Regarding my question at the ref desk (Over-efficiency as a cause of extinction), your answer was what I was looking for. Yes, I thought the LV article was absolutely a red herring -- seemed like an eco-terrorist, "humans-are-bad" viewpoint, which was not what I wanted. The "over-specialization" approach, rather than "over-efficiency", never dawned on me. It makes much more sense when coupled with the "survival of the most adaptable" view; a species of course must diversify its diet in order to survive. Thank you, you have inspired an ordinary Joe to do a little more thinking. (using a dynamic IP; may change) --64.85.217.138 (talk) 10:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad I could help. Regarding the LV model, I do not see any evidence of 'humans-are-bad' viewpoint at Lotka_volterra. Keep in mind this model is ~100 years old, and that all models are `wrong' to some extent. The costs and benefits of specialist versus generalist behaviors are very interesting. Consider the lynx which really does seem to mostly eat Snowshoe_hares. This system is explained fairly well by LV. However, LV is fairly useless for something like a raccoon, which has a ton of variety in its diet. Here http://library.thinkquest.org/26615/ex_do.htm is a story of a species that may go extinct because it `specialized' on a bird (the dodo) for seed dispersal and reproduction. So much of ecology is highly context-dependent. Feel free to post more ecology related questions, they seem to generate good discussion!SemanticMantis (talk) 14:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heya, I just wanted to say thank you for taking the time to answer the question I posted on the science reference desk a couple of days ago. So, yeah — thanks! :) -- Schneelocke (talk) 00:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The link to a PDF about pumpkin seeds is actually to the Wikipedia article about rotifers (I suppose you were going to mention them as champion survivalists). If you can still dig the right link out of your browser history it would serve the OP better. ;) Wnt (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks healthy enough for the moment, and it probably doesn't need much/any fertilizer until next season. Even if you soak it pretty well in the evening, the surface soil will dry out during the day, but that's ok. A 1-2" layer of compost or mulch would help keep weeds down, retain moisture, and add to soil fertility. If you really want to pamper it, you could buy a packet of mycortree (or similar mycorrhiza product, available at your local garden center), and inject some down into the rooting zone. This assumes it was planted in the last year or so. Otherwise just be patient. My main concern would be how close it is planted to the foundation, and how crowded it might be in 5-10 years. You could probably safely move it out a few feet in the fall.
I just planted it a couple weeks ago and its never had any fertilizer or anything. should i prune the underbranches? i never soak it i just water it half a gallon every day. what weeds? do weeds harm the tree? what does mycorrhiza do? that's not a foundation that is just a wall between the sidewalk and front lawn. i'm sure it'll be fine. i live in california the earthquakes ruin every sidewalk as soon as its dry anyways so we let trees lift them up on their own, in fact they do it slowly and dont break them but kind keep them at angles that makes them crack less from seismic. thank you for all the info.Harmonywriter (talk) 18:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm flattered you came to me directly, but in the future you should post plant questions on the ref desk as you did before. A few points:
There were no weeds in the picture, but they will come eventually. Weeds hurt your plants by taking up water and nutrients-- this is called resource competitition. Of course, the definition of a weed is "undesirable plant" - so if you like them, leave them be!
Mulching also helps keep in soil moisture, and I'm guessing you live in a part of CA where it doesn't rain much in the summer... so I'd advise getting a bag or two of mulch, they sell it at gas stations in the summer, but you get better stuff from a garden center.
Mycorrhiza are good for plants, they make nutrients for the plants, and get some nutrition from plant exudates. There might be some in the soil already, but adding some down to the lower roots will help.
MOST IMPORTANTLY YOU ARE WATERING WRONG. 1/2 gal a day may keep it alive, but that will encourage it to root shallowly. You should water any newly planted tree or shrub only every few days, and a LOT of water. A slow trickle from the hose for ~1 hour should be about right. You want the whole area to be sodden, and water slowly so that the water goes deep. If all goes well, you should only have to water it very rarely next summer, and not at all if you have a drizzly winter. If you look at Aleppo pine, you can see its native environment is very similar to CA (most of CA has "mediterranean" type climate), so it knows how to deal with hot dry summers. You just want to water it while its establishing, so that it can root deep enough to draw deep water up during summer droughts.
I wouldn't worry about pruning anything until next year.
Even if it's not a building foundation, it's probably too close to the wall. You don't have to move it now, but it will be
Finally, sure, add some fertilizer if you like. If you use a powder that you mix with water DO NOT mix it too strong! I like to use organic fertilizers like bone meal or blood meal, but really any kind is fine, especially if it says "for trees or shrubs" on the package.
By chance I saw your "personal invitation to register" on the Reference Desk talk page under title "Message for Wickwack/Ratone/Keit". I am Keit. As I can see you mean well, I herein provide a response.
It is a real fluke that I noticed your invition. I have only rarely posted answers on Reference Desk, beginning Jan 2012 and the last in April 2013. Wikipedia articles are a useful resorces for me, though less so than in the past, as the quality is dropping. Once in a while I have a look at Science Desk and the various talk pages to see what the chooks are up to, but the novelty is waning.
Following the links in responses by others to your invitation, I am truely amazed! There is this enormous lengthy discussion about Floda/WickWack/Ratbone/Keit that has many separate pages and has been going on for months! Don't these guys have something better to do?
It is apparent that they have collectively decided that Floda, Wickwack, Ratbone, and Keit are all the same person. I wouldn't know whether the other three are the same person or not, but I have only posted as Keit.
Given the stupid posts by ignorant twits on Reference Desk Desk that my answers (provided with care and in good faith) have attracted, I am not inclined to contribute any more. With all the amazing talk page discussion, and the ban they decided on, which applies to all four names and and any other name they decide is Floda/Wickwack/etc, registered or not, and which is an indefinite ban, there is no point in contributing any more, whether registered or not. So abolutely no point in registering.
Thanks for the note. I was also disappointed in the sock puppet investigation, and thought it was overblown. However, it did also seem that at least a few of those names might be the same person playing games. For the record, I remember your posts and did appreciate them. I also understand your frustration with some of the behavior at the ref desks. But I try to ignore that, and do what I like, which is to help other people learn things, and learn things myself. The rest is just school-yard antics that (with practice) can be tuned out. Anyway, my understanding is that, whether all four of names are indeed different people or not, you are welcome to contribute, but only if you get an account. I apologize if you were unfairly caught up in this, but for better or worse, IP editors have limited ability to defend themselves and communicate here. So, if you got an account named "Keit", or anything else, I'd look forward to sharing in your knowledge on the ref desks in the future. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, contributing and registering is pointless. You are right, the obvious schoolyard antics can simply be ignored, as the OP can be expected to see it as schoolyard antics too. However, there are some pests that compose very good prose that contains bullshit. The OP, by the nature of his/her question, would not be able to tell who has given a true answer, and who is the intentionally vandalising. For example, an OP asked why line interlacing has been dropped in modern TV displays. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2013_April_25#Why_can.27t_LCDs_be_made_capable_of_displaying_interlaced_video.3F). My answer prompted a response from a chap who posts answers with very good prose just about every day, in this case begining "The answer is incorrect in almost every regard." and futher down claimed he knows all about it because he worked at Philips researching TV technology. I doubt it. Trouble is, his posts, as would be laughably obvious to any tech or engineer who has worked in the electronics field, are technically rubbish. Now, how is the OP how to know who is right? I've seen this pest make similar claims to be an expert in other questions while talking rubbish - but very good sounding rubbish. He is thereby a far worse pest than some schoolyard type. A pity, because he is obviously intelligent and can give very good answers. But he likes to be the prima donna I guess, and that makes him oppose or try to neutralise other answers for no good reason. Take a look at what he says about engine braking on Reference Desk this week. A truck mechanic would laugh at him. He has no idea about why heavy diesel trucks applying their compression brakes make their distinctive noise (it's due to opening the exhaust valves at or just after TDC, when the cylinder pressure is many times the value at the end of the power stroke. By opening the valves at TDC the energy stored in the cylinder air in compression is not returned to the crankshaft, thereby effecting braking.)
In any case, supposing I did register as Keit, and was not immediately banned/blocked by some zealot. What happens if Floda, Ratbone, and Wickwack (whether one person or three) registers using one of their names? Presumably both of us would then be accused of sockpuppeting again and be banned.
To me, the amazing thing about WP is that it's any good at all! It really is amazing that out of all the incorrect and confusing content, better stuff (usually) floats to the top. This is actually how science works too, right? But in both cases, it requires smart people to deal with rubbish before things get better. Anyway, I've made my invitation clear. I can promise that you would not be banned if you followed our guidelines. If you do ever decide to join, drop me a line here or via email.
