Wikipedia talk:Don't stuff beans up your nose/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Misc

It's short, but says all that is needed. Omit needless words. — Xiong熊talk 06:28, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

I love it! Are you going to make WP:BEANS the shortcut? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:54, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes a very good lesson to learn. -- Francs2000 | Talk 16:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

As creative as this seems at first, I recall a song in the musical, The Fantasticks called "Never say no," (see link where one of the verses says, "Why did the kids put beans in their ears?// No one can hear with beans in their ears.// After a while the reason appears.// They did it cause we said no." As I have always said, There is nothing new under the sun MPS 01:20, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

How about merging this with Wikipedia:Words of wisdom? Ingoolemo ^talk 05:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

No! This is much too entertaining to merge anywhere, and plus we'd lose the WP:BEANS shortcut which is outstanding and makes a useful point. The page is fine as it is. -Splash^talk 13:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Other subsections of WOW have shortcuts all their own. We can still keep WP:BEANS. Ingoolemo ^talk 03:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't tempt me. I'm the kind of person if you put up a "DON"T TOUCH THE SCREEN" sign (actual event) I will because you've tempted me. If you don't want me doing it, please don't put a sign up saying not too. I'll probably leave it alone if you don't tell me not to. O.K.?-GangstaEB (at war)-21:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it.

People seem to be confusing this with "Spilling the Beans" in regards to certain capabilities (WP:OFFICE and WP:RFCU come to mind) that involve keeping information from users. Not quite the same thing imo. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ingoolemo, this is pointless as it stands, and reads more like an Uncyclopedia policy. Merge. \\Ollo87 20:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

No way! I like the BEANS shortcut as well. No merging here. ><Richard0612 ^UW 21:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy

Some people just do things because they're not supposed to. For example, when some stupid authority figure that you hate walks up behind you and starts relentlessly barking at you to walk out of the room, that just makes you walk even slower. Telling people not to do something gives them ideas. That's why my move log was once populated with WoW-style pagemoves. The LTA pages were deleted per WP:DENY, which, as previously stated, is an extension of this. Feh. ~ Flameviper 22:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the relevancy of this article after it was used towards me when I was concerned about alot of pages being vandalized that I reported at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection so they used this joke on me claiming I had no evidence. Although the pages I put up for petition had so much evidence of vandalism going back months. This is a ridiculous policy to insult people and shut down arguments claiming "You're making up stuff.". ViriiK 12:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Image

I am pretty sure this warning applies to dried beans, as baked or cooked beans don't stay and don't require a trip to the doctor's to get them removed. KP Botany 04:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I changed the picture to be of some lentils. Stebbins 15:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I have changed it, though, on the advice of the neighborhood mothers, to this image, and will find an on-line reference to make sure this is not seen as original research. KP Botany 20:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Discouraging the insertion of these beans to nasal passage may seem like a good policy, but may lead to unintended consequences when told to a person with a naive and adventurous mind.

I love this place. --Kizor 16:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

In an English class at high school, a teacher told a story about how she got a Tic-tac stuck up her nose. My friend had tic-tacs... 125.237.226.66 04:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Paragraph about articles

In the spirit of boldness, I've added the following paragraph to the page:

This rule applies only to meta-content such as project pages and talk pages, not to articles. Wikipedia is not censored for anyone's protection, and dangerous ideas in articles are covered by the risk disclaimer.

As far as I can tell, this reflects existing policies. I think I've seen WP:BEANS cited as a reason to suppress dangerous/stupid ideas from article content in at least one or two places, which probably means it's going on elsewhere as well, so I thought this clarification would be a good idea. Hopefully it won't disrupt the essay's pleasing brevity too much. (If you think it does, perhaps enclosing the paragraph in parentheses would help.) Feedback and changes are, of course, welcome. –Sommers ^(Talk) 15:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that several days ago, an anonymous user added the following (which was reverted) below the paragraph I added: "(In other words, the exercise of free speech is worth the risk of a user's suicide, but not the risk of wikipedia vandalism.)" In case this idea troubles anyone, I submit that suicide is serious enough that information about it should be indiscriminately available, while Wikipedia vandalism is not. –Sommers ^(Talk) 07:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, My impression when just seeing your disclaimer was OH MY GOD, HOW OUTTA PLACE... sorry. Glad to find it's a recent change.

