no fancy tracking tools in about 2 minutes flat - what do you think a person who is more determined and/or has better tools than me can discover? If it turns out I'm wrong, I can look for the IP addresses of other Toronto Public library computers - they are probably all 205.189.194.xxx addresses, and I can look for Wikipedia edits from addresses that are numerically close to your Bell Canada account  - I could look at times, dates and edit histories - and I'm very sure I could come up with much more material that you've created - and a picture will emerge.  I'm very confident that I could figure out exactly who you are with 99% certainty in a couple of hours - and it's quite likely I already know a lot about you!


 * Now, it's possible that someone else who uses the Toronto Public library did those edits...but even so, it's only a matter of time until you slip up (as that person did) and does something like that online that gives you away - and once the connection is made, it cannot EVER be unmade. These days people can analyze the word usage patterns of anonymous editors and tie them to other edits.  With not much work, you CAN be tracked down.


 * If someone wanted to find you 'in person' (like - as you suggest - the Police might) they only need to know that you edit Wikipedia from that library almost daily. They can note the times you are online and simply watch security videos to note the people who came and went at those times.  Then they know who you are...it's child's play!


 * The point is that even when you THINK you're anonymous, you leave a paper trail a mile wide! Once a connection is made - it cannot ever be unmade because there are services like the Internet Archive that can let people search and find information that you thought you'd deleted years ago!  Just one minor slipup...ever...and that connection is there forever.


 * So - behave on the Internet as you'd behave in public...because you are in public...be sure that your name, photo and place of work are ridiculously easy to find.


 * SteveBaker (talk) 00:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Steve, I think you scared him off. If not, to our friend: authorities don't care what you did or who you are.  I don't care what you did or who you are.  No one cares.  This isn't because you are pathetic or bad (I'm not saying that you are either of these), or any reasons like that, but because you are 1 in 34 million, and you (nor I) are not that important. I strongly believe that privacy, while useful and nice, are a touch overrated, given the 1 in 34 million thing. Aaronite (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Steve and Aaronite, thank you for your posts, they are both informative and entertaining.  :-)  The computers I use are used by many, particularly the library ones. Indeed, the ones at the library that I use are called "express computers". You don't need a library card to use them, though one is allowed to use them for only 15 minutes at a time. If no one is waiting, I use them again, but often there are. The library I go to is one of the larger ones. Moreover, there seems to be a lot of people making anonymous edits on Wikipedia from those addresses as my edits might account for 20% of them, and weeks might pass between edits. As the library is in Toronto, it's only natural that a disporportionate number of them will be about Canadian or even Toronto topics. Also keep in mind that on the talk page, one is actually informed of it. Moreover, there are at least 30 libraries in Toronto, and the city has over 2 million people. Indeed, if one combined Toronto, Mississauga, and Brampton, our population would likely exceed that of Los Angeles and be about the same size.  As for the Toronto man who died 30 years ago, those weren't my edits.  "on 9:30am (central time) on July 19th 2010" The libraries aren't open at that time--8:30 AM EST.  If you want, tell me what you think my name is. Again, I'm in my 40's and I have yet, to my knowledge, meet someone with whom I share it with, yet there are some notable people with that name with Wikipedia articles about. :-)  Gentleman, the welfare office will be closing in 5 minutes and I will have to sign off soon--plus Mondays's off for Simcoe Day. I wish all a happy weekend.  :-)  206.130.174.42 (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Back at the library again. :-)  Here's sort of what I'm talking about.  Man charged for removing beaver traps  He does an illegal act on a principle, puts it on his Facebook page, and is charged. According to the comments, he has opponents and supporters.  I wonder ghow he will turn out?205.189.194.208 (talk) 21:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

eddie murphy
Not a forum - Shadowjams (talk) 08:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

what are your throught oabout eddie murpyh and the bisexual prostutute??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mocteau (talk • contribs) 20:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This isn't a discussion board, so our thoughts are not pertinent. The incident is mentioned, with two inline citations, at Eddie Murphy.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Which movie is that from? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

See Muphry's law. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)