User talk:DeeperQA

.

File source problem with File:Poverty as basis for taxes 14389 image001.gif

Thank you for uploading File:Poverty as basis for taxes 14389 image001.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 03:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Poverty as basis for taxes 9741 image001.gif

Thank you for uploading File:Poverty as basis for taxes 9741 image001.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 03:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Your behaviour on the RD

From Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#What about the bottom 10%?, it's apparent I'm not the only one who's finding it's becoming increasingly clear you are once again using the RD as a place to rant rather then to look for sources and answers to factual questions. Technically it's questionable if you should be editing anyway and considering how many times you've been blocked for similar behaviour, there is not going to be much tolerance for this behaviour so I suggest you stop now if you don't want to be blocked again. In other words, consider this your final warning. Nil Einne (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

A visit from the Thought Police is always welcome. If you have a valid complaint then please be specific and more detailed by quoting the sentence you feel is a rant rather than putting a gun in my mouth and threatening to pull the trigger. --DeeperQA (talk) 01:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty examples in the discussion I linked to where other people have raised concerns. As you have been blocked so many times nearly always after we gave you another chance or ignored your behaviour for a while and then warned you before we blocked you, I don't think you need further examples of behaviour that isn't accepted. No one is trying to stop you from thinking, but it doesn't excuse or require you to rant on the reference desk while doing so. In fact, the problem is that we don't give a damn about what you think but you seem to need to tell us despite the fact you've been told a lot of times we don't care and don't want to know what you think since this is the reference desk, not DeeperQA's diary or blog. We would be quite happy for you to think to your hearts content, and even for you to write about your thoughts in your own diary or blog or forum or anywhere else where it's welcome as much as you want, just don't write about your thoughts in places where they generally aren't welcome, like here. Nil Einne (talk) 13:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I need the specific sentence you are referring to in order to know even what you are complaining about. If I am only left to speculate then the only conclusion I can come to is that my "thoughts" have undermined some position such as my "thought" was not "wikipedian" or not "republican" or not "in support of the rich" when in fact a great many individuals here and elsewhere have the same "thought" quite independent of me although perhaps expressed in a different way. Certainly I am entitled to respond when someone posts an answer to a question that reveals they do not understand the question or that tries to disparage it in some way. Believe me, I have plenty of things better to do than to waste my time casting pearls before a very miniscule minority who choose to react to everything they can personally trample as though they were swine. To my knowledge even if the Wikipedia reference desk is thought of as Libya Qaddafi's spoiled children are no longer in charge. --DeeperQA (talk) 20:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

DeeperQA, just stop. it's not the right place for that kind of thing, and all that you're going to accomplish is making a big mess. I don't really disagree with your points, mind you, just your approach, which is rhetorical and inflammatory. let it go here, and find someplace on the internet where bullfighting is expected. there are plenty of them, and we can can all get back to answering dull informational questions like we want to. --Ludwigs2 17:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

What "...kind of thing..."? Please elaborate how my question represents rhetorical and inflammatory bullfighting. I apologize if my questions are not dull. --DeeperQA (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Ludwig is referring to this question of yours. Although it takes a simple structure ("If X is true, then does Y follow?"), both X ("abuse of the Patriot Act is killing America") and Y ("bin Laden won") are are "rhetorical and inflammatory", in Ludwig's words. They are oversimplified and loaded with polarizing language. It is very difficult to neutrally answer this question while wading through all that. —Akrabbim^talk 13:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, well I know of several abuses on the part of government due to less restrictions, which are blamed on the Patriot Act or its misinterpretation and if Bin Laden or 9/11 are ultimately responsible for the Patriot Act then it stands to reason that Bin Laden's and al Qaeda's objective of reducing American ability to "sin" (as defined by Bin Laden and al Qaeda) was actually accomplished through the Patriot Act (if you do not consider its abuses to be sin) rather than the destruction of 9/11. I do not think this question is rhetorical or inflammatory but simply a question for which I have not yet found a truthful and impartial answer rather than one that is reactionary and defensive. Consider perhaps that you should not be answering questions rather than my not asking them? --DeeperQA (talk) 14:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