Thanks for the promise, but I don't think you have the ability or authority to make such a promise. It is clear that others think differently - they think Floda, Wickwack, Keit, and Ratbone should be deleted on sight. See the crap one of the main protagonists, Medeis, has contributed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#effovex_wickwack.3F today. He now thinks a registered editor Effovex is another manifestation of Floda/Wickwack/Keit/Ratbone. When will this nonsense end? Effovex is definitely not me. Given that Effovex is from Ontaria Canada and seems interested in completely different subjects, I don't suppose he is Floda, Wickwack, or Ratbone either.
Medeis, because he thinks he is the Wikipedia neighourhood watch officer, and because of his contributions are quite erratic in quality, should have had sanctions against him ages ago, but clearly, that's not happening. Like two or three other serial pests he operates with impunity.
The only sensible thing to do is what I have already done - I ceased contributing months ago and that should allow all the fuss to die out. Hopefully, that's what Floda, Wickwack, and Ratbone have done as well. Hopefully, after some time, we will all have been forgotten about, and Medeis, SteveBaker, and the other idiots involved in the debate will have moved on as well, and we (whether there are two of us or three of us or whatever) can quietly resume. If that takes years, it's no skin off my nose.
I'm still not sure what the etiquette is for talk pages (on whose page responses are put on, that is). So as not to post something overly long on your page that might not belong, I've written an actual reply on my page- but, I wanted to post here, so I know you received it, that I'm deeply appreciative of your response. Thank you very much for the advice, it was extremely helpful and I intend to make good use of it:-)Phoenixia1177 (talk) 22:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Amble, Ha, that is great (but tragic)! Will definitely be sharing that with my friends. In my experience, that sort of thing can be often be caught at the proof stage, but journals don't usually show you the second round of proofs. I've learned to only make changes on proofs if they are of dire importance, as I have had key equations mangled beyond recognition! Cheers, SemanticMantis (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. I got your message. So, basically I just go into someone else's "talk-page" and edit their pages with a "new section" of my own. (how rude :P)
I think I understood that correctly.
But then, as you said, if I just write something there, the recipient don't necessarily know which previous post I am replying/referring to. That's also ok, not confusing at all.
From there on however, everything seems unnecessarily complicated and intricate, with all the stuff like: @Username: and @User1, User2, User3, User4, and User5: Message
I *mostly* get it, how it works, but it kinda feels like more trouble than it is worth. I still don't get how I can link the original post/topic so that the recipient knows what I am replying to.
It just seems easier to me use the good old "copy and paste" method, tried and tested says I! To copy the original text from the reference desk to the recipient's talk-page and then giving my reply. The downside is perhaps that their Talk-page will become very full after a while, which they may or may not mind. So if I could just link the whole thing to them instead it might be better...
But if they reply on THEIR OWN talk-page to my comment that I wrote on THEIR talk-page, then I won't be notified, right? Unless they use some of that intricate "Talkback" stuff
By the way, how do I put a topic on the reference-desk on my watchlist? I just noticed I have some bible/Satan-topic on my watchlist, and I have no idea how it ended up there, nor have I ever seen it before. But the watchlist might prove useful in the future
@Krikkert7: See, when I reply on my own talk page, you won't get generally get notification, but you will in this case because I used the ping template. (I've never used the talkback stuff). As for referring to other threads, I'd just do that with a regular link like "I started this conversation in response to your comments here [2]" To get that link, I just clicked on the heading for that section on the top of the Humanities desk, then pasted from the address line of the browser window to here. (See source for how I formatted the ping and link.) Anyway, welcome to the refdesks, and feel free to use WP:Help_desk for questions on how to use WP (I don't actually know all that much, just enough to have a few conversations and use the ref desk!) Cheers, SemanticMantis (talk) 18:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did you get notification that I had written a reply to your message on MY talk-page? If so, I have done it correctly. If not, then check my talk page and see what I have written. Hopefully the link I included is clickable for you as well and leads you directly to my original question on the ref.desk? Then I have mastered this enigma.. Well, perhaps it's not rocket science :P , but it could have been easier. Krikkert7 (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I removed your ref desk misc comment from within mine, which was placed at the same level as my text. You may want to change your wording slightly for context. μηδείς (talk) 01:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know a way to send a timed email to yourself? Because I expect I will get the Tesla bio after Jun 1, and will have forgottent where to look to find whom it was I promised to offer my opinion.
@Medeis: I think the easiest web-based way to send future email is http://www.futureme.org/ many/most calendar apps can do it to. I've read a bit of Gould but not that one, maybe I'll check it out. I find myself reading less non-fiction for fun since I read so much science for work, but it would probably be a nice change of pace from the pulp fantasy I've been reading recently... SemanticMantis (talk) 15:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, animals in translation is an autobiographical work by Temple Grandin which presents observation on, if not a full blown theory of animal mind. She's an autisitic and was one of the Subjects of Sack's best book, Anthropologist from Mars. Grandin hold that animals are fully immersed in the perceptual present, while normal humans can live conceptually within their minds, and that autistic behavior is evidence of a previous stage of human dervelopment. I'll check out the website. Thanks.
Hi Wavelength, thanks for your interest! I am an ecologist, specializing in theoretical plant ecology, and turf lawns are something I've thought about quite a bit. I don't usually appeal to my own authority on WP, but I thought it would save time to let you know that I know what I'm talking about. Of course I'll be happy supply refs for any subclaims if you'd like. So, without much organization, I'll throw out my thoughts, and see what parts you're interested in.
Most people on the USA that own houses have turf lawns, mostly because that's what it came with, and that's all they know. Many of them spend money on fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides. Fertilizers take an enormous amount of energy to produce, through the Haber process. Then, they are often over applied, and runoff fertilizer is very bad for all of our natural ecosystems, but especially for streams, e.g. eutrophication. Herbicides applied to lawns are usually selective, in that they don't kill turf grass, but they also have their own ecological problems Herbicide#Ecological_effects.
Ok, but what about people who don't use fertilizers and herbicides? They still usually have a monoculture of grass, often a type that is an invasive species, or of a type that is not well adapted to local conditions. For example Kentucky bluegrass is beautiful, but it is silly to grow it in most states, because it needs extra water that native species don't. In the south, there are many bermuda grass lawns, which don't provide any resources for the local fauna. So, monocultures are generally bad, and we've replaced huge swaths of our formerly diverse suburban and rural acreage with one type of plant. Insects, birds, amphibians, and many other animals are thus displaced.
What if I don't care about insects and birds? (I'll even ignore how human society depends upon biodiversity and ecosystem services) Well, huge chunks of the country are naturally arid, (CA, TX, AZ, NV, etc) and simply cannot support a turf lawn without irrigation. Using potable water on grass is just silly, but millions do it anyway, even when they live in deserts, and are facing water shortages in the near future.
But I don't irrigate my lawn-- well, then we come to gas mowers, which in my opinion totally ruin my weekends. Even if I don't have to mess around with an expensive machine and breath its exhaust in the hot sun, I'm annoyed by all my neighbors doing it. And of course in addition to noise pollution, there are lots of other pollutants they emit as well. 4-stroke mowers aren't all that terrible, but 2-stroke weed wackers are amazingly polluting, as are most leaf blowers. By some measures, they are worse than an SUV, see e.g. String_trimmer#Power_and_emissions. So I use a Fiskars push reel mower, which I'm rather happy with.
After all this, I conclude the prevalence of massive turf lawns in the USA is just bad for our society. Especially the way they are commonly cared for, and in many cases, they are not even used much! I feel totally different about it if e.g. someone has many children, or grandchildren who need space to play, or if one wants space for a game of croquet or badminton. I spend tons of time in my yard... but I have many neighbors with giant lawns that never seem to use them! But we keep them, just because of a sort of cultural momentum, and thinking it's "normal", and fearing what our neighbors would think, and not knowing what else to do.
So, what are the alternatives? There are several, depending on the biome you live in, and what needs you have for the yard. E.g. if I lived in the band from eastern CO to western PA, and I didn't have much need for lawn play, I'd install a prairie. If I lived in CA or AZ, I'd do some sort of xeriscaping. Another key thing is that many nice urban/suburban neighborhoods have nice big trees. And here's a key concept: Trees and grasses generally don't live together, they require different environmental conditions. So, trying to get trees and grass to coexist is just ecologically unsound in a household setting (it can happen in nature, but it usually needs a frequent fire regime). So for big chunks of the USA, having a nice tree canopy, with shade-tolerant groundcover underneath is a nice solution: It takes no water, mowing or fertilizers, and will tolerate a bit of foot traffic. Of course, none of the alternatives are truly maintenance free, but they can be much lower maintenance than turf lawns, and are almost always ecologically superior if you do a little research.
