User talk:Blooteuth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Hello, Blooteuth, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! RJFJR (talk) 19:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

No hard feelings?[edit]

Hi Blooteuth. I hope you didn't take my chiding on opinions personally. I have appreciated many of your contributions on the reference desks recently. I strive to avoid giving any opinions there, and I expect the same from all our volunteers. You are not alone, I have asked many other users to avoid opinion. If you see me offering what looks like opinion, I encourage you to say so, or post a [citation needed] etc. Happy referencing SemanticMantis (talk) 15:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@SemanticMantis the subject is suitable to discuss, ideally on this Talk page. In my opinion you do well in contributing references at the ref. desks but spoil that good example by attacks on other contributors (such as this criticism of me that lacks an edit summary) in a purist crusade against any opinion being expressed. That prejudice does no service to questioners and it's evident from your own Talk page that others are antagonized by your expressed intolerance. Blooteuth (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I only seek to encourage us all to follow our own guidelines. It is not an opinion desk, and not a forum, and I will not apologize for politely asking any user to not post opinions. You accuse me of an "attack", yet I made no attack on you, an certainly not in the bit you linked. See ad hominem and WP:NPA if you are unclear. I will happily admit that I politely asked you to not post your opinions.
Look, I don't want to fight with you, I came here to play nice. I've given up hope of getting some of our biggest problem users to avoid posting incorrect information and opinion, but I still try to encourage others to behave professionally on the reference desk. Cheers, SemanticMantis (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Crop improvement by selective breeding is, relative to initiatives such as vectored pesticides and gene modifications, an intrinsically slow process, acknowledged by the OP as gradual, over generation(s). The driver for this kind of evolutionary change is random mutation that is haphazard which means unpredictable or characterized by chance. As you claim here to be a mathematician you should understand my bold printed adjectives quantitively. This post by you at the Ref. desk is a blatant attack where you extract in scarequotes adjectives from my response to the OP. Your fatuous reasoning is that adjectives are opinions, and that you wish the Ref. desks to be sterilized of opinions. It's evident to me that your campaign, if pursued as you intend, is a trajectory of harassing other contributors and yet more disruptive bickering among Ref. desk responders. I want no part of that and, despite your intolerance, think that a lasting value of the Ref. desks is that readers are often helped here as much by well informed opinions as by formal references.
Please note in my Ref. desk contribution history a recent example where I posted a response and later withdrew it when it became clear that it was unhelpful to the OP. @SemanticMantis if you retract this post I shall be happy to reciprocate by withdrawing my retort about "poor tolerance of other informed opinions"[1] so that this exchange can be decently closed. Blooteuth (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I was not bothered in the slightest by your post, and see no reason for anyone to retract anything. As I said, I came here to play nice, and to tell you that I didn't mean any of my comments personally. You can accept that, or not. I see you've been rather active on the desks recently, and again I thank you for your good work. The reference desk is only as good as we make it, and it is clear that you know how to provide references, so I am happy to have you as part of our team. Cheers, SemanticMantis (talk) 19:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


Thank you for your proposal of a diplomatic solution on the topic of "offensive" or "trolling" questions on the reference desks [2]. However, rather than delete such evil content from our pages, I have instead chosen to inform the editors of Applied Microbiology that they have been the victims of a most unjust trolling, in particular in the preparation for Vol. 20, No. 5, 1970. While I am sure they thought they were publishing relevant research, it has come to my attention that they have in fact been duped into publishing a story about farts. I'm sure Kurtzman and Halbrook are laughing like naughty schoolboys to this day. I shall also be reporting them to the USDA, who apparently were tricked into employing these hooligans for several years ;) SemanticMantis (talk) 22:47, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

YW. The article you cited looks like bona fide research to me. 12:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Circuito chiuso[edit]

Sorry but I don't have it any more. --Viennese Waltz 11:44, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Indef block[edit]

You have been indef blocked as a sock of User:Cuddlyable3. Fram (talk) 12:58, 24 November 2017 (UTC)