DQA: be aware, I agree with you, and yet I think the question is inflammatory for Wikipedia's purposes. The reference desks are - ostensibly - there so that editors can help people find simple, factual information: help remembering a mathematical equation, finding the source of a quote, getting an explanation for something, etc. there's a line between asking a question because you honestly don't know the answer and asking a question because you want to compare your opinion to other people's opinions; it's a blurry line, but the ref desks are set up to handle the first, not the second. 'opinion' questions just produce endless amounts of chatter (not to mention occasional bad tempers) and get in the way of 'factual' questions.

It happens, no harm no foul, but it's best not to instigate that that kind of thing. We don't want the ref desks turning into the standard internet 'Jerry Springer' style debate forum (we're a non-profit organization; virtual folding chairs are expensive, and can't be wasted in general melees). --Ludwigs2 16:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Appropriate use of the Reference Desk

Re: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#free_tuition_and_other_benefits. The Ref Desk is not a debate soapbox. You are clearly trying to create and participate in a debate in the linked thread. Your questions are 90% rhetorical and are not a request for information or facts. I've closed it down. If you have any factual questions you'd like answered, by all means ask them. But there are other, more appropriate places on the Internet if you just want to debate people on political topics. If you persist in this sort of behavior you will eventually end up banned from participation — this is not a threat (I cannot ban you, and will not be bothered to initiate such proceedings), just a warning of what inevitably happens to people who do what you are doing. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia is not a place to ask for information or fact to solicit references rather than your own opinion. It is your opinion, passed off as fact, rather than providing references that is the problem. Instead of reacting badly to a question like, "Are Jews stingy and dishonest and the targets of the Occupy Wall Street movement?" (BTW - I know some Jews who merely love life and God and feel that money is a practical inconvenience the possession of which is to be minimized.) you need to provide references that answer questions from various points of view or not answer questions at all.

Nevertheless, you sound like a crazed dictator, disturbed over a series of tremors that spilled coffee on your vest. My advice to you - all of you - is to get over it and go find a life. --DeeperQA (talk) 11:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

And you sound like the indef'd user called "Inning". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you at least try to understand why people are being bothered by your behavior, instead of simply responding with uncivil retorts to their messages? It seems evident to many users that you are not simply looking for information or an explanation. Fact is, you have asked a loaded question, and then followed up one of the responses like a debate. Do you see why people would find issue with this? —Akrabbim^talk 12:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you see the real issue here? The RD is supposed to be a place to get references rather than opinions in the guise of facts. Instead there is commentary and discussion on every question that defies the concept of WP:NOR.

If the RD is going to answer questions with opinions rather than references to documented facts then how can you expect any OP to not think of the RD as a place where opinions can be solicited in addition to documented facts? The issue is how to document opinions with citations if rendering them can not be stopped instead of blaming the question and the questioner for seeking opinions here in addition to fact.

If you go to a steakhouse that serves delicious cherry crumb crust pie, you might go there not for steak at all but another serving of pie.

The very least I am asking is not to serve pie without first serving the steak if you have an issue with me always asking for pie. --DeeperQA (talk) 13:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

So, do you admit that you are also the indef'd user "Inning"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Cool it bugs; that will be determined administratively.

DQA: The fact that other people make errors without thinking about it is not an excuse for you to make errors with intention. Please respect the principle of the ref desk even if they frequently seem to be violated. no one cares much about things that look like mistakes, but the minute some admin decides you're doing it on purpose that will be the end. --Ludwigs2 14:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I reckon I'll have to "cool it", as the editor's comments are no longer making sense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, well, nothin' to do about it. can't make someone take a more mature attitude if they don't understand it. --Ludwigs2 14:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

You're right. His previous socks have been blocked and he didn't seem to get the message. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Now that most definitely sounds like a threat. I was hoping you would understand that you have to demonstrate that the RD is a steakhouse and not a bakery if that is what you are going to claim it to be. But now I am getting the feeling that you are not welcome in the United States and that San Fransisco will soon grow tired of your relentless efforts to repeat the War of 1812. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. --DeeperQA (talk) 14:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm simply telling you what's going to happen. I'm not an admin, I have no power, and I have no real interest in the issue; I'm just trying to get you to think about the needs of the project.