Anyway, there's some of the key points that I'm happy to proselytize on :) As for my personal life, I can't practice everything I preach. I rent in TX, so I can't just convert my whole yard to non-turf. But I do use the push mower, and I've removed lots of turf around trees, and turned them into ornamental beds. This way, at least I have less grass to tend to, and use less water than if it were all grass. If you'd like some specific information on turf alternatives that might be good for your needs, just tell me roughly where you live and how much traffic/play you expect. Cheers, SemanticMantis (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your generous reply, which I have read in its entirety. All of it interests me, and I propose that the information be covered in Wikipedia, if it is not already. Of course, it would be with a neutral presentation of views. Here is a link to Category:Landscape. Here is a link to http://www.dmoz.org/Home/Gardening/Landscaping/.
Coverage on WP is a good idea! I'm sure a some of it is on WP (e.g. some of the links above), but it is scattered about in many places. It is hard to be neutral while still proposing that certain things are "better", especially in such a complex area. I don't really think "Why lawns should be minimized in modern society" is a very good candidate for an article :) Also, I usually only make small corrections to article space, and spend most of my WP time on the ref desk, because those are tasks I can handle in ~10-15 minute work breaks. Anyway, do you have any specific articles in mind that could use this info? I could probably find various sources to scientific publications for many of my claims above, but I'm not sure where they would fit. If you have some suggestions of what/where I should include some of the ideas, I'll listen and at least give it 15 minutes a day :) SemanticMantis (talk) 23:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer that you start one in your user space. Later, I might improve it, preferably in article space because I prefer to avoid editing in user spaces of other editors, except their talk pages.
Sounds good. I'll get a rough copy started and maybe ask a few others to take a look once it's presentable. Thanks for your help and encouragement! SemanticMantis (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Ben-Natan: you mean this reply? "I ask this from Curiosity and it's mostly based on intuition; I know that Seeds FE have high protein amount compared to other plant parts and I wonder what about roots.. I guess there isn't a simple answer as we have with seeds? thanks. Ben-Natan (talk) 05:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)"[reply]
I don't have much to add, though it is nice to be thanked :) I don't think there is a simple answer, but I can't be sure that there is not! I was a little disappointed that nobody else had any suggestions or info. If you post a similar or follow-up question, I'll see what I can do. Cheers, SemanticMantis (talk) 14:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Marco polo: I'm glad you appreciate it! As I mentioned, some might see my responses as borderline soapboxing, but I made it a point to try to keep it to factual statements. Actually, it's so confusing, I'm not even sure if I could make a value judgement on the topic! While this situation was historically set up to support the rural family farmers, it is now mostly huge conglomerates that benefit from my tax dollars, based on funding that was designed for a different world. So I'm definitely ambivalent on the issue. Nevertheless, I'm glad to raise awareness of how and why corn production in the USA is so high and prices are kept so low. Now you have an interesting factoid to share at parties, perhaps while sipping a corn syrup cocktail :) SemanticMantis (talk) 18:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your reply to my Reference Desk inquiry. I did realize that I was asking a broad question and I greatly appreciate the readings you were able to point out to me. C7nel (talk) 21:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@C7nel: you're welcome, I'm glad my links were helpful. If you don't have access to some of the articles I linked, you can ask at WP:REX to get a copy. I didn't have much time to dig into it, but it is a very interesting topic. I'm always interested in plant strategies, they are capable of some rather complex behavior, even if many of us don't normally notice it. Feel free to ping me if you have other questions about plant ecology. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had read somewhere that essentially many people that didn't have positive interactions with their caregivers in early childhood, only negative ones (heavy beatings could be one) become sadists and/or masochists. They have no choice but to love such parent(s) (they have no other options, unless this is a commune) so they confuse hurting with helping and get effed up arousal/romance styles. Like knives/electricity/burning/hanging/mutilation/crotch attacks/feces eating/slavery/butt fucking till the anus bleeds, or, in milder cases, lower amounts of suffering. (spectrum between normal romantic/sex relationships and inability to form them) This almost makes too much sense to need citation but (typical of "people sciences") Googling "causes of masochism" shows only hypotheses and this is not one of them. However, there are citations for at least 30% of child abuse victims abusing their children and masochists outnumbering sadists. And some sadists probably want to abuse their children but don't cause consenting masochists won't get them in trouble. I hypothesize that the relatively small S&M research community's laissez faire-ness and inability to feel that Orwellian reversal of the injury-prevention drive of self preservation is perverse causes it to not think of this. Also the Google hits are all copied from what appears to be the DSM. Psychiatrists are often cold people who analyse humans like objects and many S&Ms say giving pain is love (again the good is bad, bad is good Newspeak thing again) so a love-based theory is not really in their personality toolkit.
(Psychiatry is also almost the study of fucked up-ness (a guy who's vertical 24/7 — thinks he's a spillable glass of juice, afraid of people drinking him, lol) they must be jaded to effed up ppl..)
Anyway, the DSM hypotheses seem wishy-washy to me compared to the one I support (Freud's ones usually do too, and look how those turned out). Shouldn't there be a version of Occam's Razor that says that the social sciences theory that seems least mushy to non-wishy washy doctorates is most likely to be correct?
If I was misinterpreted, my main point was that I don't want to experience an intercourse that's more pleasurable than regular intercourse. I want to retain the ability to have intercourse with different kinds of people without it being second-best, not just the kinkier than average.
Also, I'm aware that women have different thresholds where pain starts and anus tightnesses and it doesn't hurt some. And that some female prostates are more sensitive than others. I'd still be concerned if she's 5'0" and being/practically demanding me to "pound my ass faster!". I'm now reminded that I generally fantasized anal sex with adult girls in 5th grade because I thought it was fairer. You know, a penis size to anus width thing. Peer girls were hotter, I imagined them with unusually loose anuses. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Sagittarian Milky Way: Um... thanks for explaining yourself in more detail I guess. I'm not sure why you want to share some of these things on my wall, but there are some matters to clear up:
While it is true that there may be a slightly higher incidence of history of abuse among BDSM practitioners (compared to the general population), [3] it is completely incorrect to say that people who enjoy BDSM and/or anal sex were previously victims of abuse. That is clearly faulty generalization. In fact, the research article I linked clearly states that most of the respondents who practiced BDSM were not abused, so it's not even a tendency. According to this study, your previous statements claiming that people who are into pain are perverse and have been abused is just incorrect. That is what I was calling you out for. This is a logical proposition: 'some of type A have experienced B' does not allow us to say 'B experience causes type A', nor does it allow us to imply that 'if type A, then B was experienced.' Finally, I think that "makes too much sense to need citation" is a very dangerous position to take, regardless of the field of inquiry, and I believe it is the source of many false beliefs. I'd encourage you to abandon that notion if you want to follow the path of scientific understanding of anything.
Weirdly enough, I do understand and sympathize with some of your reasoning on experiencing exceptional things. For instance, I sometimes joke that I should have never started buying expensive yogurt, because now cheaper 'normal' yogurt is not as tasty to me anymore. However, even though I understand your reasoning, I still don't think that's the type of responses we should be posted on the reference desk, unless you can cite a reference that talks about such things. I think that writing up a few paragraphs comparing anal sex to fast cars and discussing your feelings about how that might skew one's perspective is just not great behavior for a ref desk respondent, and that's why I politely asked you to stop. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you want helpful paper texts, I would suggest you start with Anthony Burgess's A Mouthful of Air and then go on to Fromkin and Rodman. The first is a general survey of linguistics for the English-speaking layman which introduces the IPA.
The second is the standard first college text for linguistics majors. It is a bit more rigorous. British English dictionaries like the Concise Oxford are good too, since they give the IPA for the British pronunciation of English words, rather than the otherwise useless Merriam-Webster nonsense.
You should be able to get the Burgess from most local libraries, and &R from most University libraries. Or from Amazon. Don't get a new edition at Amazon, they are not improved, just more expensive than older editions. These two texts give a very good grounding.
If you speak a second language, most any dictionary will also offer the IPA. It's kind of like metrics, except even worse for Americans for not adopting it. I can make a lot of recommendations for even more sophisticated books, so drop a line on my talk page if you're interested. Also, look on scribd, assuming you have an account, for the books I've suggested. μηδείς (talk) 21:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Medeis: Thanks for the recommendations. I'm fairly happy with my limited knowledge of general linguistics, but I think getting a dictionary with IPA is a really good idea. Not sure how much the BrEng pronunciations would help me though. I mean I've had a boss and several friends who speak BrEng, but I can't always summon up exactly how they would pronounce a certain word. I think I'll see if I can find a dictionary of American English with IPA, and failing that consider the concise oxford. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For your consistently kind and competent efforts to make the reference desk a welcome place for all of our guests! (no idea what the characters say, hopefully nothing embarassing :-) ---Sluzzelintalk15:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Sluzzelin: Hey, thanks! My naive guess is that it might have something to do with one of the kung-fu styles, like Northern_Praying_Mantis_(martial_art). I've also heard that the mantis is a Chinese symbol of mindfulness and patience, combined with quick action when necessary. Maybe I'll ask on the ref desk to see if anyone can decipher it for us :) SemanticMantis (talk) 16:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There we go! 螳 + 螂 (notice the mention of dung beetle) + 拳. Thanks for turning even this into a moment of absorbing knowledge! (I half expected it to mean chews-while-moving-its-head-creepily) ---Sluzzelintalk23:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've been tremendously impressed with your sanity and presence of mind of recent times, Semantic Mantis, and I've been reflecting on how consistently courteous you've always been. Would that I could be so. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]10:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Our motto: "It's only hard if you make it hard"
The PENISS Prize
On behalf of the People Encouraging Niceness (and/or Eschewing Nastiness) In Society Society, I hereby award you the PENISS Prize.
