Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:43, 25 March 2007

Archives (dates are close, not exact)
(1) Jan 1-Sep 15 '04	(2) Feb 1-Nov 13 '04
(3) Mar 20 -Aug 17 '05	(4) Aug 19-Aug 30 '05
(5) Sep 4-Sep 18 '05	(6) Sep 25-Dec 3 '05
(7) Dec 10-Jan 9 '06	(8) Jan 9-Jan 19 '06
(9) Jan 19-Mar 27 '06	(10) Apr 2-Aug 2 '06
(11) Aug 9-Sep 20 '06	(12) Sep 21-Oct 22 '06
(13) Oct 21-Nov 1 '06	(14) Nov 1-Nov 11 '06
(15) Nov 9-Dec 4 '06	(16) Dec 5-Dec 11 '06
(17) Dec 11-Dec 13 '06	(18) Dec 13-Dec 16 '06
(19) Dec 15-Dec 19 '06	(20) Dec 19-Dec 31 '06
(21) Jan 01-Jan 09 '07	(22) Jan 09-Jan 18 '07
(23) Jan 18-Jan 31 '07	(24) Jan 31-Feb 13 '07
(25) Feb 13-Feb 28 '07	(26) Mar 01-Mar 13 '07

Color?

Did we ever decided which color scheme we were going with?--VectorPotential 19:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Copied from the archive for continuing discussion.. we need more suggestions --froth 15:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I need you to help choose a color scheme for our new RD style. Propose a new style here by following the instructions below. If you don't feel confident about hex RGB, leave comments and I'll tweak existing styles to fit your specifications and add them as new proposals. --froth 01:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Instructions for Proposing

1. Go to Misplaced Pages talk:Reference desk/colors and edit the page
2. Tweak the options to create your own style. If there's nothing there, just edit the first revision from History to reload the options.

• headingbg is the background color of the heading blocks
• mainbg is the background color of the content blocks
• highlightbg is the background color of the "current desk" highlight box in the navigation column
• headborder is the border color of the heading blocks
• mainborder is the border color of the content blocks
• highlightborder is the border color of the "current desk" highlight box in the navigation column
• navlinks is the color of the large links in the nav box and "See other" box.
• dottedlines is the color of the dashed lines in the middle of the leftside column

3. Save your changes. This will not affect the actual reference desks. Be sure to give it a descriptive name in the edit summary.
4. Copy the URL of your revision from the "Permanent link" option in the toolbox on the left or from the page history.
5. Post the link to your revision below using the format started by me.

Proposals

1. Basically Grey by froth 01:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Basically Grey Edit 1 (slightly blue) per suggestions from User:MacGyverMagic by froth 01:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Basically Grey Edit 2 (blueberry blue) per suggestions from User:VectorPotential by froth 01:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
4. Green & Purple Mutes No.1 − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 09:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Plain White by User:VectorPotential
6. Orangey by AMP'd
7. Au Naturale by AMP'd
8. Peachy by AMP'd
9. Orangey Mark II - Mutes by AMP'd
10. Green No. 1 by AMP'd
11. Slate Blue No. 1 by AMP'd

Comments and suggestions

Leave comments here --froth 01:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'd say the slightly blue is the best followed by the grey. I'm not keen on the blueberry. David D. (Talk) 02:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Basically Grey (No edit). The grey is somewhat bland yet not distracting. I find the slightly blue does not contrast enough with the blue links. The blueberry blue is just too dark for my tastes and contrasts too much with the page. --The Dark Side 02:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

  Please, put up your own proposals! --froth 07:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• I enjoy blueberry the most, followed by the original greyness. The slightly blue has an ugly inharmony between the colour of the links and the colour of the background. Yuck! I think The Dark Side is right that the blueberry contrasts, but I think that is a good thing for us! Unfamiliar users will be drawn by the contrast, and so be more likely to read it before asking a question. Besides that, I will suggest having unique colours for each desk. Though they should all be muted colours. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 09:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

  I've added an example (#4, Green & Purple Mutes) to encourage some colour schemes outside of the grey-blue palette. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 09:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• How about a plain white background, seems like this would maximize the contrast between the writing and the backdrop. Although I kind of like the idea of giving each desk a different color--VectorPotential 17:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• As per suggestion by Twas Now. This will do very well. Clio the Muse 18:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• I vote for Green & Purple Mutes. :). --Parker007 20:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Slightly blue for me. Rockpocket 02:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• How about a warm pale orange. I have hexadecimal color editing dysfunction, so I can't draw one up myself, but I might mess around and try to get some example colors. - AMP'd 20:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • So I overcame my inability and edited the page, but I think anyone else who is unable to mix colors will enjoy ColorBlender, which allows you to mix color combinations. - AMP'd 20:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure if anyone cares anymore, but I've been working hard on toning my color schemes down, and input would help. - AMP'd 03:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
      • The easiest way to do it IMO is to just edit the hex digits by hand. The first octet is red, the second is green, the third is blue. Of course each octet is a number from 00 to FF. You can also just use a single hex digit for each component and it will expand: #000 becomes #000000, #abc becomes #aabbcc. Higher values in a component will add more value to that color's channel. To get an overall brighter shade without changing the color, add the same thing to each component- subtract for a darker shade. Remember your hex arithmetic- 9+1=A and on up. I suggest cooler colors- warm colors are virtually nowhere to be found on wikipedia.. or the entire internet for that matter (with the possible exception of red). --froth 19:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Also remember you can change the color of the links --froth 20:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I figured that if I changed the link color, people would have to search for the hyperlinks. - AMP'd 20:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Ya'll are talking about making the ref desk have a different color scheme than the rest of Misplaced Pages? I don't see why this is helpful. Don't we risk making these pages less accessible? Friday (talk) 20:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • We plan to change the colors of the boxes containing important instructions, not the colors of the desks themselves. - AMP'd 20:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Editing Questions and use of the question title for personal attacks -- now with APOLOGY to Dweller and corrected name

my apologies for misidentifying/nameswitching here and elsewhere. I have tried to make the needed changes everywhere, and owe Dweller a HUGE plate of virtual brownies or something for the misplaced accusation. The actual party I am concerned with here is DILIGENT, aka Leasing Agent, Barringa, and a whole bunch of other names.