To whom it may concern... on the Merge proposal. I'm deleting the merge templates, since you didn't follow the implied instructions and begin a {{merge}} discussion section starting with your rationale. If you don't state reasons how can anyone agree or disagree with you or them? // FrankB 19:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I was alarmed to find that the assertion that "WP:BEANS does not apply to articles" is being used to defend the placement of <!-- hidden instructions --> which often specify which types of vandalism would annoy us the most. — CharlotteWebb 12:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This is not a 'rule'. It does not have applicability regions. It's a caution, and nothing more. It is uncitable to all intents and purposes. If someone actively cites it at you, then club them over the head, gently, with the relevant actual policy. I've removed the paragraph about applicability as a result. I'm minded to ditch the templatecruft also. Splash - tk 15:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was actually aware of some of the problems with the word "rule"... but I used it anyway since I wanted to deliberately avoid using the terms "policy" and "guideline", since WP:BEANS, as an {{essay}}, is neither. I agree that "caution" certainly works better. However, I still think some mention ought to be made of the fact that WP:BEANS does not override the risk disclaimer when it comes to "dangerous" content in the main text of articles -- which excludes any kind of self-reference in the article namespace, including <!-- hidden instructions --> and templates, to which WP:BEANS would apply. –Sommers ^(Talk) 17:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Another self-defeating policy?

Clearly this page is just a thinly-veiled attempt to advertise a new Wikipedia policy, which would be something like

Do not tell people not to do a specific stupid thing.

Of course, telling people to do a specific stupid thing would then be declared a stupid thing, since it is against policy.

But then, telling people about the policy would violate it, and clearly this page should be removed as contradicting Wikipedia policy established by itself.

Kind of like WP:IAR.

RandomP 00:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:DENY is an extention of this page. Anomo 04:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

No, the policy says

Do not tell people not to do a specific stupid thing, if they did not do it.

Prophylactic is the key phrase here. So this telling people about the policy does not violate it, if these people violated it. 82.135.83.244 22:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I liked that summation so much I added it in slightly modified form as the "In a nutshell" bit on the top of the page. I hope nobody minds. -Toptomcat 19:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not a policy, nor a guideline, it just an essay. Although I've thought that it might be a good idea to pump it up to guideline status anyway. mike4ty4 00:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You have to wonder if having this essay here might actually encourage people to tell others not to do stupid things in anticipation of them then doing the stupid things. (Bagofants 11:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC))

Agreed it is pointless and stupid at the same time as it has an example of what it means by encouraging which has the same effect as encouraging. (ie they use said example) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.8.234 (talk) 09:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This essay is beansy

Until I read this article, the idea of using prophylactic admonition had not occurred to me, now I am tempted to use it all the time. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

That's akin to using a template to warn against WP:DTTR! xenocidic (talk) 04:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense

Apparently this ambiguous nonsense is now being used to defend withholding information identifying vandals. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The link to crash Wikipedia

I think the link should be removed according to WP:BEANS. --Ŵïllî§ï$2 (^Talk!/_Cont.) 15:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I think your comment should be removed according to WP:BEANS. - Face 17:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

What's your problem? --Ŵïllî§ï$2 (^Talk!/_Cont.) 22:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Your comment might persuade people to click on the link to destroy Wikipedia, which of course you should never do. - Face 16:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Eh oh, I think I just violated WP:BEANS myself :-(. Face 16:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Removing it will make it impossible to get to, so they can't get to it. -- Ŵïllî§ï$2 (^Talk!/_Cont.) 19:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm cornfused. This disscussion is one big break of WP:BEANS tlide, tlide, tlide, tlide 216.68.222.86 (talk) 21:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Just don't give them a link that could crash the whole 'Net. —SlamDiego_←T 01:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, we're never gunna give you that up. –xeno (talk) 01:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Guideline?