The prize is the highest (and sole) honour in the gift of the Society and is awarded irregularly, on merit. It entitles the awardee to the postnominal letters P.E.N.I.S.S. (in appropriate contexts, of course).
It confers automatic membership of the Society, and it thus bestows the power to award the prize to others*, and they to others, in perpetuity.
Remember, the more PENISSes in the world, the better for all of us. What a nice thought. Please continue your good work!
* To present this award to others, simply type {{subst:User:JackofOz/PENISS}} on their talk page, and then sign and date your post.
Yes, it was my own invention, albeit inspired in some respects by* stolen from the work of various others. There's a list of previous awardees here. (* I reminded myself of the Oscarean dictum that only mediocre minds borrow, while true artists steal. That's not a very "nice" admission, is it. Ah well, we all have our shadow sides. But how appropriate for Halloween. It may still be Halloweeneen where you are but it's arrived here already.) -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]18:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But maybe neither of them said it [5]? I don't have time to research the matter further, the internet has led me to loose faith in quoting anything that I have not read or heard myself! SemanticMantis (talk) 21:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Medeis: I was replying to your comment at indent level two, the one that claims there aren't secondary sources. Since that had two indents, I placed my comment at three. The fact that you replied to your own comment with an additional indent level three is probably what made it confusing. Either way, no worries. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For high-caliber contributions in supplying responses on the Reference Desks which are consistently clear, informative, verifiable, on-point, and (perhaps above all) which make an effort to provide the OP with further materials to explore and contextualize the matter in question, I'd like to offer you this barnstar. Snowtalk00:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in that event, I'm pleased to be the one to offer you your first (and it's a great one to get first, I daresay!). But in any event, I had just been noticing for a bit that your responses to inquiries there were often amongst the most germane, well-referenced and directly helpful, so I thought I'd finally make a note of saying as much. Keep up the good work, Semanto-Manto! (No, I don't rightly know why I call you that, but I can't seem to stop). Snowtalk01:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is in general better to reply to inappropriate questions with a template than to hat or delete the question. I would suggest that we look to the Help Desk to follow something similar to their example. They have a standard template for a completely irrelevant question, {{subst:astray}} , and a template for a homework question. RD also gets homework questions. My recollection is that the Help Desk usually replies with a text answer, "Wikipedia does not give legal advice" to legal advice, and very seldom gets medical questions. In any case, I agree (as I have tried to state) that it is very very seldom appropriate or necessary to delete a question. (I don't even think that regular editors should delete hate speech, because the redaction and blocking should be left to the blocking admin, but that is my opinion.) The only questions that I think should be deleted are those from known trolls, and the best way to deal with unknown trolls is either to answer their questions honestly or to decline honestly to answer their questions. So I agree that we should spend our energy on how to respond to questions. As I have stated, the two-part exercise in categorizing the questions and in answering the questions seems to me to be partly duplicative and too complicated, but that is my opinion. So I agree that it is more important to respond or non-respond to the questions, and to decide whether the responses should go off-line. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The one concern that I still have is Medeis, who has declined to provide constructive comments, but who apparently reserves the right to be the policewoman and to jerk us to WP:ANI. However, we can avoid being the focus of her obsession if we decide reasonably to answer or not answer questions and hat answers that give professional advice. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: Thanks for the feedback. It seems we are largely in agreement. The goal of this is to prevent needless deletions and angst. It may surprise you that I've gotten Medeis fairly on board I think, check her talk page. I also left comments with Steve Baker, Jayron, Jack of Oz, Stu Rat, and a few others. You can read the discussions on their talk pages, but aside from Steve (who I think misunderstood the main spirit), most so far are seem fairly willing to go along. Unclear this template would actually help much, but I have no problem with incremental improvement :) After getting some feedback, I think the template would look better more like this:
“
Hello, and welcome to the Wikipedia Reference desk. Your question seems to be seeking medical or legal advice. We do not give professional advice [ [6], header link]. Our goal here is to provide citations and links to informational references and WP articles. WP is the encyclopedia WP:ANYONE can edit, so we cannot make any guarantees ([7], [8], [9]). If you seek medical, legal, or other professional advice, please find a licensed practitioner in your jurisdiction.
”
Personally, I now prefer to not put anything in there either permitting or disallowing further responses, just let the chips fall where they may. Also, I think I agree with you now about letting blocking admins do their jobs regarding threats or hate speech, and let us do ours. In the previous conversations, I was speaking more in terms of the result, not who does the removal.
I agree with your hatting (although the first part of my first answer, about export and interstate commerce taxes being unwise, was still on topic). However, when you start criticizing the contributions of others and suggest they go to a coffee shop, that doesn't belong on the Ref Desk at all, even inside a hatted region. StuRat (talk) 19:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You'll see I moved the hatting down a little to cover the dispute only, the mention of taxes was relevant, see shay's and the whiskey rebellions, and the 16th amendment. The opinion might be personal, but it wasn't a dispute. μηδείς (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The rebellion is relevant to the 1787 document insofar as it occurred around the same time, while the amendment was over 100 years later, so It's not clear to me what that has to do with whether the 1787 constitution was considered liberal or conservative by people at the time of its writing. The indenting is also now borked, but whatever. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, claiming something is stupid is just your opinion. I mean, I also think tariffs on interstate trade would have been unwise for the union at that point, but that just makes it an opinion we share. I suspect that various political scientists and historians have commented along these lines in WP:RS, but as of yet there's no refs of that nature on the thread. As for the coffee shop comment, that's just my paraphrasing of WP:FORUM. I didn't mean any disrespect, it's just policy. It was not a personal attack, but I apologize for any perceived slight. The place for speculation and opinions is not the ref desk, and I've told plenty of other users to please take such comments to a coffee shop or bar, a context that I find much more suitable for such things. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That those taxes are unwise is so obvious as to require no sources, any more than 1+1=2 requires a source. And my point is that commenting on another editor does not belong on the Ref Desk. You may disagree with them, but then argue with their points, not with them (and any form of "go away" is inappropriate). StuRat (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say anything about you as a person, your character, your personality, your history, your opinions, etc. As I said "I wanted to post some references that present the other side to your claim that sin taxes are good public policy"
-- And I still will not argue any of these "points" with you, because whether or not sin taxes are a good idea has nothing to do with helping the OP find references that will help them answer their question. For the coffee shop comment, what I said was "Anyway, if you want to spitball this stuff without putting in the time do real research, do so at the bar or coffee shop, or seek an appropriate internet forum."
-- That's not a personal attack. I've never made an ad hominem argument to anyone on WP, and I don't plan to start. I am also almost always WP:CIVIL, to the extent that several others have complimented me on the matter, because I can keep my cool even when dealing with frustrating posters. Again, I actually agree with most of what you said in that comment, but the lack of citations to back your claims and the two "I" statements made it seem to me that you hadn't done much serious research on the topic before composing your reply. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you trying to avoid personal attacks. I do the same, and I wish others would, too. However, when suggesting that an editor "go elsewhere", that's getting personal. Had I asked you where I should go, then that might have been appropriate for the Ref Desk (at least more appropriate than the other answers such an open-ended Q would be sure to get). StuRat (talk) 21:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reffering to the comment to my question on Humanities Help Desk.
Referring to your inquiry on my "Anti punishment" subject that I written in the Humanities help desk, I am trying to find out if there is any evidence that shows that punishment and negative reinforcement are not effective and actually unnesicarly harm the individual and making the persons bad behavior worse, and if this evidence is it is supported by scholars.Frogger48 (talk) 07:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Frogger48: I am no expert in this field. I was mainly repeating what my college psych professor taught us which was: punishment is not generally as a effective as positive reinforcement. Negative reinforcement is not the same as punishment, and can sometimes be effective. Basically, negative reinforcement says "If you do your chores all week, you won't have to do chores on the weekend" (reward behavior with the removal of something unpleasant) - positive reinforcement says "If you do your chores all week, you will get an ice cream cone" (reward behavior with something positive), while punishment is "If you do not do your chores this week, you will be grounded this weekend". Anyway, here's a few scientific papers that discuss evidence for the claim "Punishment is often ineffective" - [10][11][12], and this book looks pretty good too [13]. I just found these by searching various combinations of /punishment effective ineffective positive negative reinforcement/ on Google scholar.