I freely admit I changed the title to a recent question on the Humanities desk to note that a question was not a "reference question" -- technically accurate (it was not), though I have made my apologies for mishandling that in the question itself. This was not the place for trying to pre-empt what I SAW as trolling; I stand corrected, and thanks to JackofOz for his support.

BUT a user called Dweller Diligent then changed the title again to say, in essence "Jfarber, stop changing my titles and my TALK PAGE", and using my name. The history of Dweller DILIGENT 's talk page is clear: the only "edit" I made there was to ADD a plea I stand by. I can learn to live with what I FEEL is constant trolling. The personal, public attack, I cannot let sit.

I believe I have been unduly harsh, but not personal; I believe I have been true to WP:TPG, and struggle even here to make this a query about WHETHER this is crossing the line, and if so, what recourse does[REDACTED] offer. I believe Dweller DILIGENT has not been true to many of the community standards, and egregiously so, but I ask for a third-party audit of that.

I ask the desk folks to please consider whether or not, from a third party perspective, it does indeed look as if Dweller Diligent has personally libeled me in public (clearly intending to make it look like I was erasing or changing HIS words or talk pages inappropriately), an ad hominem attack I have not yet stooped to. I will happily "take" a suggestion if I am equally to blame for the escalation, but can't tell from my own subective and angered standpoint. But, if others agree that someone has clearly stepped over a line, I'd ask this: what can we do about it? As I said on Dweller DILIGENT 's talk page, I DO want my students, and other students, to see the ref desks as a safe place; I do maintain that Dweller Diligent has made this place unsafe for any but the most mature and confident of adults, and am trying to present this as factual, not as a whine. Is there recourse? Am I mad, overreacting? Please advise.

(I would not have put this here, save that it has been happening here -- if this belongs somewhere else, please, by all means, move it, and let me know where it's gone, or teach me, that I might follow the thread. Thanks in advance, folks.) Jfarber 10:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll find you've fallen for someone impersonating me. I suspect this is what Sluzzelin has been talking about at my talk page. --Dweller 10:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It's odd, I can't see why you think it was me in the first place? --Dweller 11:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't Dweller who made the change, Jfarber. Look at the edit history: it was Diligent/Leasing Agent (aka Barringa/Nocterne/Rabbi Benton etc. etc.) Clio the Muse 13:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

::My sincere apologies for confusing the usernames. Folks, the person in question is DILIGENT, not Dweller. I feel awful for pointing in the wrong direction -- please help me correct it. Original query/concern, directed towards the user noted above as (most recently) DILIGENT still stands. Jfarber 14:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

More on Archiving.

Has the automation process stalled again? Clio the Muse 05:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Looks like RefDeskBot (talk · contribs) stalled halfway through the 16 March 2007 archive--VectorPotential 13:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• No and yes, in that order :). The toolserver lost its internet connection for a moment last night (or was shutting down), so the bot was unable to finish. I'll bring it back up to date now, and the bot should operate perfectly tonight. Martinp23 17:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Do we support UNsigned posts?

Recently, on the ref. desks, user 81.144.161.223 has proudly proclaimed that he/she does not sign his posts but has been active "for 6 months"; a look at his/her talk page suggests ongoing marginal behavior and a recent 24-hour block for trolling (March 9).

I'd not complain, but I think it's both against policy and MUCH harder to follow the deskthread without signage, and the PIQ (person in question) has answered "no" to all requests for signage. Can something be done / should it? Any admins want to extend the block? Thanks for helping this newbie learn the protocols & ropes... Jfarber 15:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what could be gained by forcing someone to sign their posts, this isn't exactly a talk page, it's a reference desk, and I'm not really sure what's the harm in someone posting anonymously. Besides, this page is monitored by hangermanbot so all posts are automatically signed, sometimes they're even signed multiple times if/when the bot gets confused. Although it does seem as though they might be a troll, I'm not sure this has any connection to the issue of forcing users to sign their posts, and while a block for trolling *might* be in order, a block to force a user to sign their posts is a bit extreme--VectorPotential 15:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

A look at the pages in questions shows that the bot is NOT signing this person's posts -- not sure why, but see the Misc. desk for multiple and ongoing examples. I agree that, IF hangermanbot were working, this would not matter, but the person involved seems to have deliberately subverting the bot recognition somehow, and insistently so, solely for the purpose of being able to act without even IP-based recognition.

As for WHY it matters -- visually, it makes it impossible to tell which information was added when, and by whom, in those reference desk queries as the answers pour in. This can make answers themselves less useful, and certainly erodes the clarity potential of the desks themselves.