This essay is routinely cited as Good Thing To Read all over the place, and I can't think of a single situation in which it would be a good idea to stuff the beans up your nose. Make this a guideline? Moreschi ^Talk 10:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm opposed to making this a guideline because of the multitude of ways it can be accidentally violated by acting on the noblest of motives. I would hate to see a "violation" being used against someone in a dispute. Not all excellent essays should to be made into rules. ←Ben^B4 06:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It has happened more than zero times that a WP contributor has mockingly referred to something as a "beans violation" ... as a joke. Making this a "guideline" would detract from the credibility of the guidelines that people *should never* take as a joke. (This essay should be taken seriously also, but the essay title seems to make that difficult for some contributors). dr.ef.tymac 21:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course taking it "seriously" does not mean you must keep it a hard and fast rule that you cannot break without penalty -- it is far from such, there is no true penalty for a WP:BEANS "violation" as such. mike4ty4 (talk) 01:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

No. Just because something is really good advice, does not mean it will be a good rule. Violating WP:BEANS is its own penalty, no reason to enforce it. _(1 == 2)^Until 18:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

And of course, it need not be taken as seriously as those guidelines (i.e. less seriously than "*NEVER* take as a joke"). mike4ty4 (talk) 04:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

And also of course, just because something is funny doesn't mean it isn't also true. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 12:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Censorship

That's what this essay is used for. No, I don't think Wikipedia should hide any information from anyone just because people could use it to do harmful things. It goes against the essence of this project, which is to bring information to everyone, assuming they won't use all that information to destroy the world. I hope this never becomes a guideline nor anything more than an essay. A.Z. 21:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree totally. If people can do something, they may do it regardless of whether we mention it.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

This essay is totally pointless. Thats all I can really say about it. ʄ!•¿talk?

It has been useful in my experience. Just because there is a way for someone to cause a problem does not mean people actually do it. If you point these things out then suddenly everyone does it. This essay is advice on self restraint, censorship does not enter into it. It won't become a policy or guideline, it is just an essay. _(1 == 2)^Until 18:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Remember that this article only applies to communication between users, such as talk pages, rather than actual articles. Do not censor things in articles, just avoid telling people not to do something needlessly, especially if it is likely that they may do it simply because of what you said. Aeonoris (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Essay is Beansy Pt. 2

I suppose recommending this essay would make common sense if I assumed that every Editor was the Wikipedia equivalent of, "a [mischievous] little boy," with a latent nasal-legume fixation. Or if you can show me specific diffs where bean-stuffing harmed Wikipedia in a way that caused injury and/or wouldn't have otherwise happened without the beany advice.

I guess I'll have to muddle along and assume that most genuine editors are the developmental equivalent of adults attempting to build a encyclopedia. Instead of children playing with beans. And, in addition I know that there are the equivalent of thousands of bean-removal specialists constantly watching what's going up our collective nose. :D)

Just because I've known how to make a Molotov cocktail for twenty plus years doesn't mean that I ever have, or in ordinary circumstances ever would, do that. Not to mention that with the whole "don't click" link and imagery, this essay should either be tagged as humorous or edited, IMVHO. In fact, I think I'll just go and do the latter half of the last sentence now. Anyone want to say, "see, the essay's right???"  ;) LaughingVulcan 18:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Because, apparently, the developmental equivalent of adults attempting to build an encyclopaedia means to have had all the curiosity pre-sucked out of you. Of course we are playing with beans here! We have long divided our lives into work (including investment into family) and play. Who among us is getting paid to do this?

But sometimes, we might not have realised exactly which things are possible. These are things which others already know not to be a good idea, but which we might never have considered doing, had someone else not mentioned them. It has nothing whatsoever to do with age or maturity. It could be a completely normal frustrated reaction against all the other things which we are told not to do, forcing us into "extraordinary circumstances" to keep our sense of personal humanity alive. It could be simple experimentation (which our society claims to value). It could be as simple a thing as being told to be bold -- and then acting on it (but in a way unexpected by others).

Most common-sense arguments don't take into account that Wikipedia policies are not nearly as black and white as they seem to established editors. There is a large body of background experimentation and missteps hidden within those policies -- but most newcomers won't ever see that background. It takes net-historian savvy and a good deal of patience to be able to dig up any of it.