I don't think it's fair to say that punishment is always ineffective/harmful, but I think it's basically safe to say that positive and negative reinforcement are often more effective than punishment. But you should read some of the research yourself, and not just trust my quick skimming and hazy memory :) Hope that helps, SemanticMantis (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thank you for the links to the scientific papers that attempt to provide evidence for the claim that "punishment is often ineffective". I have read them, and they are very helpful for my research. I read a tiny bit of the book, "The Case Against Punishment: Retribution, Crime Prevention, and the Law" https://www.questia.com/library/117883283/the-case-against-punishment-retribution-crime-prevention by author Deidre Golash, that says that punishment is not morally justified. It seems to tackle the related question on whether the use of punishment to stop criminal behavior is moral, and it also tries to answer the question on if punishment is effective. Thank you for giving an answer to my inquiry, I feel that you are the only person who responded to a question that I have. Thank you again.!:)
Hi. I cannot imagine how The Areas of My Expertise and its sequel could possibly have escaped my notice, but somehow they did. Thanks for bringing them to my attention. They'll go onto my huge and ever-expanding pile and list of books I've not yet read but intend to (the pile is bigger than the list, because once I see a book I must have, I must have it, whether or not I could find even a second to begin reading it any time in the foreseeable future).
As for the suggestion, it's a great idea and I support it. Can't imagine why we haven't had this resource forever.
As for me, I've been toying with the idea of deregistering myself as a RD Regular. I experience significant disillusionment about the way the RD has been going for some time. That there are major issues is all too obvious. On the plus side, that there are many who recognise the probs and are seeking to do something about them, is also obvious. Maybe it's just me and my left brain, but the recent spate of suggestions for change has left me totally overwhelmed. I cannot focus on a single one of them, because of all the others I'm aware of ignoring in the process. I haven't even read the longest or latest ones, because typically someone makes a suggestion, then in the same thread someone makes an alternative suggestion without properly considering the first one, which just dies for lack of attention. I cannot see that a single one of these what-seems-like dozens of recent ideas has approached anything like consensus status, or is ever likely to; but, as I say, I'm not watching them closely.
One of my own suggestions was, rather than this piecemeal approach, let's start on the assumption that we're setting up a ref desk from scratch, knowing what we know now about human internet behaviour: what protocols and practices would we adopt? That received next to no response at all. I've been saying for years, literally, that we need a set of rules about exactly when it's appropriate to hat or delete a question or any part thereof, and when it's not appropriate. I still feel like a voice crying in the wilderness about that.
As a new grandfather, I feel the hand of time upon me as never before, and I feel the need to achieve certain things in my real life (yes, I have one) before you know what. So, most uncharacteristically, I'm finally starting to think in a more focussed manner, and find I have less and less time and/or interest in trivial pettifoggery and things of that ilk,. Not the the Ref Desk itself is trivial, far from it. But what often goes on behind the scenes, or all too often in plain view, is definitely too much to take. That's partly why I take less and less interest in participating in RD:Talk discussions. To the point where I'm starting to see myself as an observer, and not necessarily even an interested observer. Not exactly uninterested, but not yet disinterested. I'll leave further action until I can work out where I'm standing.
Hi @JackofOz: - If you think you would like Hodgman's book, then I'm pretty sure you will! I actually listened to it as an audio book first, he reads it himself, and is accompanied by Jonathan Coulton, who is also a humorous musician. In terms of other things you might like, there was some discussion of slugs the other day. You might be interested to know that they have very interesting and non-standard sex lives. See e.g. this video [14] from "Life in the Undergrowth", one of Attenborough's better projects IMO. As for the policy stuff, I can't resist chiming in now and then, but I think I'll mostly be ignoring things I don't like, and doing what I want on the desks -- that is pretty much the Wiki way, after all :) Cheers, SemanticMantis (talk) 22:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right. But when one's been contributing to a certain thing regularly for well over a decade, one feels a kind of responsibility for its ongoing success. Certainly an attachment. So I just have to step back from such thoughts and recognise that it will continue with or without me. I hope it's in a better state of development than it would have been without my involvement. And if it ever ceases to exist, that would sadden me, but it would not be something I should feel burdened about. Letting go is a challenging thing, but well worth it. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]00:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My life doesn't hinge on the desks either, but I would seriously miss either of your presence and contributions at the desks (as for their talk page: I see these crises as recurring cycles, though their interference occasionally amplifies things. In any event, they don't define the desks, never have, never will). Just keep being Jack and Mantis at the desks, and everything will be fine! ---Sluzzelintalk00:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@JackofOz:, @Sluzzelin:, thanks for your comments. I think the issues are indeed rather cyclical, and I didn't mean to imply that I've turned nihilistic, just that I'm trying not to let the drama/frustration of the talk page get to me. BTW, I encourage you both to update the RD regulars page with a short list of your skills/interests/expertise/whatever. So far only a few of us have, but I've already found it to be an interesting and useful exercise :) SemanticMantis (talk) 14:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, both. As for the areas of interests, there is overlap between that set and the one of areas of actually-knowing-what-I'm-talking about and areas of questions-I-try-answering, but mostly I'm an eclectic browser and googleur ... even if we took the individual desks as areas: I am interested in (and read) the mathematics desk, but hardly ever contribute there (much to its benefit :-) ... I'll think about it though. I too think it's a good idea, just doesn't mirror my editing habits at the desks. ---Sluzzelintalk 23:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC) ... Ok, I tried :-) ---Sluzzelintalk10:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Just to let you know that I felt that it was unhelpful to introduce discussion of fractional reserve banking and leverage into the answer to the recent question on banking. The first of these subjects is very badly understood, particularly in some "crank" circles, and I feel that mentioning the topic in the answer to what was otherwise a very straightforward question is likely to have introduced un-necessary confusion. I feel we should try to focus on clear answers wherever possible. Thanks. RomanSpa (talk) 18:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@RomanSpa: thanks for the note. Do you really think that the amount a bank loans out has nothing to do with reserves or leverage? The first and defining sentence of the latter article is so broad that it must apply to most things banks do. The fact that someone may or may not understand the concepts related in a WP article will certainly never stop me from citing them. The only "answer" I gave was "...OP is is correct that for most banks, the total amount loaned out at any given time is more than the sum of all deposits." - a claim which seems to be supported by both responses from you and from Abecedare. Or at least, that was my reading of your first sentence "Yes, a bank might lend out more money than it has received in deposits." I guess I should have put a "may" or "might" in to my sentence, because I can't give any references that show that that is the norm.
I will readily admit that I should have brought up capital and/or equity as well, but it that was already mentioned by Finlay.
I posted what I thought were relevant articles, and said that they were a good "starting point" and "background reading", respectively. Based on the way the OP phrased the question, it seemed to me that there was a lot of gaps in background knowledge, and the CAR article will be far too technical for many readers. The fractional reserve article may indeed not be as relevant as I first thought.
I only ever post anything to the desks that I think will be helpful. Ultimately it is up to the OP to decide what helps and what doesn't. There are dozens of posts that I consider unhelpful every day on the desks, so I guess I'm flattered that you wanted to discuss this with me. I'm no financier, and it seems that you are. I am open to the idea that there are better links than the ones I supplied. That is how a community references desk work - often the first references are not the best, but they (ideally) are improved upon and refined. So while I agree that my contribution was not the best possible, I also really have a hard time believing that fractional reserves and leverage are totally unrelated to the question, and I don't think my post was in any way harmful or misleading - at least not to anyone who actually read my words and read the linked articles.
Finally, if you want to start a polite conversation criticizing each other's responses, then I have to ask: If the question is so "very straightforward", then why did you not supply a single reference to support your claims? I tried a bit, and couldn't come up with anything that spelled it out clearly (that loans can be more than deposits in most banking systems), but I suspect someone with your experience and expertise could do so without too much effort. Cheers, SemanticMantis (talk) 19:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. Following your suggestion, I've added a reference to an undergraduate level (or first-year graduate level) text to the answers to this question. I didn't originally add a reference because the answer to the question is pretty much obvious as soon as you look at a bank's balance sheet (as the reference to Enskilda Banken by another respondent later made clear). For clarity, I'd better say that I'm not a financier; I work largely in the hinterland between financial economics, mathematics and philosophy.
