Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 19

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Video Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 19

Entertainment table

The questions on the table were not separated into several days. Is there a bot doing that or is it done by the editor? Crisco 1492 01:25, December 24, 2006 (UTC)

Maps Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 19

deletion issue

[n.b. This flow flows from one to "Completed the rule proposal", now archived in Wikipedia talk: Reference Desk/Archive 18 --Steve Summit (talk) 13:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)]

• I think this problem is solved. Anyone who makes a habit to remove something just because they do not like will find themselves buried in a request to cut it. Ned Wilbury 17:59, December 15, 2006 (UTC)

• And what happens if they ignore it? StuRat 18:47, December 15, 2006 (UTC)

• If we must, we continue with the dispute resolution. Also, if one person unfairly removes the goods, the other will return it, and this will not be controversial. Anyone who insists on editing a war against such a thing will only make themselves look like that does not make sense. Editors who continue to not work well with others may feel ignored, or even blocked from editing. Ned Wilbury 19:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

For one data point on controversial deletion, see the third to sixth comments in User talk: Ummit # Reference table.

My view of decency (although I have not taken the time to research chapters and verses about it) is that we have a general policy somewhere that says that all editors should (in general) be very reluctant to remove information directly. My feeling, too, is a much more precise deletion in the article space (where it may be combined with movement or additions elsewhere) than in the talk room. My final feeling is that the Reference Desk is much more like a talking space than the article space (or even, in this case, from the project space). But as I said, I have not explored this argument completely, so I'm not sure how well they stand, and I'm also not sure how to argue with the often repeated argument that "removal anywhere is acceptable if it helps the project". --Steve Summit (talk) 19:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Many of those who do excessive removal are Admin, however, blocking seems unlikely, especially if there is no real policy that they violate ("Hey, I just 'follow the wiki process', by deleting everything I do not like. "). StuRat 19:06, December 15, 2006 (UTC)

• Admin can be blocked, same as anyone. As for policy violations, excessive reversals are highly favored and are a common cause of blocking. Keep in mind that it takes at least two to edit the war. See WP: 1RR. If you talk about some specific edit wars that really happened, I'm not familiar with the situation. I would be surprised if such a thing continues for any significant period of time for an excessive reversal is usually not controversial. Ned Wilbury 19:15, December 15, 2006 (UTC)

(added after some conflict edit) To be honest, I do not think we will be able to collect a suitable size for all deleting comments or imposing sanctions. Whatever we put together will be too rigid, vulnerable to wikilawyering, and make people reluctant to use common sense to resolve disputes. I suspect that we are really taking the wrong approach by trying to discuss a complicated process of removing the problem of editing when the core of the problem is problem behavior . I expect that if someone makes a habit of making unhelpful or inappropriate comments on the Desk, other editors will show why this is a problem - hopefully with specific reference to common Wikipedia policies (especially WP: CIV) or with a specific explanation of how comments interfere with the purpose of the table. (This is why it is very important to hold discussions and general agreements about whether I have correctly and clearly defined the objectives, principles and guidelines.)

I also expect that if an editor thinks such a rude remark is out of place that they remove it immediately, the editor will explain his actions to the original poster of the comment, again with an explanation of why it was removed (possibly by reference to WP: NPA or WP violation: CIV). If the statement is deleted without good justification, I would be very surprised if the editor that deleted it did not get earfull. Anyone who edits a war on something like this - whether they're 'right' or 'wrong' - asks for trouble.

(not calm, responding to Steve Summit questions) I guess you can put me in a strong removal camp, I support all deletions (at least the ones I see and can remember) and think they are raising the reference table. None of them individually requires prior consensus and nothing to be returned. That said, all in combination, and w/blocks and all new faces appear to cause problems. In retrospect there should be more effort to convince everyone that there is a problem before taking action. It may not help now to keep a look back on past events. If we need to set some errors for the current difficulty then let's blame the system and continue it eh? EricR 16:23, December 16, 2006 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Contact for Suggestions on How to Handle Factual Inaccuracies in Response

I am open to any and all suggestions. What is the most appropriate way to deal with false responses factually, (as well as their insertion into wiki articles on the subject) keeping in mind that FIRST PILLAR from Wikipedia is that it is above all Encyclopedia >, and more specifically, that as Encyclopedia, according to Wikipedia: Verifiability, factual accuracy is the most important?

A recent example of this happens here: [[2]] in response to a question that asks the origin of the "step" prefix such as the "parent-step".