This means that most newcomers must take the canon interpretation of existing policies entirely on faith. Some are better at this than others. Natural leaders and true independent souls are often among those who are worse at this. Wikipedia may not be a democracy, but it is understood to be an evolving social structure around a communal project. Long-time editors understand why they say "Don't." Newcomers feel entirely justified in wondering "Why?" If the answers don't satisfy, don't be surprised if that "Why?" turns into action, however ill-advised from a more experienced pov.

And before anyone bots me again about the four tildes, I don't have a Wikipedia account -- deliberately. Among other things, it does leave me open to seeing what is otherwise taken so much for granted that it becomes invisible. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.29.87 (talk) 22:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused, do you want me to do it?

The whole article goes on about not telling people to not do a specific stupid thing, then one of the "Related articles" is "don't delete the main page". 86.140.207.100 (talk) 15:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how to answer that but, good point. --Skinips (talk) 05:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The funniest page I've seen on Wikipedia!

No, really, it is! Yet it gets the point across. Maxaxle (talk) 01:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'd have to agree. The article was cleverly set-up and well made. Even that I knew the Link that makes Wikipedia crash is fake, I couldn't resist clicking it. --Skinips (talk) 10:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I know. I LOLed after I clicked the link and saw the mushroom cloud. I guess Wikipedia has a good sense of humor! (I'm a new user.) Daniellef99 (talk) 17:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Counter-argument

The new "counter-argument" section is articulate and thought-provoking; but it seems, in my estimation, to miss the point of the argument it's trying to counter. I agree it's unlikely "that anonymous IP vandals are spending hours reading CAT:ESSAY essays on how to contribute to Wikipedia." I also agree that there should not "be any 'how-to' guides on inappropriate behaviour that state 'do not enter the following ten lines of HTML code...([code is provided]).... into the system or it will cause a spontaneous server implosion that will suck all of the Wikipedia database into a black hole of anti-matter'". But I don't think that WP:BEANS really was intended to guide the verbosity of other essays or of guidelines. Reactance really does occur, and its origins can be subtle. On here, the reactance needn't originate in some essay that nobody's going to read, or in some absurd admonishment that nobody's going to make. Rather, it can start with edit summaries such as, "Do not do X or you'll be blocked", or with invisible comments like, "Do not do Y or you'll be reverted." So, I think this "counter-argument" is, for the most part, a good essay in its own right; I think that some revised version of it might have a place amongst WP essays. But I don't think it's all that germane to the more plausible applications of this essay. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It is an inelegant addition that might be better off being an essay of its own. Шизомби (talk) 01:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This digression detracts from what was a pithy and useful little essay. I am so glad that I took a fresh look before directing someone's attention here, because I will certainly not do so now. Please take it somewhere else so that I can resume using this essay to make the point that it originally made so well. ~ Ningauble (talk) 00:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Moved text to Talk page for further discussion

Counter-argument

Efforts to purge books on certain topics from school and public libraries have a long history. Although there are far fewer attempts in the 2000s than in the 1940s and 1950s, the "ban dangerous books" movement still lives on in some areas. In some schools, there are still efforts to remove books on topics such as sexuality or drug abuse. Sometimes parents complain to their middle school-age child's school principal about the presence of certain books in the school library, and ask to have certain titles removed.

If, for example, there are books about sexuality, drug abuse, or terrorism in the library, the parents are worried that the young readers may be led astray. I would be worried, too, if the books in question had titles like Extreme Sexual Positions: The Full Colour Photo Guide - Volume IV: Bondage and Domination; if the drug book was The Underground Chemist's Cookbook - Vol. X: Making Crystal Meth from Common Household Products and if the book on terrorism was a how-to-guide with a title like Smash the State - Vol IX: DIY Pipe Bombs, Fertilizer Bombs, and Improvised Fuel-Air Explosion Devices (all titles are made up!). But there is a huge difference between having these types explicit how-to guides available, and having books in a library, even a middle school library, such as Your Changing Body; Drug Abuse in our Society: An Introduction; and What is Terrorism? An Introduction for Young Readers (once again, all titles are made up).