In the best case, then, the prevalence of unsigned posts is merely confusing, which may corrupt the potential of the desk to serve those who most need such a desk. But in the worst case (and in many recent cases), it makes it appear as if those words were part of the subsequent user's post. I believe the person in question is aware of this problem; they have chosen to refuse to sign despite several users' friendly requests in those questions. Jfarber 18:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

"..deliberately subverting the bot recognition" I don't think that's actually possible, hangermanbot scans page histories and then looks for timestamps, the only way to subvert that process is to provide a date in (UTC), ie, signing your name is the only way to deliberately subvert the bot (: VectorPotential 23:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Eppure si muove. All I can do is point you to the desks, where it is unquestionably true that the same user (we presume) is all over the place, with unsigned posts. (Perhaps the user in question is coming in immediately after botsigning and deleting the bot's work? But regardless of HOW, the problem is that it is happening.) Jfarber 00:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Example, for those interested in seeing this -- start at that link and then go through the next few desk queries following; you'll see the phenom I'm describing in action. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.109.249.241 (talk) 01:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

Not signing just isn't that big of a deal, if it really bothers you, you could always manually tag them with either {{signed}} or {{unsigned}}--VectorPotential 01:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Not signing is a very big deal. I have spent time identifying unsigned posts, and sometimes it takes a while to scroll through the history and find the poster, especially if they did not create the header for their question. There are trolls who drop in here and ask a bunch of questions that are wierd, or insulting to some nationality. Before Ref Desk volunteers spend time Googling for an answer or dashing off to a university library to find an answer it is worth knowing if the questioner is seriously in need the information or is just yanking our chain with a mass of bizarre or insulting questions.Sometimes a personn really needs or wants the information, and sometimes it is a troll who posts a dozen such questions with no desire but to provoke angry responses or to see people waste their time providing referenced answers the questioner has little real interest in. It is useful to see that such a question is from a troll so that we can spend our time answering more serious questions. Edison 16:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

To opt out of being signed you just go here and click "Stop watching me". --froth 15:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that they aren't that big a deal. Sure they can be a pain, and I would be interested in examining a positive, non-punitive solution to the issue. Ultimately, it is the choice of each editor to respond to a question or not; I have read many comments by RD editors that their answer is not just for the person who asked, but for other readers. Therefore, the relative importance of the good faith of the original poster is diminished. Sure, I sometimes get pissed when I realise an editor whose question I took the time to answer is a troll, but IMO the issue of trollish or unconstructive answers to trolling (or non-trolling) questions is much more of an issue. I think that if an editor can't either answer a question in good faith and release it to the universe, or good-naturedly take the time to determine themselves the identity of a poster before responding, they should restrict their answers to identified, manifestly good-faith questioners. Anchoress 18:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Anchoress, you seem to have misunderstood two things about my concerns:

• First, this issue is NOT about people who ASK questions and do not sign posts, and
• second, the issue here is about creating clarity for all reference desk users and querents; it is NOT about RD volunteer confusion/frustration, but about user/querent confusion, and, ultimately, about the effectiveness and usability of the desks themselves.

Let me clarify, then. I recognize that many people asking questions may not even know to sign their posts; my concern is not with them. I recognize that, like Edison says, it is annoying to some folks to spend time researching, only to find that they have been sent on wild goose chases; I sympathise, but my concern is not Edison's (for example, Edison would prefer not to waste his time on trolls, where I seem to have a habit of spending far too MUCH time with Trolls, as my recent history surely shows).

My concern is that the reference desk is not primarily for us volunteers, but for querents...and that answers which are harder to follow by people who are NOT RD volunteers are less useful answers, which means the desk is less effective. Period.

That confusion with which I concern myself doesn't generally come up, incidentally, in the case you assume to be the concern here -- ie. when the original questioner has not signed their post. If the person(s) in question are only ASKING questions, in fact, my concern about answer clarity doesn't even come up. But in the middle of an answer SET, an unsigned (and unbotted) comment/answer, or, worse, several of them, makes it unlear who is saying what. This is especially true when the person in question (and it's just ONE person) is sticking answers between existing questions and answers that already exist, because we cannot assume the person who needs the answer has seen the thread by then, and the lack of timestamp can make the good-faith answer and the good-faith question separate, and thereby become less comprehensible. In the case I am concerned with, a commenter has atually stuck in one word answers in the midst of a discussion, and in between several statements under one single signature. All these strategies make the thread disrupt, and make answers FOR those same people we might hope ask questions...harder to get to, for those questioners.

The problem isn't me, and your projected assumption that I want only to talk with people who identify themselves; I could care less. The problem is clarity for querents, not for US, the folks who would come to the talk page in the first place. I thought the reference desk was here to serve people who might need help, which can mean people who are not familiar with the way that wikiresponses thread out; anything which goes against stated policy AND which makes answers harder to follow undermines the very potential for the RDs to be useful, doesn't it? As such, my concern is making those answers readable and most accessible to everyone -- not to the volunteers who have the skills and knowledge to work around or ignore people determined to disrupt and obscure. (sorry for length here, folks -- I have only enough time to go long, not tighten my language, today...)Jfarber 19:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Well then let me clarify; I don't have a problem with people who don't sign their posts. That's it. You can ignore anything else I said that doesn't apply to you and your concerns; and BTW just because my comments do not address your concerns as you feel you stated them does NOT mean I didn't understand your post. I am coming to this discussion late, and making general comments, synthesising my responses to other comments with my own additional observations. Perhaps you didn't understand that. Anchoress 20:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough -- apologies for mistaking your use of the word "question" as a misunderstanding of the bigger issue rather than a response to other peoples' specific reference to unsigned questions. The clarification is useful.