It seems that I can not resolve this issue in a way that is acceptable to many other users.

Again, I am open to any and all suggestions on how to handle the problem better. Loomis 17:03, December 15, 2006 (UTC)

Stu, where are we discussing the current policy? --Justanother 17:09, December 15, 2006 (UTC)

Are you asking how this question will be handled by/rules? This is definitely not a case of "annoyance," so a quick wipe out, which leaves the author informally about "faulty info" politely on their talk page and requests that they remove it. If it fails, it can be brought here, and, if there is consensus, it can be removed. StuRat 17:42, December 15, 2006 (UTC)

It's just the way he speaks headers and questions is a call for policy issues with his specific case as an example, not as "someone can help me with a situation." Loomis, there's nothing wrong with what you do; but since we are in the process of policy formulation, we should keep a draft policy discussion in one place, so I ask Stu where it is. --Justanother 18:20, December 15, 2006 (UTC)

I personally do not think there is a need for specific rules to deal with potential factual errors in responses, but, if you disagree, tell me which rules you want to post and I'll add them to the talk page for/rules, then see what kind of response he gets. StuRat 18:45, December 15, 2006 (UTC)

My copy Collins also has a 'steop' etymology, so it does not seem to be a direct factual error, but a dispute issue. I am not clear why Loomis thinks that www.etymonline.com is clearly the last authority. The answer to the question, of course, is that alternatives, with supporting sources, should be given, as has happened in the Loomis example. Regards, Sam Clark 17:25, December 15, 2006 (UTC)

I agree, do not delete something because you "know" it is wrong. Maybe so, maybe not, let the person asking the question decide. Perhaps, those with correct answers (in cases where there is one correct answer) will be able to present better evidence and references, and thus convince the audience that they are right. StuRat 17:38, December 15, 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I also have sources that give "not blood relatives", vowel transpositions and Old English vs. Central English v. Anglo-Saxon which I can not comment on. What research do you do to determine this is one of many "Factual Inaccuracies" on the table? And why did you delete some of my responses and sig [3]? EricR 17:40, December 15, 2006 (UTC)

This kind of dispute, I think, is a good reason to be conservative in our answer and stick with what's in a reputable article or source. If the sources do not agree, it's fine - let the reader decide how to interpret this. Ned Wilbury 17:41, December 15, 2006 (UTC)

I see this type of dispute as a good reason not to delete posts you do not approve, without consensus, because everything may be true. StuRat 17:46, December 15, 2006 (UTC)

Sure, say "I disagree with-and-so because.." and give a better answer if it's better. However my point is that this disagreement can be AVOIDED at first if we are more conservative with our answer. Ned Wilbury 17:48, December 15, 2006 (UTC)

Collins is Collins English Dictionary , which is the etymological dictionary on my desk. There are two separate problems here, which are chaotic. 1. The authorities disagree about the 'stepchild' etymology and related terms. This is a useful invention, because it allows us to increase the encyclopedia. More importantly, 2. Loomis continued his hatred campaign against Clio. His personal assault on himself at the Humanities reference desk and continues here is reprehensible, as the support he received from some other regulars remains a reference, notably StuRat. They should apologize and attract this personal attack. Clio has been accused, especially in overly rude and offensive language, from deliberately giving wrong answers to referral questions. There is no evidence whatsoever for this allegation. And now, when Clio shows Loomis's erratic and aggressive behavior, we ask StuRat to warn him of personal attacks! Double standard, many? Regards, Sam Clark 14:15, December 16, 2006 (UTC)

Warning of personal attacks is justified; You will see that I have independently made it, too.

Two errors do not make the right. Loomis should not have attacked Clio; Clio should not openly link psychological motives with Loomis. And , Loomis should not punish Clio for scientific inaccuracy when he based his statement on the information he found on the Wikipedia page, information later removed by Loomis. --Steve Summit (talk) 14:24, December 16, 2006 (UTC)

Etymology is complicated, something we should not speculate without a reliable source to support us. I have enough trouble understanding how words are used today - let alone a thousand years ago. An O.E. steop - w/lost connotation and M.E. steop - which means not related by blood is not mutually exclusive. Loomis can edit the stepfamily in an effort to improve the article. He could have just made a cut-and-paste error while editing, but so far failed to explain. Frankly, the only reason he answered that question was to attack Clio. I think the first episode has given enough shame that he will stop his behavior. Does not seem. Loomis, you behave badly, steop.EricR 15:11, December 16, 2006 (UTC)