Yes, the book on sexual changes will make reference to the fact that as young people get into their teens, they might touch their genital organs, and yes said book will point out that some teenagers have sexual relations prior to marriage. But, my friends, you cannot claim that a wholesome, well-written, age-appropriate book like Your Changing Body is what is CAUSING teens to explore their bodies and their friends' bodies! And nor is the book on drug abuse CAUSING a teen to ask her buddy if she can try one of those "little pills" before the high school dance on Friday night or share a puff of a joint being passed around. And I argue that in the very rare cases where teens become in involved in extremist organizations or plan firebomb attacks against synagogues and the like, this behavior will have its roots in deep-rooted hatred, social alienation, and profound psychological problems, not in exposure to What is Terrorism? An Introduction for Young Readers one day at the school library.

Returning this discussion to Wikipedia, I do not think that anonymous IP vandals are spending hours reading CAT:ESSAY essays on how to contribute to Wikipedia. All the same, of course, I do not think there should be any "how-to" guides on inappropriate behaviour that state "do not enter the following ten lines of HTML code...([code is provided]).... into the system or it will cause a spontaneous server implosion that will suck all of the Wikipedia database into a black hole of anti-matter". But even if said hooded, black-cloaked Wikipedia IP vandals ARE reading the Wikipedia essays, I don't think that the presence of general essays on behaviours to avoid will CAUSE them to want to do vandalism or give them new hacking ideas. I am sure that there are a lot better places to learn the "dark arts" of disruptive hacking than Wikipedia essays. --Text bottom--

It is interesting. I wonder where it belongs? —Aladdin Sane (talk) 03:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally (I said, replying to myself), I think it's well-fleshed out enough to get its own essay page. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 03:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Dilbert

Seems apropos: http://www.dilbert.com/2010-02-11/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.127.55.192 (talk) 01:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Example: instructions to make a batch script prank

I believe this addition to the essay, together with its linked sub page, is inappropriate for two reasons. Firstly, it does not belong in a general essay because only someone who knows a little about computer programming would understand it.^[N] Secondly, suggesting how to stuff beans up your nose is contrary to the point of WP:BEANS. I removed it once but was reverted, so I am now soliciting the consensus of other editors. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I must disagree- it is as necessary as the subpage link which was already in there (the one with the nuclear explosion picture and "You took out our content severs!"), remembering that subpages for articles are banned so if the 'fork-bomb' script goes then so should the other subpage- and no-one wants that! And besides- it is not in a general essay (its on a subpage!) and that (WP:BEANS) is hardly an essay! Also you don't need to be a computer programmer to understand batch-script, I mean the :loop and the goto :loop obviously create a loop, and the term "fork-bomb" clearly means that it duplicates itself. Also, finally- it is not a virus it will not do any permanent harm to your computer. Try it see for yourself. It is not nerdy coding, it is a simple batch script making use of functionality every windows based computer is designed to have!
Mod MMG (User Page) Reply on my talkpage. Do NOT click this link 08:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

EDIT: Changed section title as it not a virus.
Mod MMG (User Page) Reply on my talkpage. Do NOT click this link 08:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it having any benefit. It's completely contrary to WP:BEANS. Arguments over the semantics of "virus" and the acceptance of subpages are irrelevant. As far as the essay goes, one example sentence is enough. The previously existing example subpage is humorous but also completely harmless (it is "fake"). A fork bomb is not harmless, even if it is a relatively minor kind of malicious code. Remove the link from the essay and speedy the subpage. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 12:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It is very humerous and harmless (as no-one would actually be stupid enough to follow those instructions!)
Mod MMG (User Page) Reply on my talkpage. Do NOT click this link 21:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Um. The entire *point* of WP:BEANS is that people do indeed follow such instructions! —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 22:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Removed link and blanked the subpage. I believe Mod_mmg is enthusiastic and well meaning, and the edits were made in good faith. SilkTork *^YES! 12:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

removed ref

I removed a ref from this essay, because the cited source doesn't support the notion behind this essay, and doesn't say what it is quoted to have said.[1] It was originally added back in Jan 2007[2], changed a wayback machine link at some point, then changed to a different source in June 2009.[3]. That ref might be suitable in another form, if anyone cares. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Fantastick!

Why did the kids put beans in their ears?
No one can hear with beans in their ears.
After a while the reason appears.
They did it cause we said no.