Might I note that the reason I misunderstood where/ to whom your comments applied was that your indent didn't "thread" or indent as if it were a response to Edison, but to the original post here? Perhaps my concern that such things matter is misprojected; perhaps such issues as organization and signage only confuse me. Maybe the medium is not the message here. I just thought it would be clearer for others, and not just me, if it were. Jfarber 21:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

If the anon editor is refusing to sign and then tacking their answers onto others' to purposely confuse readers then lets take action for purposeful disruption. If not then its hard to see what basis one could act. Rockpocket 21:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Rockpocket -- That's exactly the concern I have. Though I believe that confusion is not ideal, and seem to have gotten bogged down in defending that, I believe the refusal of this user to sign edits despite being asked repeatedly is indeed deliberately designed to confuse readers...and I believe this because ONLY by actively working to erase signatures is it possible to circumvent the bot. SHOULD we assume deliberate bot circumvention is a sign of dishonesty? Why else would someone work so hard to circumvent what should be an automatic signing process by the bot? Thanks for simplifying. Jfarber 21:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not just make a change so that posts are signed automatically? I don't know how realistic this is, but wouldn't that fix the issue? 68.231.151.161 06:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems not -- as long as there is a way to opt out of or circumvent that change. Looking into the newer additions to the thread above, I see that a) a bot currently signs posts automatically, but b) there is at least one legitimate way to opt out of this, and at least one sneaky way to post without signing/autosigning. Here, though -- I'll NOT sign so we can see the bot in action: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jfarber (talk • contribs) 18:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

...and now I'll try circumventing the bot, so we can see it in action:

Ok, so from the above it appears that it is possible to opt out, but this particular editor does not have their IP on the opt out list, so is there another way to circumvent the bot signing your comments. WP:BEANS notwithstanding, could you let me know (by email perhaps) how this is done? If an anonymous editor is purposely circumventing the bot for no good reason, and this is leading to confusion then I'm willing to act for disruption. Rockpocket 00:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

No beans nessesary, the explanation is simple, bots aren't human beings, they have no way of knowing whether they're doing right, or wrong, from time to time they miss edits, or get otherwise confused, there is no way I know of to deliberately circumvent Hangermanbot, deliberate being the key word, sometimes it just misses edits, I'd hate to see us start to penalize users just because a bot is less than perfect--VectorPotential 00:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thats good to know. It appears some of this editor's comments are signed by the bot anyway, so it seems highly unlikely he or she is deliberately circumventing the process. I'll ask the editor nicely if, considering how active he or she is, he or she would possibly consider signing out of good faith. That seems all we can do at the moment. Rockpocket 01:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Unsigned inquiries galore

I see that some are getting into a fret over this. My own unscientific survey awhile and several times ago suggests that unsigned inquiries and for that matter red sigs usually don't bother to come back for our pearls of wisdom and are typically a first edit. Every now and again I add sigs to the anon inquirys and then check back just to satisfy my own curiosity about all that; too much time on my hands some would say. Anyway, please don't fret or add any new rules please. If the bot doesn't add a sig then do it yourself, that's what I do now and again. Please don't make another big deal out of something as frivolous as an RD missing sig or, if it's important to you then take a few seconds an add {{unsigned}} to satisfy your need for exactness. It helps me at those frustrating times when I have a need to rag on someone (Heidi also says thanks).  ;-) --hydnjo talk 22:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Violent contribution

Could users sensitive to these matters have a look at the juvenile garbage posted by 220.239.107.13 on the 'Why people like violence' thread (item 3.2, 17 March) and tell me if this is legitimate contribution or not? My inclination was to flush it, but I have no wish to do so without consensus. Clio the Muse 14:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I asked the user to rephrase; see here. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Sensitive...and starting to use the ref desk as an example of Web 2.0 for middle school students, so thanks for your attention, both of you! Jfarber 18:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Bot scalping!

I see the automated bot has completely scalped the Humanities RD. All the introductory information has been removed, as well as the QAs for 17 March. Clio the Muse 00:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'd hoped it had stopped doing that, give me a second, I'll sort everything out--VectorPotential 00:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Fixed--VectorPotential 00:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well done! Clio the Muse 00:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This is *really* weird. Currently the bot is running on the toolserver, so it's not easy for me to monitor what it's doing. I'll take a look tonight if I have the time. Martinp23 20:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

More scalping tonight! All of the desk preamble has vanished. This is just on the Humanities RD. Clio the Muse 00:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixed again--VectorPotential 00:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

How about a Wikiforum?

There seems to be an endless controversy concerning whether even the most civil of debate is appropriate for the RefDesk. I'm completely for it, as I find debate to be a great tool for learning, yet the RefDesk guidelines, as well as many editors, seem to be totally against the RefDesk being used in such a manner.

For example a little while back someone asked a question something along the lines of: "If you were to start a new society, and could bring three books with you, which ones would you choose?" One editor objected that this wasn't a valid RefDesk question, and according to the strictest interpretation of wiki's guidelines, indeed he was right. Yet another user disagreed, basically saying: "Whoa! Wait a minute, this may not strictly be a Refdesk question, yet it's still an interesting one, and I'd be interested in hearing some responses!".

Now I realize that the RefDesk isn't meant to be a blog, or an internet forum, and if people feel strongly enough about keeping it strictly as "wikipedia's version of a library RefDesk", then I suppose they have a point.

The problem, however with blogs and internet fora is that their quality and the quality of their contributors is nowhere near as high as is so at the RefDesk, on top of the fact that very often they're no more than one topic "rah-rah-rah" places for people who already agree on a certain specific ideology or POV to gather together and all gripe about the same thing, and basically support each other in advancing whatever POV they all already agree on.

What I was thinking, is that with all of wiki's branches, such as wikipedia, wikiquote, wiktionary, wikisummaries, etc. Perhaps it would be a good idea to create some sort of "wikiforum", a place where it's totally ok to debate with people with a variety of intelligent yet diverse POVs, with the added feature that we can just as always provide hyperlinks to wiki articles, yet a place where civil debate, even perhaps civil soapboxing is not only not discouraged, but actually encouraged, rather than constantly being labeled as some sort of terrible transgression. After all, while soapboxing may certainly be inappropriate in certain decidedly NPOV fora, soapboxing in and of itself is not a bad thing.

Any ideas? Who'd like to see the creation of a brand new branch of[REDACTED] called "wikiforum" for all of us who are just plain addicted to debating interesting topics, without constantly being harrassed that our predelictions for such debate are "inappropriate", and that the RefDesk is but a dull place for simply answering people's questions without being allowed the joy of what I consider to be the ultimate learning experience -- that being debate?