One problem with the Reference Desk is that pretty much everyone who contributes thinks they're an expert in everything: I find myself continually having to resist answering every question, including many that are well outside my areas of competence, and I'm sure other people have the same problem. Unfortunately, economics is an area that everyone seems to think they understand, even when they don't, and it's an area that attracts cranks in large numbers. The continual obsession of cranks with fractional reserve banking (which, incidentally, seems to be a peculiarly American thing) is only one of many areas where popular beliefs are entirely at variance with actuality, and, as I hope my answer managed to make clear, has very little to do with the question as asked. I've not taught a course on banking theory, but if I ever have to I think I'll probably adopt a historical approach, discussing the nature of money first, then the development of banking in different countries, so that the various functions of banks, and the structure of their balance sheets, are clearly covered before introducing regulatory and reserve topics and discussing the monetary implications of banking. (This ordering is somewhat similar to the one Mishkin uses in the reference I cite, though I'd almost certainly add more historical discussion.)
Finally, I'm afraid I've had to point out an error in your understanding of bank deposits in a later contribution you made. There is a great deal of popular misunderstanding of what a bank deposit is, but the legal and economic position (as mentioned in our article on bank deposits) has been well established for a long time: placing your money on deposit with a bank converts the depositor's asset from cash to a particular kind of claim on the bank. This is not the same as making the bank a loan, as the nature of the asset that is created is different from a loan both legally and economically, as the claim is, in the first place, on the banking business as a portfolio of assets and liabilities, rather than on the organisation that is managing this business. A loan made to the bank does not have this claim on the portfolio of assets and liabilities, but is a claim on the organisation that is managing the portfolio. (In practice this rather nice distinction can be blurred, which is part of why we sometimes have problems with badly run banks!) RomanSpa (talk) 18:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I said. What I said was that a banking deposit is "a particular kind of claim on the bank", and then remarked that it is a claim "on the banking business as a portfolio of assets and liabilities, rather than on the organisation that is managing this business". It's not a claim on the portfolio, but on the business that the portfolio is (I think, on re-reading, I should probably have said "liability of" rather than "claim on", but the point is pretty much the same either way, at least so long as we don't get any lawyers involved!); this business (which is run by the bank as a whole) is inextricable from the bank that contains it, so you can't create a separate claim just on the portfolio - your claim as a depositor is on the bank as a whole, and the laws in many countries are very careful about this. The business is entirely notional - an economic fiction that remains a fiction except in certain special cases, one of which I shall shortly mention (and this is the bit that should matter to people who invest in banks) - but is, to the trained eye, clearly visible within the overall bank. During a bank restructuring this portfolio of loans and deposits may be sliced out of the ailing institution and transferred into a healthy one. The loans become assets of the healthy institution, and the deposits become liabilities of the healthy institution too. Meanwhile, loans made to the ailing bank remain among its liabilities, along with its common and preferred stock. These are paid off during a bankruptcy from any proceeds available as the assets of the failing bank are liquidated, according to the normal hierarchy of creditors. All of this creates a system in which it is very rare for bank deposits to be eroded during a bank reconstruction (under Chapter 11 if you're in the USA).
Finally, I should note that my remarks here are made not from a legal point of view, but from an economic one. I should also say that I've simplified things quite a lot here, but I hope the general point is clear. RomanSpa (talk) 18:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For absolute clarity, I'm also going to note that I'm aware of a weakness in what I've just said. Because this weakness shouldn't affect your understanding of the point I'm trying to make, I'm going to mention this just for completeness, and hope that you don't get me into an academic debate on the subject, because I don't have a clear answer (yet). As you know, the loan portfolio is a set of assets balanced by a corresponding set of liabilities, some of which may be deposits, some of which may be general funds of the firm, and some of which may be paid-in equity or other security issuance. During a bank restructuring, the bits that are "sliced out" may not balance assets perfectly against liabilities, and a payment between the ailing bank and the healthy bank may be included in the transaction that transfers the balance sheet items. It's a moot point whether the portfolio of loans and deposits alone constitutes the business, or whether the capital required to support the portfolio also forms part of the business. It's not obvious to me (and so, I suppose, to other people who care about such things) where that part of the portfolio boundary is. The issue is, ultimately, to do with the internal information flows inside the organisation and how these affect flows of risk and capital. Anyway, although there is thus a slight blurring of what constitutes the "notional" business, I hope the main point is clear enough. Please let me know if you need more information. RomanSpa (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@RomanSpa: Thanks, very informative. Business qua portfolio, in contrast to business qua organizational membership... these distinctions are murky indeed. I suppose corporate personhood could even come in to play at some point in the legalities, but I for one do not think a portfolio should have the full rights of a human citizen! But that's rather far from where we started, and I think I'm good for now, thanks for clarifying. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As you mentioned in the reference desk. I rather cringe when i hear/read this though. The strength of a wikipedia page comes from its sources. If the sources are reliable then that particular page is reliable. If one cannot discriminate between what is more likely true than what is less likely true on wikipedia how can someone more or less expect that they can do that anywhere else? I think that wikipedia is a great tool for helping to educate people on how to conduct research to begin with. Wikipedia has come a loooong way since its early days (when trolls rulled the land). I think that in general wikipedia is a very reliable source. I can take a page like Albert Einstein and just quote all the sources and no one would know it came from wikipedia unless I included that. (a research paper for school for example). Im not advocating plagurism but I hope you get the idea.Agent of the nine (talk) 20:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Agent of the nine: I encourage you to read that essay carefully. WP is a great resource. It is an amazing resource. It is additionally useful, helpful, unprecedented, and perhaps even world changing! I love it, that's why I volunteer my time here to improve articles and direct people to resources that can help answer their questions. But none of that makes it reliable, not in WP's own terminology. The scientific theory article is a great example. That's actually a pretty good article. And it's useful for many purposes. But the definition is presented too simplistically, and it makes it seem that all theories are generally accepted as true explanations of the world, and that is not the case, as is demonstrated by the phlogiston theory. And that example is confusing, but there are also many many inaccuracies and outright incorrect statements on WP -- I know because I've fixed a few. Some are accidental, some are malicious, some will be soon fixed, but others linger. Another thing to remember is WP is always a work in progress. A true scholar should evaluate the reliability of every source. That is why I keep directing you to the SEP. That article is written by highly esteemed professional philosophers of science, who we know are educated, trained, credentialed and accepted in that community. Likewise, textbooks are vetted by editors and publishers, and academic journal articles go through peer review to help ensure that correct information is presented. That is part of why they are WP:RS. In contrast, WP is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. I can assert to you that I'm a professional scientist, with over a hundred citations in peer-reviewed journals to my academic articles, and a PhD in math, and maybe that will help convince you that I know what I'm talking about. But I'm not going to bother to prove that to you, and you can't really be sure that I'm not making that stuff up :) While we attempt to distill our reliable sources into good articles, sometimes that gets messed up. If you read the entirety of the SEP article on scientific theory, you will see that it does not support the sentence which cites it in our article! I don't know how that happened. But it will just sit there wrong until someone notices and has the time and energy to fix it. And even then, some well-intentioned editors may resist the change, and revert. And maybe it's not even wrong. Maybe some RS do reserve "theory" for widely accepted theories, and would instead say that we should rename the Phlogiston theory to "the former Phlogiston theory" or something else! So then we'd have to do a whole re-write, explaining several different notions of what a scientific theory is, and then it might make the article less useful for the casual reader.
For 99% of lay use, the issue of reliability may not matter. And surely using WP's sources to cite in papers is a great idea - but you have to make sure that you read and understand them yourself, and don't depend on what WP says they say. If my life depended on it, I would not trust anything on WP, unless somehow I had no other sources available at all, and hence no choice. So no, WP is not reliable. But that doesn't mean it isn't great. Cheers, SemanticMantis (talk) 21:45, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Agent of the nine: I see that you recently deleted this section. When I undid your deletion, you then deleted your last comment. This may have been some mistake or accident, but please do not modify the contents of my talk page, or at least limit such modifications to your own comments if you feel the strong need to redact or change something. Actually, I have been continuing to think of this issue, and I think perhaps myself and others at the ref desk got a little caught up in the idea that obsolete scientific theory are still "theories" - However, after further reflection I now agree that it is perfectly reasonable to keep "well-substantiated explanation" as a key part of the definition of scientific theory - if one wants to bicker about "phlogiston theory is a scientific theory" and similar, it can be easily pointed out that those are now obsolete, and it wouldn't even be that bad of a habit to specify "the obsolete phlogiston theory" or "the obsolete luminiferous aether theory" to clarify when necessary. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Widneymanor:You mean the blue eyes puzzle here [15]? The solution is here [16]. But before you read it you should make sure you've tried! It is very important that every person is perfectly rational and good at logic too. Think of it as an island of logicians - if anything can be logically deduced, it will be logically deduced. That's what is sort of like the puzzle you gave and the Cheryl's birthday puzzle - in both cases, the "now I know the answer" is a pretty quick logical conclusion that many of us would not have been so quick to make. Enjoy, SemanticMantis (talk) 13:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Princess Mononoke you recently mentioned in a reference desk post. I thought that the god creature of life/death was never killed? They cut off its head but its body/head were always alive then they reconnected together? When it did die I thought it sacrificed itself so technically no human killed it? Void burn (talk) 21:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't strictly saying that a god was killed in the movie, only that the business of humans killing gods reminded me of it, and that there may be stories of Kami that have been killed by humans. I think you're basically right about they movie, but it's been a while since I've seen it. Also there might be room to consider the god to have been killed but then resurrected. I suppose I should watch it again :) SemanticMantis (talk) 21:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just skimmed over the plot on our WP page and triggered some memories. The god did die in the end but it seems it possibly sacrificed itself to heal the land because the god felt the human boy had redeeming qualities and maybe humankind wasn't completely doomed after all. =D Void burn (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not just bringing this up just because you're the one who has had to wrangle him the most this week, but rather because I'm just hitting a breaking point in what I view as a complete disregard for policy and the explicit purposes of the Ref Desks; I'm about to propose that StuRat be topic banned from the desks, or at least the science desk. Without exaggeration, he has been asked, on a more or less daily basis over the course of several years now, to cease in speculating wildly on virtually every thread posted there, the vast majority of which he clearly does not have the requisite knowledge to be commenting on (and almost all of which he fails to provide and kind of sourcing for as he goes on what can only be accurately described as fishing expeditions). His refusal to even pay lip service to WP:V and WP:NOTAFORUM has lead to who knows how much confusion for the people who seek references and verifiable answers to the questions they inquire on there--and, conservatively, he has cost us thousands of editor hours in posts that the other volunteers at the desks have had to compose in order to reign in and correct his generally half-cocked (and more-often-than-not thoroughly incorrect) suppositions, lest they be taken for empirical truth by our OP's.