As I understand 'steop' does not mean 'not related to blood' at all - it is a genuine problem, so 'stoep' does not mean anything (except to be a version of the Dutch step) - if there is any evidence even for 'steop' or 'stoep' which means 'not related to blood' can you link it to me so I can fix the step-family article again. (and listen loudly Loomis - at least the answer is correct!) courtesy 87.102.4.180 15:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Please fix entymology in stepfamily, that annoys me. EricR 15:40, December 16, 2006 (UTC)

Finished, but when you see some errors like that that make your skin creep, do not hesitate to fix it yourself. StuRat 15:51, December 16, 2006 (UTC)

You are right of course, I am making a point and even need to improve the article. EricR 16:39, December 17, 2006 (UTC)

If the situation is as bad as it may be you should make a list of offensive comments and submit a request for a Wikipedia comment: Request for comment. This page is for the reference table, so why not take this personal dispute elsewhere where it can be sorted. P.S. are there any of you who are trying to correct a stepfamily article - because it is wrong - I am not a etymologist.87.102.4.180 15:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC) You can also try Wikipedia: The Arbitration Committee is probably.87.102. 4.180 15:12, December 16, 2006 (UTC)

Although I agree that this discussion is wrong here, I beg to distinguish: No one is after Loomis. Loomis asks for a comment and accepts it. --- Sluzzelin 15:35, December 16, 2006 (UTC)

There is no error on the stepfamily page except for one omission. That's just one argument for the origin of the move, not a full complement. David D. (Speech) 22:27, December 16, 2006 (UTC)

I want to thank everyone who has commented on my observations and concerns. It's not my intention to attack or slander anyone. But now I feel that my contribution is being 'stalked' with evil intentions. It will not stop me. But I will ask all editors, regardless of how they feel about me personally, to keep this sad situation under strict supervision. Clio the Muse 01:27, December 17, 2006 (UTC)

When you say 'lurk', do you mean to reply or comment? - Current Light 01:31, December 17, 2006 (UTC)

I mean, my contribution is observed with malicious intent. When no weaknesses are found, weaknesses must be found. But I really do not want to say more about this wretched business. Clio the Muse 01:40, December 17, 2006 (UTC)

Well, Clio, unfortunately, whatever is said on wikipedia is checked through many powerful microscopes by many (as I know for my expenses). Some people feel compelled to reply and sometimes this reply may not be what you want. The only sure way to avoid this is, I'm afraid, do not say anything! 8 - (- Light is currently 01:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Be silent I will never, Light at this moment. I'm a big girl, and I can handle disputes. It's an assassination attempt that disgusted me. Clio the Muse 01:54, December 17, 2006 (UTC)

I know very well about that! Mine has been killed several times - but I'm still here and kicking! 8 -) - Light at 01:55, December 17, 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, all this becomes exhausting. At first I was really amazed at the wealth of Clio's knowledge. That is actually quite fascinating. Too good to be true, apparently! I never knew that! You must know more than me! " But after a while my suspicions began to rise, until finally, with all the ridiculous things, Eli Whitney Cotton Gin, my suspicions increased to the point where I really cared to check his "facts". I still have not received a single explanation from him explaining to me why he brought Eli Whitney into the discussion. A clear red velvet. (Oh sorry Loomis, I was wrong on that one! Ã, :) No good luck. And there are dozens more.

Listen, everyone, I really regret all this. I like Wikipedia because I learn a lot from it, and there's nothing I like besides learning. On the other hand, when I realized that over the past few weeks I have been given rough fiction disguised as fact, I feel, very understandable I say, betrayed. I am a very curious person and I came to worship Wikipedia as a source of fact for a particular thing that I want to know.

Yes, I admit it. I did "personally attack" Clio, ONCE, when I said that it seems he has some "pathological intent to mislead". I then apologized for that. In a sense, that's the microcosm of the difference between us. When I'm wrong, I admit it. The comment is inappropriate. I'm big enough from someone, and confident enough in my intelligence to be able to apologize when I'm wrong.

However, since then, I have experienced the wildest accusations, ranging from questioning my mental health, to "stalking", and whatever other vitriol he can get. I have not responded to any of these attacks because I think they are so ridiculous that they are not worth answering. I'm trying to think I'm bigger than that.