Just a thought. Tell me what you guys think. Loomis 07:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds wonderful! Though I'd like it if the RD doubled as a "proper" reference desk and a place where interesting debate took place. I don't see anything wrong with that. —LestatdeLioncourt 15:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It would indeed be interesting if you found another place people could go to chat about these things. I personally feel it is inappropriate here, since not allowing such soapboxing and debate is what has made the reference desks such relatively high quality places, with high quality contributors. If such things were allowed here, I suspect they would end up as troll-filled and unenlightening as many message boards. I've known boards and forums that started off as lovely places, formed by refugees from other boards, with idealistic structures and beliefs in allowing anything to be posted without censorship, relying on community response, or lack thereof, to deal with problems. They were truly lovely places, for a few months, then they deteriorated. A few, loud, forceful people ended up monopolising most discussions, leading to those with differing opinions to stop bothering, to go somewhere else for their chat. Eventually the sites were just like most, little shoutboxes for people to agree with each other and say nasty things about those who disagree. I do not want this to happen to the reference desks. So, by all means, create somewhere like a wikiforum. I'd probably join in, at least while it's still nice. But please, let's keep the reference desks lovely places. If answering questions is really so dull, why are any of us here? Skittle 16:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Many of us are here because we're breaking the rules! The "incest" debate, the "Jesus" debate, the "three books" debate ... are these really the type of things that would go on at a real life library RefDesk?

You make some very valid points, Skittle. Yet I'm not so sure you fully understand my proposition. The type of "Wikiforum" I'm proposing wouldn't be a simple free-for-all. With the exception of the "no debating" and perhaps the "no soaboxing" rules of the RefDesk, all other features would still apply, such as civility, no personal attacks, oversight by admins, no clearly offensive or trollish behaviour allowed, "don't feed the trolls" ... etc. And when I speak of soapboxing, the POV being pushed would have to be a civil one as well. Offensive soapboxing would of course be banned. If you're concerned with the existing RefDesk, I can only see it as benefiting, as all us debaters would have a more suitable place to debate, and the RefDesk would finally begin to resemble what it was originally intended for, that being "Misplaced Pages's version of a library RefDesk". Loomis 19:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't care at all where is the right place for "interesting debate", as long as people understand that it's not on Misplaced Pages. The creation/location of s suitable place for it can happen completely independently from removing inappropriate content from Misplaced Pages. Friday (talk) 21:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I really don't understand what you're trying to say. By "Misplaced Pages" are you referring strictly to Misplaced Pages proper, or to all the other wikis as well (Wikisource, Wikiquote, Wiktionary, Wikisummaries etc)? Even if you're referring to Misplaced Pages proper, why is debate considered as being so awful and so terribly inapropriate? Is it because Misplaced Pages is strictly an online encyclopedia? If so, to be consistent, the entire RefDesk would have to be removed. A reference desk belongs in a library, not an encyclopedia. Since when is Misplaced Pages a library? Loomis 02:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, there are plenty of such forums on the internet (eg MozZine.org, ZDNet, CNet). Misplaced Pages isn't the most effective forum tool by any means. Xiner (talk, email) 02:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Much agreed. I'd like to see what Loomis is talking about, a place where people can soapbox a bit and others will listen attentively, or pose arguments if they feel like it. Of course, there would need to be some kind of set of rules that would keep this from turning into a regular message board (again, as Loomis said, against trolling, personal attacks, and other annoying behavior). V-Man - /_C 02:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. Opinionated discussion is completely contrary to the purpose of the project. Why don't you create your own forum or wiki and have your debates there. Those that are interested can join you and you will get the level of debate you are interested in. Rockpocket 03:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty much what was being said; a Wikimedia project outside of Misplaced Pages where soapboxing could belong. V-Man - /_C 04:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm only proposing that it be done within the "wiki" world because wiki is so effective at generating the highest quality, most civil and most intelligent editors. Without the support of the wiki ground rules and structure, there'd be no point in starting up some sort of debating forum, as I have no doubt it would simply degenerate into a place for ignorant ideologues to push their offensive POV's, which is not what I'm looking for at all. To clarify, what I'm looking for is a forum which would be officially NPOV, yet would be ok with civil debate by all sides on intelligent topics. Perhaps what I'm proposing may be unrealistic in that it would inevitably degenerate into yet another chaotic and uncivil "shoutbox" as Skittle put it, and if that's the case I'd surely withdraw my proposition, as that's obviously not what I'm looking for. However assuming it could work, I don't understand the resistance to it. Wiki has been innovative in so many areas. I absolutely loathe all those other "shoutboxes", and that's why I come here to interact with intelligent civil people. Perhaps my idea is just just a pipe-dream, but if it could actually work, what's so wrong with giving it a try? Loomis 13:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I support Loomis's idea. Re Friday's I don't care at all where is the right place for "interesting debate", as long as people understand that it's not on Misplaced Pages - I must disagree. The Ref Desk may not be the right place, but Misplaced Pages has plenty of tentacles already, so why not create a different Wiki-place where people can just talk about stuff, free of the sometimes irritating shackles of the Ref Desk. JackofOz 13:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

