Boo, my Askme question was deleted.

August 9, 2006 11:57 AM

Boo, my Askme question was deleted. I'm disappointed, because I did mean the question seriously-- I was actually hoping to get some scientific information/insight into radioactive half-lives, heavy-metal contamination, global warming, etc. Was the tone too flippant? Could I have phrased it better?
posted by jokeefe to Etiquette/Policy at 11:57 AM (62 comments total)

I'm actually surprised this got deleted. It sounded like you were doing research for a short story of your own or some such. In fact, from now on that's my advice for keeping this sort of question from being deleted: just say you're doing research for your writing. If you specify that in the post, anything goes.
posted by voltairemodern at 12:00 PM on August 9, 2006

Or include zombies.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 12:01 PM on August 9, 2006

I'm writing a short story about zombies... How many of them would it take to screw in a lightbulb?
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 12:05 PM on August 9, 2006

The opening was a big distraction and makes the whole question seem flippant and stupid.
posted by cillit bang at 12:05 PM on August 9, 2006

"I'm writing a short story about zombies... How many of them would it take to screw in a lightbulb?"

Just two, but how the fuck would you get them in there?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 12:07 PM on August 9, 2006

How do I dispose of a dead zombie corpse after a bitter breakup?
posted by dios at 12:08 PM on August 9, 2006 [1 favorite]

The opening was a big distraction and makes the whole question seem flippant and stupid.

Okay, I guess that's one vote for "don't try and make the question entertaining..."
posted by jokeefe at 12:08 PM on August 9, 2006

I'm sorry cilllit bang thinks so; I, personally (and fairly obviously) got that you were working on the story, and I liked your lede.

Comments from On High?
posted by baylink at 12:10 PM on August 9, 2006

dios, isn't "dead zombie corpse" a bit redundant?

Sigh. I guess I should take my apocalyptic fantasies off to the library instead, or something.
posted by jokeefe at 12:10 PM on August 9, 2006

Never try and make AskMefi entertaining. It's not supposed to be entertaining. It's supposed to be helpful. Think of it as an encyclopedia rather than a pulp magazine.
posted by Roger Dodger at 12:11 PM on August 9, 2006

Never try and make AskMefi entertaining. It's not supposed to be entertaining. It's supposed to be helpful.

Noted.
posted by jokeefe at 12:12 PM on August 9, 2006

Or, at the very least, don't lead with the funny. Lead with the question, and stow the hilarity inside if you need to.
posted by cortex at 12:14 PM on August 9, 2006

Yes it was flippant, yes you could have phrased it better.
posted by bob sarabia at 12:15 PM on August 9, 2006

I don't understand how people have the most chatty openings ever then wonder why they get called out for chatfilter. If it's a legitimate question, phrase it like one.
posted by absalom at 12:18 PM on August 9, 2006

I was actually hoping to get some scientific information/insight into radioactive half-lives, heavy-metal contamination, global warming, etc.

Well..the only part of your question which mentions that was stuck on at the end, almost as if it was an afterthought.

As it is, I read "Say I'm a mad scientist..." and thought, oh this is one of those kooky zombie questions not a serious scientific question and moved on. The tone of your question will set the tone (and quality) of your responses.
posted by vacapinta at 12:19 PM on August 9, 2006

Perhaps I should re-ask it. It looked entertaining.
posted by blacklite at 12:20 PM on August 9, 2006

BOO! It was a perfecly good legit question. Answered with math and SCIENCE!

Not chatty at all, as it dealt with chemistry, biology, ecology and physics.

I vote for reinstatement and a voluntary time out for the admin that deleted it.
posted by sourwookie at 12:23 PM on August 9, 2006

Can I have a do over, with flippancy and mad scientist references removed?
posted by jokeefe at 12:26 PM on August 9, 2006

I vote for reinstatement and a voluntary time out for the admin that deleted it.

you say that because you think it was me, but I have some bad news for you....
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 12:26 PM on August 9, 2006

Hey! And why did the obviously hypothetical super-chatty question about zombie muscles get sidebarred? If anything qualified as pointless chatfilter, that did.

I call shenannigans.
posted by sourwookie at 12:27 PM on August 9, 2006

Can I have a do over...?

Yes, in seven days.
posted by ArsncHeart at 12:34 PM on August 9, 2006

obviously hypothetical super-chatty question about zombie muscles

If you think that question was simply hypothetical then you, sir, are liable to be woefully unprepared for the coming zombie apocalypse. Don't come running to MY fortified bunker for shelter when your family starts trying to eat your BRAAIIIIIINNNNSSS.
posted by dersins at 12:34 PM on August 9, 2006

Anyone hoping to eat my brains will be sorely disappointed.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 12:36 PM on August 9, 2006

I DEMAND perfect consistency in the moderation of this site.
posted by LarryC at 12:41 PM on August 9, 2006

Ahhh, zombie questions.
posted by Ryvar at 12:47 PM on August 9, 2006

But the zombie thread was good.
posted by geoff. at 12:47 PM on August 9, 2006

You've seen Shaun of the Dead, right?
posted by baylink at 2:18 PM EST on August 9 [+fave] [!]


No! Who's it by?
posted by jokeefe at 2:20 PM EST on August 9 [+fave] [!]