Are you "wrong", Clio, about Eli Whitney? Are you "wrong" about the etymology of the "step" prefix? Are you "wrong" by linking to articles that really negate your intentions? Are the words "I'm sorry, I'll try to do better research in the future" not in your vocabulary?

comment He is not wrong in the "step" prefix (which has been noted several times above as well). Or is Collins' dictionary wrong? Loomis, not all black and white. Shades of gray can be discussed without saying someone is wrong, and then put in wikipedia. You lose the opportunity to study here with attention to black and white. David D. (Speech) 19:10, December 17, 2006 (UTC)

COMMENT! Can you quote this alternative meaning from the collins or give a link to it - because if you are right, and there is an alternative root for etymology then I must go and change the stepfamily page, again, so please give it.83.100.132.121 20:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You must get the words from Sam Clark; see here and here where Sam made a reference to his copy. David D. (Talk) 03:59, December 18, 2006 (UTC)

Personally, every time I cite a source I say "according to X-source, the answer is Y", leave it to the questioner to self-evaluate the validity of the source. I have never and will never answer questions arrogantly by saying "The answer is Y. See X".

On the other hand, if Wikipedia values ​​modesty over truth; that the term "step-" comes from a few Middle English words that do not exist which means "not related to blood"; that Cotton Gin of Eli Whitney had some sort of mysterious effect on the economy of slavery that would make the most brilliant economists scratch their heads; that Queen Elizabeth may commit an offense with complete impunity, and has no de facto price to pay it; that the romantic nobleman Edward VIII simply decided on his own will to abdicate the British throne, and not because Stanley Baldwin, in Don Corleone's words, "gave him an offer he could not refuse"; that Vichy France was not involved with the Nazi Germany, but an "independent neutral" state during World War II; - in other words, if Wikipedia is NOT an Encyclopedia, but a repository for all the hoaxes, misconceptions, factual inaccuracies and delusions contributed by its contributors, then frankly I'm not interested in contributing further. If this is true, then I beg for all of you, please BAN ME .

However, if Wikipedia was all I had hoped for, it was the best Encyclopedia ever, mostly because of its dedication to TRUTH and ACCURACY, then I wanted to stay.

Clio, I want to put this all behind us. I am not interested in continuing this unreasonable dispute. If you just become a woman big enough to openly and explicitly acknowledge that you are just an ordinary human like me, and that you may have been "wrong" in certain "facts", and if you are only public and explicitly committed to being more honest â € <â €

On the other hand, if you stubbornly reject this fact, support insists that I am sort of mad mental crazy to get you, well, then, I have no choice but to continue researching each and every person of your post to make sure that what you claims as facts, indeed facts.

So here we are, I have thrown an olive branch. Please, Clio, for everyone's sake, just take it so we can all continue. Loomis 08:00, December 17, 2006 (UTC)

Loomis, you are the only one "interested in continuing this unreasonable feud." You asked for an opinion on this matter, but ignored that opinion and failed to answer the question. Why do you accuse Clio of doing something [4] when what he says comes from the Wikipedia article section, the section you deleted [5]? Why did you change the response of another editor (mine) [6]? Why are you ignoring the subsequent sources that have been submitted? Instead of answering these questions, you post this silly tirade. You demand public acknowledgment and explicit from other mistakes you will continue the same behavior. How is that "olive branch"? Because showing that you have been wrong does not convince you to quit, it may be more direct will. Loomis, you have made and continue to fool yourself. EricR 16:35, December 17, 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I ask for opinions, and one of the best of them is to support my position with the source. And I did it. Oxford, Webster, etymonline.com. Clio is actually good enough to give me another fourth source that approved the previous three, from dictionary.reference.com:

[Origin: ME; OE stÃÆ' Â © op-; c. G stief-, ON stj? P- step-; similar to OE? stÃÆ' Â © pan to shoot, bestÃÆ' Â © pan to eliminate (children)]

I am still waiting for this "proof" from "Collins", an absolute but very curious authority on this issue, which puts OED, Webster, etymonline.com and dictionary.reference.com all to shame. It's not all "black and white" issues. But come on, are four sources still not enough? Do you want six more to make it even ten?

I deleted part of the article because it was wrong. I delete your post because you deleted my post (You can delete my post but I can not delete my post but I can not delete my post?) I did not make public request and explicit acceptance of "error", just recognition that, like me , he can also make mistakes. All I ask is a bit of long-delayed humility. Scroll up and view. Apparently you do not agree, apparently Clio is not able to make mistakes. Whatever it says seems to be the truth of the gospel.