But that is (apparently) a forlorn hope - you are dead-set on playing the game for reasons of your own, and that's your business. I'm going to drop the issue now and trust that in some short time it will no longer be an issue. Whether it stops being an issue because you decide to control yourself or because someone else decides you need to be controlled externally is something only you can decide. --Ludwigs2 14:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

No. You want me to subscribe to your own personal will under threat of administrative action if I do not rather than accepting the fact that you can not give opinions without inviting questions that ask for them. You are caught in a dilemma and failing to blame your predicament me.

Now go to somebody else's talk page and harass them. --DeeperQA (talk) 15:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok. have a good life. --Ludwigs2 15:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

How does the presence of opinions on the reference desk justify asking loaded questions? When answers start turning into debates, or when the opinions become the centerpiece of the discussion, then they typically get shut down. It doesn't happen perfectly every time, but we do our best. When we notice more of a pattern with someone fomenting debates, then we let them know on the talk page. We can tolerate some opinion-giving, because in my opinion (LOL) they often enhance the quality of an answer, but they must never come before the pie steak, as you put it. —Akrabbim^talk 16:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Err... no see in this analogy the pie is the opinion stuff and the steak is the juicy factual reference which might lead to fact. It works something like this. OP: "Did Osama kill America via the Patriot Act?" RD: "See Patriot Act." (The Steak.) "In my opinion, however, the Patriot Act is so shuttle and undercover that you probably do not even know it is there. Take the new cameras in the supermarket and on the bus. You probably think they are to assert all spills are cleaned up on isle x and there are no wild animals running loose from the zoo." (The pie.) The steak must be presented before the pie. (See Julia Child Kitchen Etiquette 101). --DeeperQA (talk) 20:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I got your analogy, but just repeated it backwards. Corrected. (My question for you is still unanswered.) Akrabbim 20:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I did not say the presence of options on the reference desk justifies "loaded" questions. I said that the presence of opinions on the reference desk invites opinion seeking questions, which is not the stated purpose of the reference desk. If you own a steakhouse and serve pie then your stated purpose is still not to serve pie but to serve steak. If you serve more pie than steak then eventually your establishment will not be known to serve steak but pie. Before you tell your in-laws you know a great place to get steak instead of pie you need to do a little establishment research if you want them to trust you again. You might even hire a steak and pie expert to check out various establishments instead of doing it yourself. Its all about what your referral really does and not what the sign or advertizing or a neighbors says.

Would you risk telling your in-laws that the RD was a great place to find references and for them to find only uncited opinions? In response to your question it may be the role the RD is currently serving that shapes any RD question and for the sake of answering your question what better way to find out perhaps than to float a few loaded questions? --DeeperQA (talk) 22:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

If you've been visiting a steak shop since 2006 and still haven't worked out whether they mostly serve pies or steaks, you probably should just give up on trying. Of course if you've been forbidden from entering said shop multiple times for continuously ordering pies when they only want to serve steaks, and have to keep coming back under different disguises to get in, you should have worked it out by now.... Nil Einne (talk) 23:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Akrabbim: I appreciate your efforts, but it's clear that DQA's primary interest in pies lies in his right to throw them. Every effort to convince him to change his mind is simply going to settle him more solidly in his current pie-throwing attitude, so it's best to just drop this and let him make his own choices for himself (rather then in reaction to what he will inevitable see as our opposition). talk is not going to help; perhaps ignoring him will. --Ludwigs2 20:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