After scores of attempts to impress upon him how inappropriate this all is (I'm sure the total between all of the regulars there with regard to such requests is in the hundreds) I'm done giving him chances to conform to policy and the local consensus on how the desks are meant to be approached. I don't know if the best methodology is to open a discussion on the Ref Desk talk page and invite admin oversight or to take the issue to ANI, but I'm certain I'm going to push on this in the coming month. I hate to do it, because it's going to open a huge can of worms and lead to increased scrutiny on the desks, including formal rules that we shouldn't need in order to stay on target, but he is living proof of the fact that we may in fact need such explicit rules anyway, even though almost every other regular is capable of balancing informal answers with the notion that what we say should be balanced against what we know can be verified even though we are tolerant of not always requiring it. It's just so frustrating that any one of us should have to contemplate this because one guy cannot control his impulses and understand the fundamental fact that he is not on an open forum that allows him to make patch-work best guesses on any topic so he can play polymath...
I'm a little embarrassed that I lost my cool with him over the past few days - I try to be civil but my engaging him on a few topics recently was probably unnecessary. This is one of those cases where maybe I should have walked away.
I think he often deserves trouting and chastisement - sometimes by me, sometimes by others. This is part of informal community management.
I don't know that topic banning is necessary
Such a ban would be hard to get, and lots of other old (and very bitter!) disputes would also come up
Such a process may indeed make the ref desks worse, at least for a while
I suggest you not start into any formal process right away - that might be my main point. Time is not of the essence
If you must act, start making your own private archive of his bad behavior. You could present it to him, or eventually to a formal process, or just feel better knowing that you have ammo.
Stu is actually very good at being civil and polite, even if he doesn't necessarily "get it" - for this and my first two points above, I might actually be sad to see him go. I would be much prefer if he would just be a better version of himself (as I guess we all should be ;)
I think I'll put up this cartoon next to my computer [17], to help remind me to just ignore some of the nonsense (not just from Stu) that goes on around here.
I'm traveling for a long weekend, I'll be happy to discuss more next week.
Basically, I agree with a lot of what you say, and I will certainly admit that Stu and others bug me sometimes with this sort of behavior, but I also don't like lots of rules-based debates and wiki-cop enforcement. I'd like to think that Stu is sometimes helpful, sometimes way off base, but usually Mostly Harmless. Cheers, SemanticMantis (talk) 13:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you make a lot of salient points. Personally I continue to feel that Stu's cost-benefit value represents a poor return, though I share your impression that he is generally very civil, even when being called out, which does count for a lot with me. I suppose ultimately the damage done to the desks (and our freedom of operation with regard to our unique role on the project) would not be justified even by the reduction in editor hours necessary to steer threads away from Stu's digressions. Certainly that is what has forestalled me in the past, and perhaps I should continue to keep those risks foremost in mind now. And honestly, receiving this particular opinion on this particular topic from you carries weight; of all Ref desk regulars, I feel your responses most conform to the standard we ought to be following with regard to sourcing and verifiability and I think we generally see eye to eye on these matters and on how to respond to a given thread.
Alright, I'll table this notion for a couple of months. Certainly no need to archive Stu's responses though; I could find 400 of the kind of post I would need to underscore these matters in a matter of hours, just by plugging his name into the archive search engine. Honestly, I've never said this before, but this would be a lot easier if he was also uncivil, so I didn't have mixed feelings about proposing a ban...
I have noticed (I am rather new) that the preponderance of claptrap on the WP reference desk is disturbingly high. Having read the "rules" it seems that they are largely if not wholeheartedly unenforced. People like to "chit chat" without posting any REFERENCES... My personal 2 cents.. WP is great and has a lot of amazing articles (with only a little claptrap here and there to which wikipedian's clean up rather nicely) however the reference desk is embarrassing at times.. It seems almost certain that an orthodox librarian researcher is an order of magnitude more useful/accurate than the WP reference desk. I don't think it's fair to pick on Sturat though. Void burn (talk) 05:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Meaning no animosity Void, but as you say, you are new. I didn't pick Stu to make an example of for the sake of broader principle. My description of the prevalence with which he indulges in these behaviours is not an exaggeration. I'm talking about many hundreds of occasions of supplying speculative and often misleading responses. On any given day, yes, there's some rough guessing and divergence away from this or that OP question, but almost every regular produces many more sourceable responses than speculation. The general rule of thumb for what is accepted on the Ref desks without qualms is that you don't necessarily have to source every little part of every answer (though it is preferred if you do, through a combination of external and internal links), but you should only omit these links when you know for a fact that they are sourceable with the same kind of legitimate refs that satisfy WP:V elsewhere on the project. In other words, no guesswork/WP:OR. That's the principle that I feel Stu ignores more frequently than any other ten regulars combined. And, (again, meaning no offense) but I'm a little dubious of your ability to differentiate hard science from what you regard as "claptrap" after your comment here where you chimed in on a comment pertaining a field of study you don't seem to have even basic understanding of and apparently without looking at the link involved. (If you feel that is an unfair characterization and that it necessitates a response, spare SM's talk page and reply on mine instead). Anyway, I'm won over by SM's pragmatism for now. I'm gonna wait on calling for Stu's behaviours to be examined, though I dare say these are issues(with regard to the desks at large) that we will have to tackle on the talk page eventually. Snowlet's rap09:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nil Einne: Thanks! I can see how I missed the http:// but I have no idea how that 801 got in there! In the future if you care to help with similar fixes on my links, no need to notify me :) SemanticMantis (talk) 17:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I was trying to avoid yet another overlong discussion, per TRM at talk, repeatedly, which is why I simply erased the question. I suppose I could have said obvious trolling is obvious, but the less the better when dealing with this. As for the question, the specific mention of the underage subject is obviously out of line and intentionally provocative, but the linguistic premise was also simply false. μηδείς (talk) 00:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Avoiding discussion is not the wiki way, we run by WP:CONSENSUS as you know. The fact that you think it's obvious trolling doesn't mean it is real trolling. And even if is, WP:AGF at first. What also works (better IMO) is just ignoring the questions that you think are trollish. I also think it would be good anti feeding if you had just ignored anything provacative and just given an explanation of the false premise as you did here (ideally with refs). That way we learn something, and troll is not fed. Linguistics and names of taboo concepts and social class are actually very interesting to me, and I suspect you'd agree. Oh well, I won't bother to restore this one, and I guess I'll just revert next time I see a deletion that I think is unjustified, sticking to WP:BRD as has also been well recommended at the talk page. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RD/S reply, cause you might've never seen it before it got archived
Bottom panel: Seasonal cycle in atmospheric CO2 is driven by terrestrial NPP in the northern hemisphere. This is very interesting stuff! However, I don't have much time today to give a full account. You can ping me next week if you want more refs. First, plants age through senescence. Most grasses and deciduous trees do retranslocation. Sadly we don't seem to have a good WP article, see e.g. these research articles [19][20][21]. What this means is that much of the N and other nutrients is pulled out of the leaves before they fall or die back. This also applies to most annual weeds, and retranslocation starts to happen well before first frost.