There are the notorious IRC channels (of which I know close to nothing, apart from the tremendous uproar they have occasionally caused within the community). Or you could run a sandbox test, Misplaced Pages:Sandbox/Discussion_Forum e.g. I have to say though, that this sandbox version's chances of survival might be very slim. WP:WASS, a sandbox "game" with various spin-offs to which I used to enjoy contributing, gets nominated for deletion every so often, and the only reason some of it has managed to remain undeleted (sofar), is that it could be demonstrated, that it can and occasionally does help improve the encyclopedia directly. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand Loomis' ideal, but I think it is a pipedream. My understanding of debate is inherently incompatible with WP:NPOV. The questions you appear interested in debating ("If you were to start a new society, and could bring three books with you, which ones would you choose?") require a personal opinion to be stated by the respondents. However civil such a debate might be, it most certainly isn't NPOV, and so in that sense it is incompatible with Misplaced Pages. There may well be a place for a forum where individuals can discuss opinion in a civilised manner within the Wikimedia foundation, but I don't think it will work. The reason the "debate" here is so civilised is because it isn't encouraged or even permitted (depending on your interpretation of our policies). So only the most erudite stated opinions tend to be tolerated because they are deemed to have educational value. As soon as you encourage opinion to be stated, this place would fill up with the same tedious armchair philosophy as any other discussion forum on the web. Is that intellectually snobbish? Probably. But its also realistic. Rockpocket 17:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I support Loomis' idea. As for violating NPOV, there are two ways to have a neutral POV. One is to require that every statement be NPOV, the other is to include as many POVs as possible, such that the aggregate is NPOV. Teaching proper debating methods would be quite valuable, as such skills seem to be sorely lacking in modern society, and even here, where responders have resorted to arguments from authority and other logic errors in the past. StuRat 03:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Your mom. V-Man - /_C 04:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I see an analogy with a traditional encyclopedia, eg. the EB. While the content of EB may be required to conform with all manner of quality-related rules, the people who write it obviously engage in discussion amongst themselves, and not necessarily always about the subjects they're writing about right now. Why can't we have a similar forum for discussion about whatever takes our fancy, while at the same time striving to continue to make Misplaced Pages the best encyclopedia the universe has ever known. Sure, any one of us can contact anyone else on their user page or by email, and talk about whatever we like. What Loomis is proposing is a simple extension of that existing right, to include more than 2 people at a time. JackofOz 04:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You should take a quick look at the two MfD's for Esperanza and the Coffee lounge MfD to get an idea of just how much objection there is to such fora within Misplaced Pages.—eric 05:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Much agreed. Doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages. However, I believe the proposition is for such to be outside Misplaced Pages... V-Man - /_C 05:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, it would appear that despite those who support the idea, there are still far too many who for reasons I still can't understand, are dead-set that even the most civil of debate "has no place in Misplaced Pages". I still think it would be a great idea, and I'd support anyone who'd be willing to take on the project. As for me, though, there's apparently far too much objection to the idea, and I'm truly in no mood, nor do I have the energy to voluntarily enter into yet another situation of great contention. However, once again, should anybody wish to take this proposed project on, you will of course have my full support. Loomis 03:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

For those who don't get it, please see Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 03:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

For those that don't get what I'm talking about, once again, I'm not talking about Misplaced Pages, I'm talking about Wikimedia. For example, Friday's above link mentions that Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary. Yet surely Wiktionary is a dictionary, is it not? Loomis 11:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

If they decide they want to spend their money on providing a chat board, by all means, go use that chat board. I doubt they will, as their purpose is educational. Until they do, or unless you're looking for a plan on how to present this idea to them, what is there to talk about? Friday (talk) 15:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I support 100% the Wikiforum and I think it WILL be created one day and it will, in a short period of time after it´s created, become by far the biggest of the Wikimedia projects, with millions of users who don´t necessarily like editing an encyclopedia, but like to debate and learn through debate. A.Z. 20:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please make a userbox saying "This user supports the Wikiforum"? A.Z. 23:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Odd redirect upon responding

I've responded to two questions at the Lang. desk in the last couple days and both times now the page that loads when I hit edit next to the question is the archive for that particular day (the day the question was posted). Why is this happening? Dismas| 08:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It does that for me as well, but only on threads that are a few days old. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 08:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Does this not happen when a particular day is on the threshold of archiving? Clio the Muse 08:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure it has to do with bot archiving; the bot, to be safe, probably duplicates the information before deleting the otherwise extant version of the RefDesk. V-Man - /_C 02:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

That's the normal behavior when you edit a transcluded page. The only way to avoid it is to hold Shift or Control down when you pick edit, so your browser will open a new tab or window and leave the old one on the proper page. StuRat 03:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

More botched bottiness (?)

The entertainment desk now has questions from March 5 - 11, plus one question added today (March 20). Questions from March 12 thru 19 are gone. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Just saw that yesterday's question on TV shows somehow managed to sneak its way into March 10th. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• twas not the bot this time, at least not directly, all the bot did was duplicate the header(for some reason?), StuRat must have reverted to a much older revision by accident, either way, it's fixed now--VectorPotential 11:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! (and apologies to Sir Bot) ---Sluzzelin talk 12:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Colo(ou)r collaboration... icon

Could the person responsible for placing the icon at the absolute upper right location please move it. I'm using Safari browser with Classic skin and the icon renders over the Go and Search buttons making them useless. Thanks, --hydnjo talk 18:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry about that, is this any better?--VectorPotential 19:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC) nevermind, I've pulled the whole thing, we don't really need it anymore now that the discussion has been moved to the current page--VectorPotential 19:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, fixed but note that the sine wave icon on your user page obscures in the same way. --hydnjo talk 20:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Is {{RefDesk}} causing the same problem? or is it small enough not to get in the way?--VectorPotential 23:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine, small enough to not obscure any functions. I don't know about any other skins though. --hydnjo talk 00:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

0:00 has come and gone..

I assume RefDeskBot is down for debugging? or did the database crash about an hour ago have some effect on toolserver?--VectorPotential 01:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The whole toolserver was/is dow, I'm afraid. Martinp23 06:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Can any one help me how to build a UNICODE Website ?