You are now banned from my talk page. --DeeperQA (talk) 20:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I have requested that your account be blocked, as an apparent sock of the indef'd user "Inning". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to get the rest of the money. Couldn't you have waited a few more days? --DeeperQA (talk) 01:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

LMAO! --Ludwigs2 21:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Daniel Case (talk) 03:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments

By the same token I do not think the Wikipedia Foundation can be allowed to remain headquartered in the United States when it is being used by Britain's, Canadians and Australians to harass, belittle and attempt to push around, dictate to, rule over or govern the American people. I hope that you realize this is not a personal attack but a reality which you have accommodated us to face. We hope this does not cause you any permanent harm but rather brings you back to reality and to your senses. --DeeperQA (talk) 20:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Your comments make no sense. Wikipedia has no authority whatsoever over the American people. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

You agree the American people have authority over the Wikipedia: yes or no? --DeeperQA (talk) 11:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

No, the Wikimedia Foundation has authority over the English Wikipedia. "The American people" are simply users of it, as with anyone else who has internet access and is conversant in English. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

You agree then that the American people have authority over the Wikipedia Foundation: yes or no? --DeeperQA (talk) 03:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

"The American people" have no more authority over the Wikimedia Foundation than do the people of Bongo Congo. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry that is your opinion. I sincerely hope the Wikipedia foundation fails to support it upon expiration of its charter. --DeeperQA (talk) 04:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation is a private organization. Obviously it has to comply with business laws. But other than that, "the people" of America or the UK or Shangri-La have no say in how it operates. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Unless of course the Wikipedia is known to be a sock puppet of say the British people or government to include Britain, Canada, Australia, etc. that operates contrary to American interest, sovereignty, foreign and domestic policies, business interests, or simply the will of the American people just as you have demonstrated that eviction from editing the Wikipedia (which anyone can edit) can result from apparent similar doing. --DeeperQA (talk) 12:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

No government has any authority over who may or may not edit wikipedia. While it's advertised that "anyone can edit", it's important to keep in mind that it's a private website which has rules for usage. There is no constitutional right to edit wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Which brings us back to the beginning. --DeeperQA (talk) 13:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

No, it doesn't, because your assumptions and premise are false. Wikipedia does not dictate anything to the American people, nor do the American people dictate anything to Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia dictates who edits and who does not edit the Wikipedia via its administrators and bureaucrats and also by its members who are also members of the IRC or who have memberships or are affiliated with groups who do not honor or support, and who actually thwart, many established American values. The users who appear to support British values instead seem to be the ones who succeed in their way being had. Perhaps you would would like to have a few rounds with members of the American Congress as you have had with me. I am sure they can set you straight as to who appears to have their hand in the sock puppet. --DeeperQA (talk) 16:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry is against the rules, no matter what the sock's nationality is. And of course Wikipedia sets the rules for the use of Wikipedia. That stands to reason. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

A user group which operates under a State issued Charter should expect that from time to time the State will logon to the user group to monitor its compliance with the Charter according to the user group's behavior. Because the USA no longer operates under Charter of Great Britain the USA does not allow real world sock puppetry on the part of any foreign nation, especially Great Britain. This includes ship registry. If the USA finds that the Wikipedia or any other organization operating under State Charter is a sock puppet of another sovereign nation its Charter to operate may be withdrawn, revoked or left unrenewed (passive blocked renewal) when it expires. Much more dramatic and devastating means or intervening where there was none approved, however, of terminating a Charter have transpired. The best way for the Wikipedia to avoid this problem is to set up shop in Canada. --DeeperQA (talk) 22:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

How the British State or a British representative or subject pretends to be an American via use of the Wikipedia.

OK, you've gone far enough with this garbage. I've asked at WP:ANI to have your talk-page privilege revoked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Whatever you do merely refutes or substantiates the case in favor of or against the decision to end America as the place of residence of the Wikipedia Charter. --DeeperQA (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Talk page access disabled. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)