Better graph showing how NPP draws down atmospheric CO2. In this case for Harvard Forest, peak biomass should occur sometime in June.The timing is always a bit of a guessing game, and many ruderal plants have indeterminate growth. Plants take cues from photoperiod, temperature, moisture, and even the color of light to "decide" when to do certain things like germinate, set seed, senesce, etc. So sometimes a freak early frost will kill green plants, and sometimes if the frost comes late there will be a few plants that took the risks to hang on longer. The study of plant phenology is vast and currently fairly in vogue, in part because climate change is mucking things up, and when plants and animals follow different cues events that used to match up no longer coincide, and lots of things die. Identifying exactly which cues which plants and animals use is tough, and there's almost always considerable variability within species. As an anecdote, I worked at a lab once where they studied Carduus as a model species. The plants are described as facultative biennials or short-lived perennials. They normally set seed in the fall, form rosettes, over winter, then bolt the next year, if they have the right amounts of light, water, and nutrients. But in odd conditions, they can live for over 12 years!
Now, as for plant volume - that will be hard to find - most systems ecology discusses things in terms of dry biomass. Converting to and from wet biomass isn't too hard, but allometry means it's very hard to go from biomass to volume, even within one species. Also, due to the retranslocation, biomass of a deciduous forest doesn't fluctuate as much as you might think [22].
What does vary quite a bit is Net primary productivity. For example, the seasonal carbon flux to the terrestrial carbon sink is highly dominated by northern hemisphere forests. So when you look at the seasonal cycle in CO2, what you're seeing is the effect of plant growth drawing it down in North American spring. I can't see an isolated graph of this on WP but see the bottom panel of fig1 in Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere. So in much of the USA and Europe, plant growth is fastest when the slope of atmospheric CO2 is the most negative, and the highest biomass will tend to be when the CO2 value bottoms out for the year. There's of course a lot more going on, but this is the basics of how plant growth and seasonality work out.
If you have a specific region of the world in mind, then you can get local NPP estimates through the Ameriflux and Fluxnet projects, and you can also get local phenological info through a phenology network. Here is the website for the USA national network [23], I believe there are analogs for other regions. Hope that helps, SemanticMantis (talk) 15:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)(ETA: found a better graph at ecosystem ecology.)[reply]
I guess net primary productivity isn't that bad a proxy. (Thanks, I would've never guessed it'd be called that though I've thought of the concept before. Maybe it was in my schoolbook — it sounds familiar) I Googled the term and found this interesting time series. Strangely, much rain forest appears to be accumulating carbon every month even though it can't get taller forever. Is this a temporary imbalance that would end when the forest reaches a new height equilibrium some time after CO2 reaches equilibrium? Or is most of the extra carbon just being added to soil (which maybe ends up in the sea as rainforests have poor soil and much erosion?)?
Harvard Forest is pretty much the region I was thinking of so I think you covered all bases with your nice reply. I'm sure this only works (approximately) though because Massachusetts' latitude is coincidentally not far from that of the average non-tropical carbon sink that's in the hemisphere with more forests (the Southern Hemisphere would just take the edge off the peaks and troughs). Maybe it's June cause the Southern animals hadn't breathed in winter much yet, especially since it takes some time for their CO2 to get here? The Northern Hemisphere would be getting maximum isolation then so it's not surprising that June's the trough.
Apparently my guess was right then that many weeds where a lawnmower passed within the last few years have indeterminate growth limits, though I didn't know they were called ruderal. This was the kind of weed I was thinking of most. If I wasn't a city boy I probably would've done enough "hiking" in power line right-of-ways to know that already. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the fact I live in an overcrowded house share with little privacy, I haven't been able to masturbate for nearly a month. So my question is, is there a socially acceptable place where I can do what I need to do. Public toilets gross me out and doing it in there would feel wretched. Finding some woods or quiet area is risky as hell, although is better that public loos.
Any ideas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.241.130.120 (talk) 17:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you're asking me on my talk page. Perhaps you think the question would be erased as trolling at the ref desk? It is my opinion that most of us could use more time hiking outdoors. There's nothing quite like the solitude of knowing that you're the only human within miles. If you are in the USA, check out large state parks, national forests, and state/national wilderness areas. You might find that getting to be alone in nature helps with the difficulties that come with living in a crowded environment. But that's just a general suggestion, not really an answer to your question. You might have better luck asking this question at FetLife or a similar forum for discussing sexuality. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey I just skimmed the comments and will reply to each of them on the ref page, but I just wanted to say thanks for being extremely helpful! Adwctam (talk) 04:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for you kind offer to welcome me back on the talk page today.
By shear chance I decided to look at a few talk pages and see what you are all up to. I don't intend to come back, because I see little or no point. The Ref desk is just as anarchic as ever. Even if the admin revoke the ban, I rather think ceratin people will still enforce it, or request it be re-instated.
It is unfortunate that Wikipedia now seems pestered by false Wickwacks. I don't know their intent but it cannot be good. Unfortunately all the discussion has left Wikipedai open to such games. Ceratinly not my intention - I find it dismaying.
Well the potential point of coming back would be to help people, learn things, and maybe have fun. That's why I participate at the ref desk. Sure, there are some annoying bits, but such is life. If you do decide to register, I'll look forward to your contributions, and I do believe that if you follow our guidelines you won't be blocked again. You were blocked for trying to appear to be separate users, and it's pretty easy to not do that in the future, I'd think. Cheers, SemanticMantis (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, my motivation was to help OP's asking question too. But it gets pretty pointless when others (it was always a persistent few) post on what they clearly have no knowleged of, and other turn it into a debate, rather than helping the OP. That's why I wan't bothered by the ban - it was time to give it away anyway.
I repeat, if you check the words written about me, and look at the people who drive the ban, yes, its definitely the case that the alias bit was just the excuse. The real reason is that they wanted Ref Desk for themselves, and didn't like my factual posts showing them up. A bit like dealing with Al Capone on minor tax evasion instead of all the murders he allegedly ordered perhaps. And many looked at the changing IP address (which I have no control over) as some sort of evil plot on my behalf.
So, yes, whil it may be easy to register and/or always use the same name (I only ever used two names anyway - and it surely was obvious what teh two names signified, I don't intend to come back.
I contribute to a couple of other Q&A forums without causing so much fuss and bother. But they have a good moderating system in place, unlike Wikipedia. diyAudio has a system that your first 5 posts are not automatically placed, they are vetted by a moderator. That is quite effective at keeping out trolls. But some occasionally get though and other measures are there to deal with them.
After deleting comments from my talk page without warning or comment, this user removes my good-faith questions on the matter from his talk page [24], then accusses me of harassment or abetting harassers or something [25]. Then again, I did imply that he was troll feeding by messing with my talk page and forcing me to ask him about it. I replied by telling him his behavior is inconsistent, and I think against policy, and that we should probably just not talk [26]. If by chance he wants to stalk my page and delete these factual notes to myself, I can only conclude that he is harassing me, and may well have to take further action. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I take it you've been watching my posts on another users talk page? I have no interest in joining into any campaign or WP:POINTY behavior (which your repost request sounds lik), and will not be reposting anything at the moment. If you happen to be the same person who posted now-removed comments on my page recently, I do think that was unnecessary rabble rousing, and I probably would have just boxed it up and ignored it. I share your skepticism and frustration about when some users claim "this IP is clearly a 100% the same human who operated a banned user account and don't question why I'm so sure because that is feeding the trolls."
I strive to AGF, and push I do back a little on what I see as over reach in the name of troll fighting, but I really don't have any desire to further embroil myself in any disputes with any specific users, whether they be socks, admins, blocked, or good faith contributors. And I almost certainly will not be reporting anything to ANI. For one, the time needed to build a strong case against anyone is far too much, and even well-supported claims with evidence often lead to no resolution there, as far as I can tell. I do occasionally post a comment at ANI if an incident involves a user known to me and I am somehow notified of the ANI proceedings. As you can see by my history, I only make small edits to mainspace, and spend most of my time on the ref desk. The only reason I started talking about the business above is because I don't like the long-term semi-protection of the ref desks, as I see that as disruptive to the aim of the ref desks. Also, this kind of drama is very draining, and I must get back to my paid work ;) Cheers, SemanticMantis (talk) 19:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, he's at it again [27]. Seriously dude, you are not defending WP against the mighty trolls, you are only annoying me. I implore you, please stop patrolling my talk page, and if you can't resist reading it, please stop removing comments.. I don't care if you think an IP is a banned user. You do not get to be sole judge, jury, and executioner, even if you are an admin. I imaging many, many people could have typed that post. You seem to be making WP:POINTY edits and removals here, and you cannot make a consensus on your own. If you feel so strongly that my page has posts from a banned user, and that removing it is the best use of your time, seek a WP:CONSENSUS first, that's how we operate. This is not the first time this type of action on your part has been problematic. Please take the hint. Seriously, go back to doing whatever else you did before, try to make WP better, and try to AGF. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