Tom Clancy.
posted by Smart Dalek at 12:47 PM on August 9, 2006

Do zombies vote?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 12:53 PM on August 9, 2006

Yeah - they give thumbs down... on the ground... back there, somewhere...
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 12:55 PM on August 9, 2006

Only for Joe Lieberman.
posted by scody at 12:55 PM on August 9, 2006

I think there's a marked bias in favour of zombies here on Metafilter. It's scandalous, really.
posted by jokeefe at 12:59 PM on August 9, 2006

Zombies and fighting grizzly bears, that is.
posted by jokeefe at 12:59 PM on August 9, 2006

You forgot the five-year-olds.
posted by dame at 1:02 PM on August 9, 2006

I think there's a marked bias in favour of zombies here on Metafilter. It's scandalous, really.

I blame the zombie media.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 1:04 PM on August 9, 2006

That's a geat answer for the zombie apocalypse: grizzly bear cavalry!
posted by bonehead at 1:09 PM on August 9, 2006

posted by monju_bosatsu at 1:14 PM on August 9, 2006

I guess this thread isn't going to do much in terms of making a case to undelete my question, is it? Dag.
posted by jokeefe at 1:15 PM on August 9, 2006

The biggest problem in that question is the assumption that eradicating humans would prevent an environmental collapse, whatever that is.
posted by mischief at 1:20 PM on August 9, 2006

An environmental collapse is when all the humans die.
posted by sonofsamiam at 1:25 PM on August 9, 2006

... or evolve into their next phase of being?
posted by mischief at 1:26 PM on August 9, 2006

Back to the zombies, are we?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 1:28 PM on August 9, 2006

Keep me out of this. :(
posted by boo_radley at 1:37 PM on August 9, 2006

The environment dosn't care about what we do. Some animals may prosper under humanity, others may die off. If we left, the reverse could happen.
posted by delmoi at 3:39 PM on August 9, 2006

How many 5-year-old zombies would it take to bring down a grizzly bear in the tenth dimension?
posted by yeti at 3:40 PM on August 9, 2006

@ yeti: 2.71828 ^ i
posted by mischief at 4:16 PM on August 9, 2006

"Never try and make AskMefi entertaining. It's not supposed to be entertaining. It's supposed to be helpful. Think of it as an encyclopedia rather than a pulp magazine.
posted by Roger Dodger at 12:11 PM PST on August 9 [+] [!]"

How could anything from joke efe not be entertaining?
posted by Cranberry at 4:24 PM on August 9, 2006

I guess this thread isn't going to do much in terms of making a case to undelete my question, is it? Dag.

Sometimes the degeneration into joke images comes too fast..

I think you're right though, the question should have been fine..
posted by Chuckles at 4:26 PM on August 9, 2006

I demand that I may or may not be Majikthise!
posted by baylink at 4:40 PM on August 9, 2006

How could anything from joke efe not be entertaining?

I knew I'd regret choosing that username... it's just my first initial and my last name. Oh well.
posted by jokeefe at 4:56 PM on August 9, 2006

Man, these "hypothetical chatfilter" deletions are getting really stupid.
posted by scarabic at 5:56 PM on August 9, 2006

One to screw it in, one to organize the potluck, and three to make a documentary film about it.
posted by Aghast. at 6:42 PM on August 9, 2006

Perhaps some phrasing guidelines on the posting page (or a link to same) might help with the poorly-worded questions.

Just stuff like, try to keep questions short, clear and to the point, avoid jokey introductions, explain what the purpose of the question is, so on and so forth.
posted by MetaMonkey at 7:27 PM on August 9, 2006

The biggest problem in that question is the assumption that eradicating humans would prevent an environmental collapse, whatever that is.

Actually, I wasn't assuming that.... I was asking how long it would take the global environment to recover if human beings vanished from the equation. I would imagine that things would get worse for a number of decades, as contaminants and pollutants kept leaching into groundwater, and so on; also we're always being told that climate change is an accelerating process that would continue even if fossil fuel burning stopped tomorrow. But for how long would it continue under such circumstances, before the effect of all that extra carbon began to fall off? That's partly what I was wondering.

*pitches for undeletion one more time*
posted by jokeefe at 7:39 PM on August 9, 2006

I second the vote for reinstatement and a voluntary time out for the admin who actually deleted it.
posted by homunculus at 9:15 PM on August 9, 2006

wow, what an awful deletion.
posted by moonbird at 9:24 PM on August 9, 2006

So, you weren't assuming that getting rid of humans would prevent an environmental collapse, you just want to know how long it will take to completely recover once we're gone, even if it gets a little bit worse first?

Yea, I think you're assuming that it won't ALL BE DESTROYED IN AN ENVIRONMENTAL COLLAPSE if we disappear.

But aside from that, the original question sounded dumb - I stopped reading at 'engineer a pandemic' when I saw it. However, I will be very interested in the discussion of this version, next week. Waiting a week is the (reasonable, IMHO) price exacted for asking it badly.
posted by jacalata at 10:23 PM on August 9, 2006

Hey! I think sourwookie nailed it when he said tha---aw, fuck, forgot my sock puppet.

darn, that's the end.
posted by sourwookie at 12:45 AM on August 10, 2006

the original question sounded dumb

Yeah, I have to agree. Repost it in straightforward fashion after your week of reflection.

I second the vote for reinstatement and a voluntary time out for the admin who actually deleted it.

Oh for Christ's sake.
posted by languagehat at 5:37 AM on August 10, 2006

You're saying Jesus would have deleted it, too?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 8:56 AM on August 10, 2006

What Would Jesus Delete?
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 9:05 AM on August 10, 2006

If languagehat says it sounded dumb, then I humbly withdraw. (Note to self: never mess around jokingly with an Askme; it's counterproductive.)
posted by jokeefe at 10:33 AM on August 10, 2006

FWIW I thought this was a really dumb deletion.
posted by stinkycheese at 3:12 PM on August 10, 2006