Hi, This is Krishna Here. Can any one help me how to build a UNICODE websites.IF possible please send me a piece of code.Also, the Intial req to be done. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Krishna.logic (talk • contribs) 07:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Hi Krishna, please put your question on the reference desk page, not this talk page. Thanks! Think outside the box 12:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed comment

I removed a comment by Loomis and the resulting responses. A number of editors have asked him to cease this type of behavior yet he appears unable to do so.—eric 19:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I see very few useful contributions in his history. Maybe it's best if he moves on? Friday (talk) 19:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The hate campaign against me is relentless. I see I am now accused of 'Nazi Apologism'; yes, that's right. An apology was posted on my talk page not so long ago for persistent personal attacks (Mea Maxima Culpa). I suspected this to be worthless. Now I know for certain. Clio the Muse 20:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything unacceptable about his post; he stated his opinion, and others stated theirs. Perhaps it needed to be said that "while there were numerous causes of anti-Semitism, none of these causes justifies the Holocaust". StuRat 03:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No attempt was made to 'justify' the Holocaust. A bizarre misreading of my remarks was followed up by accusations elsewhere of 'Nazi Apologism.' Read the thread again, particularly what I wrote, very slowly, then you might begin to understand. Clio the Muse 06:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You statement that I have to read things very slowly to begin to understand them is a personal attack. When somebody has an opinion which differs from your own, that does not mean you should engage in personal attacks against that person. You obviously need to learn how to engage in a civil debate. StuRat 16:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You have an odd conception of a personal attack, Mr Rat. To suggest that someone read more slowly to aid their comprehension is one, but to accuse a person of being a 'Nazi Apologist' is seemingly not. Your remarks were so far from understanding the point that I thought that you really needed to go over the issue again, clause by clause, sentence by sentence, on the assumption that what you were saying was not born out of pure prejudice against me, but was simply based on an abscence of intellectual comprehension. This is not a matter of debate, and I really could not care less for your opinion, on this or any other issue. You are, in any case, Mr Rat, not the kind of individual that I would ever wish to engage in debate with. Clio the Muse 19:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

And you are not the type of person I would ever wish to debate with, due to your immature use of personal attacks against anyone who disagrees with you. StuRat 23:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Opinions of random people on the internet are of little value to those seeking reliable information. (cf. your ridiculously ill-informed opinion on the evolution of curly hair from split ends, for a perfect example). When those opinions are thinly disguised attacks based on (mis)interpretations of other editors' contributions they become unacceptable. Rockpocket 07:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Right after you complained about speculation on my part, you engaged in the exact same thing you accuse me of, speculating that blond hair developed due to "sexual selection" with absolutely no basis for that statement. StuRat 16:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Wrong once again. I have provided sources for that theory. (e.g. Peter Frost, European hair and eye color: A case of frequency-dependent sexual selection? Evolution and Human Behaviour, 2005: "hair colour became popular as a result of the pressures of sexual selection on early European women".)

We have been here before, StuRat. You propose some naive theory based on high-school level genetics, and someone who actually knows what they are talking about comes along and points out, with reliable sources, that your suggestions are misleading and inaccurate. Instead of simply accepting your conclusions are wrong and - God forbid perhaps removing the misleading content - you go on the attack in an attempt to distract attention for your comments. I suggest in future you take your opinions to a discussion board and leave answering questions you clearly do not know the answers to to those who either can, or can at least accept their own limitations. Rockpocket 17:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I've commented on many of your obvious limitations back at the Ref Desk. I would have liked to keep such comments off the Ref Desk, but, since you chose to viciously attack me there, I needed to defend myself there, as well. In the future, if you will respond politely, with "I disagree, because..." instead of engaging in personal attacks, it will be far better for the Ref Desk. StuRat 23:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No worries, Sluzzelin. When faced with a pathetic "use a spell-checker" attack in response to providing sourced, expert, informative material, you know its time to get out. I normally hate arguments from authority and have never mentioned it before on Misplaced Pages ever until now, but consider this: I have a PhD in pigmentation genetics, published a significant number of scholarly articles, I have individually written a featured article on the subject and I provided sources from the world experts in the field (most of whom I know personally) and I get told "your evidence is weak" from someone who provided no evidence whatsoever to back up a theory so simplistic one one might expect it from a highschooler. Could some one tell me how a Reference Desk could be any more dysfunctional?

It is one thing to ask people to refrain from commenting when they don't know what they are talking about. But beyond that, I just can't understand why some individuals can't accept withdrawing an unsourced opinion when it is demonstrated to be patently and obviously misleading. Its not that big an ask, honestly, since opinion is not what should be provided in the first place. Its the third time this has happened in response to StuRat's wild "theories" (albeit with perfect spelling, apparently), leaving me wondering what the point of trying to be accurate with contributions when they are shouted down by those who believe their opinion is as important as a sourced expert's. This leaves me with no motivation to continue here.

I'll leave with a open request for ideas at how we can stop the ongoing slide of this desk into a discussion forum of idiots for idiots; where we all chime in with our personal opinion on everything and anything then defend it to absurdity. It appears in the eyes of some people thats already what the desk is: "If you are so incapable of engaging in civil debate that you need to lie about what your opponent says" . So we are considered "opponents" when we provide factual, sourced information counter to another contibutor's (unsourced) theories, and then are expected to "debate" such nonsense?