Who talks about the shades of gray? It's pretty ironic actually, but it's a good part of the point that I'm trying to convey over the years. Maybe you missed what I said above. I never answered the question in an absolute authoritative way: "The answer is X. Period. - Next question!" Not only is it very annoying and arrogant, but even worse, when it's wrong, (as it is here) it is misleading. Something to be avoided at all costs.

You say I'm embarrassing myself, maybe, but just for fun, let's summarize the facts:

• Someone asked the question: "Where does the" step- "start coming from?

• Clio replied: "This is from Old English to 'not related to blood'"

• I declare that the answer is incorrect, which, as yet unknown, awaits the arrival of mysterious Master Collins, has not been supported by a single source, and gives what I believe to be the correct answer, supported by four separate sources.

• Disgusted by seeing this over and over again, I lost my composure and picked up a little voice on Clio, in small letters. That's wrong and I apologize to Clio for that. In the future, when Clio will inevitably make a more inaccurate statement in absolute authority's tone , unaccompanied by words expressing the tentative nature of the response, (something that Clio needs to learn very much) I will do my best to remain polite.
• Ultimately, though, despite all the chaos, and my clumsy way of dealing with it, ultimately, a misleading response to RefDesk is corrected, as is a store in the wiki article. Is there nothing good in that? Do not I deserve a little credit?

Does not seem. Nobody really cares to actually improve Wikipedia, at least if it sacrifices the ego. It's better not to wiggle the boat. If in increasing the factual accuracy of Wikipedia I can not help but bruise Clio's ego, rather than better not, right? Ego takes precedence, the second truth.

I was told that I was embarrassing myself, as if it would bother me. Some people do not realize that for some of us, it's not about ego. I know, may be difficult to understand for many others, but I really do not mind being called a fool. Indeed, to some extent, I is a fool. I am aware of my ignorance.

Honestly, when I think about it, my accusation that Clio "seems to have" pathological intent to mislead "is, to be fair, above me I have apologized for that and I will apologize once more. That sort of thing.He's just a man who knows everything, really does not have humility, and is totally incapable of admitting that he is human, unable to admit that he makes mistakes like all of us.Cann't afford ONCE, ONCE, EVER, about anything Loomis 04:04, December 18, 2006 (UTC)

If you work with shades of gray, you will have the title of this section differently. You will not say things like: " delete part of article because it is wrong ". Finally, do you never assume that other people just copy OED? The fact you can find the other ten does not invalidate the fact there are differences of opinion. The stepfamilies article initially uses that different opinion until you delete it as incorrect. That's just justifys the answers that Clio gave on the ref table of humanity. Why is it impossible for you to see that? Why can not you handle this is an academic style rather than a confrontational style? There is no one here to fight. David D. (Talk) 4:16, December 18, 2006 (UTC)

By the way, a pot-shot apology is regarded as an apology. Let's move on because we've made some points here. David D. (Talk) 4:22, December 18, 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I promise to be really polite when fixing a misleading post, and I like to think that I keep my promises. Do the following correction here: [7] meet with your agreement? None of the hyperlinks, despite the obvious implications they do, provide any basis for the claim that Iconoclasm is influenced in any way by Muslim teachings. As for Webster just "following" OED, telling it to the editor at Webster, they're fighting words! Ã, :) Loomis 19:39, December 18, 2006 (UTC)

BTW, who is "Webster"? Should OED demand it for plagarism? Ã,;) David D. (Speech) 19:44, December 18, 2006 (UTC)

"Webster", aka Emmanuel Lewis, is the title character in the 80s sitcom, not a much more derivative of the more successful Diff'rent Stroke (ie an adorable black kid with some kind of condition that inhibits his growth , adopted by a white couple). But of course, as always, I'm only human! I can be wrong! Whatchyouutalkinaboutwillis! Ã, :) Loomis 03:48, December 19, 2006 (UTC)

I do not want to get into a fight between Loomis and Clio. But, Loomis, may I say that I can not help noticing that, every time you repeat your apology to Clio, you then immediately launch into more attacks against him. That does not sound like a sincere apology to me. Why not apologize (if that's what you want to do), then stop; or change the subject. Ã, :) JackofOz 04:13, December 19, 2006 (UTC)

All discussions recently archived in Wikipedia chat: Reference desk/Archive 18 - I am very aware that there are a number of active threads, so please be free to restore the ongoing and important ones. --HappyCamper 04:53, December 16, 2006 (UTC)



src: upload.wikimedia.org




Uphold opinion responses in Reference Desk

Source of the article : Wikipedia