I've had enough. If I wanted to listen to blowhards making a puplic display of their own ignorance I'd hang out at the Fox News forums. When this place starts to resemble a Reference Desk again, when fact is valued over opinion, someone do me a favour and drop me a line at my talkpage. I'll be there practising my spelling. Rockpocket 03:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

If you had any actual proof that my theories were wrong that would be one thing, but all you had is a reference to somebody else's speculation, hardly what qualifies as "proof". But, more importantly, it's the argument from authority method you use that's just like saying "I'm right because I'm an expert and anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot". It is actually possible to disagree with someone and provide proof that they are wrong (or disagree without proof) without insulting the person with whom you have the disagreement. See how I handled a claim that the average passenger vehicle in the US gets only 12 mpg: Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Science#CO2_recovery_method. I didn't at any point imply that this person was an idiot, nor should I. He may be wrong, but he still deserves to be treated with respect, regardless of his academic qualifications. StuRat 13:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I would rather that this whole sorry mess is quickly forgotten, like so many similar episodes. I have become largely immune to the incoherent, irrational and ugly remarks directed against me, which is not to say that I will tolerate them, whenever and wherever they are lodged. But there is another dimension to this which has so far escaped comment. The user who posed the question about the Vienna picture in the first place assumed that the venom was directed against him. This makes the offense, in my estimation, considerably worse. Clio the Muse 08:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring it would be the best thing to do at this point, and many users already familiar with the accusatory dynamics in question (or should I say statics?) wont bother to react anymore. But others might get hooked at first - Nazi apologism is one of those killer accusations you normally don't just walk past - and they might waste a lot of time reading diffs and posts, until they see how unfounded these accusations are. Now they not only wasted their time here, but might also feel they've been had. This isn't about "stating opinions" - no matter whether the target user feels victimized or not, accusations and insinuations of this kind are offensive to the community of readers and editors. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I am NOT interested in wading into any interpersonal issues here, but did want to note that as long as actual answers are not lost in the process, I fully support action which is done in the name of clarity, streamlining, and comfort for those who are NOT "the usual crowd", but who come by to ask questions and get clear reference assistance. It was this, I remind the regulars, that was my primary concern about unsigned (and unbotted) posts earlier in this space -- that allowing folks to circumvent the bot challenged acessibility, as it undermined the availability and clarity of answers for ref desk querents. I appreciate that this "dimension" may not have been the motivating factor for removal here, but I strongly agree with it as a motivating principle, and support ANY "thinning" of a conversation which is able to accomplish this without removing actual information relevant to the original question, or to subsequent sub-questions. As Sluzzelin says: accusations and insinuations are anti-community. If there is concern that someone might feel uncomfortable or baited, and a "no loss of relevant content" standpoint is defensible (as it is here), then I fully support removal (and appreciate talk page notification). I only wish I had the guts to do the same, sometimes. Jfarber 17:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoa! People! You're losing focus! I'm the "intellectually-impoverished-misogynistic-stalker/predator-character-assasinating-witch-hunting-nerdy-wanker-who 'makes very few useful contributions and who should probably move on'"! Are any of these epithets ascribed to me "personal attacks"? Why of course not! Haven't you heard of WP:NPA except upon Loomis? No? Well apparently it's a newly articulated guideline whereby it's ok to personally attack Loomis, just no one else. And of course it's based on the most astute of axioms: Loomis can do no right, and folks like Clio, Friday and Eric can do no wrong. Please, by all means! Continue! I really don't mind! I'm actually eagerly anticipating the next personal attack upon me that will inevitably go unnoticed. Can I offer a few suggestions perhaps? I don't believe I've yet been referred to as a cannibal, so there's one you can keep in mind. I think Clio once referred to me as a Neanderthal...but maybe not, so might as well throw that one at me too! Oh, and by the way, I might as well admit that one of my favourite pastimes consists of the torturing of kittens and puppies.

Look people, I ain't going nowhere. You're stuck with me. Sure, I suppose I can be permablocked, but seriously, we all there are ways around that. Besides, it won't happen. I've got too many good people behind me who just wouldn't stand for it.

So what's my crime? Daring to object to a few of Clio's statements? How awful of me! Everybody knows Clio is infallible, right? I've certainly come to accept that fact!

Someone actually asked an interesting question on my talkpage about all this. He asked: How do you explain just why the Third Reich came to power? At first I told him that being no psychiatrist, I'm utterly incapable of delving into the minds of madmen. But giving the question more thought, I finally came to realize what I've found so disturbing about Clio's attitude. I finally came to realize that the fact that the Third Reich was allowed to come to be wasn't the fault of the Nazis. Yes the Third Reich itself was their fault. But why it was allowed to come to be was our fault. There will always be madmen. However through constant diligence, these madmen will at best be confined to padded cells, and at worst be completely ignored as raving lunatics.

Yet to say such things as "Where there is bitterness and discontent, there is National Socialism", or to explain the Third Reich as being the result of some sort of "outburst of bitterness and resentment", are to me, truly disturbing. They're disturbing because these are precisely the same attitudes prevailing in the free world that ultimately allowed the Nazi Nightmare to come about the first time around. Hearing these attitudes repeated by a supposed intellectual, well, frankly, it scares the shit out of me. I really don't know Clio keeps saying these things, and I've given up on trying to figure it out. Whether it's based on true Nazi Apologism or just the innocent yet misguided naivité of an extremely intelligent young woman, letting her intelligence overwhelm her humility, I really have no clue. Yet I will not tolerate these statements being made. These were the very attitudes that led us to the abyss once, and as God is my witness, I'll fight tooth and nail to make sure these attitudes never gain widespread acceptance ever again. I've apologized like a zillion times already for my clumsy, anti-social attempts at desperately trying to get my point accross, to no avail. Yet another apology would surely only come accross as another disingenuous attempt to "win" some sort of non-existant ego battle. I don't know how many times, or in how many ways I can try to say this, but I'll try once more: This is not about ego to me. It's about doing what I truly, deeply believe is the right thing to do. THIS IS NOT ABOUT YOU CLIO. As I said, I truly believe, that despite your very unkind and hurtful words to me, ones that you don't seem to be willing to even recognize, that you're an extremely intelligent, gifted young woman, and I truly wish you the best. However, should you continue to refuse to exercise even the slightest possible degree of introspection, your gift will be all but wasted. I hope you receive these words kindly.

Loomis 00:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)