Why did the kids pour jam on the cat?
Raspberry jam all over the cat?
Why should the kids do something like that,
When all that we said was no?

(Partial lyrics from "Never Say No" from The Fantasticks. To hear the tune: [4] or [5].)

Love it, y'all! Softlavender (talk) 08:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

ewww u will get earwax all over them!--Jgsho (talk) 04:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Earliest beans?

In the recently discovered early backup of Wikipedia from 2001, I think the earliest BEANSworthy statement (pointed out here) is thus:

I, Jimbo Wales, propose that I should give out the administrator password fairly freely. People who have been around for a week or two, contributing to the pages in a useful way, should have access to this. Indeed, the only reason not to give it out willy-nilly is that someone really could mess things up. (For example, by renaming every page to 'Bob'.)

Just an interesting artifact. –xeno^talk 19:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, Jimbo!203.11.71.124 (talk) 06:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Fouls in Quidditch

I added:

• Fouls in the fictional sport Quidditch

Ningauble (talk · contribs) reverted: (This seems way too tangential. Discuss on the talk page if you disagree.)

I intended it as a well-known example in anglophone popular culture of a case where not going into excessive detail about policy makes it harder for miscreants to think of ways to subvert the goal of an activity. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 17:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I stand by my opinion that this is tangential. Many examples of the principle of "don't give 'em any ideas" may be found throughout world culture. Very many. Including an incidental link to an expression of the idea in contemporary children's literature strikes me as superfluous and tangential because, unlike (most of) the other "See also" links, it is neither a general explanatory principle nor a reflection of wiki culture. Furthermore, including lots of literary examples would be like telling people about all the types and varieties of beans that they should not stuff up their noses. If I may be excused for violating the spirit of the rule: please don't do that. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Ha ha Ningauble you have violated an essential Wiki-Rule :-) … Well, i agree with you anyway. benzband (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I think a new rule of Quidditch is now needed. No stuffing beans up other players noses.

♠♥♣Shaun9876♠♥♣ ^{Talk Email} 17:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

WHY!!!

WHY, WHY would you give me the idea to put beans up my nose I CANT GET THEM OUT!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Heakes (talk • contribs) 03:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

who wrote the story about mom and child ?

--82.139.5.13 (talk) 09:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

It's obvious from the edit history that I wrote the original version of this essay. I first heard the core story from my mother, who did not give an attribution. Doubtless it is a work of folk art. — Xiong熊talk* 05:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

One potential origin of the "folk art" ... the 1960 Off Broadway Show The Fantasticks has a song "Never Say No" with a verse with lyrics as follow:

Dog's got to bark, a mule's got to bray.

Soldiers must fight and preachers must pray.

And children, I guess, must get their own way

The minute that you say no.

Why did the kids put beans in their ears?

No one can hear with beans in their ears.

After a while the reason appears.

They did it cause we said no. (source: www.stlyrics.com)

... But I am satisfied that this essay is not any kind of copyright vio. MPS (talk) 16:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Cabbage

"Don't eat all the cabbage." - Wouldn't a mother want her child to eat all of the cabbage? Thats just confusing. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Cabbage is expensive, though, so they gotta be rationed. Gary King (talk) 05:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

what the hell kid is gonna eat CABBAGE in the first place?! that's a dumb thing to have in the list. 209.172.25.226 (talk) 06:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Header

I think it would be really helpful to have a "do not vandalise this page" button. Just a reminder. 184.44.0.128 (talk) 19:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Deletion template

@Ivanvector: Shouldn't the deletion template be on Wikipedia:Don't stuff beans up your nose/Uh-huh/idiot instead of here? --User J. Dalek (talk | contribs) 22:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

What type of essay is this?

I remember a while ago I tried putting this on Template:Wikipedia essays as a Civility essay, but I was reverted. This is one of the most well-known essays, so it should definitely be on that template, but I can't figure out which category to put it under. CamelCase (MyTalk | ConTribs) 01:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

It does not appear to fit neatly in the categorization used by the template. This may be thought of as a behavioral essay, but not one relating to civility. As advice on giving advice it is concerned with constructive and effective discussion. It is also a kind of meta-guideline concerned with constructive and effective guidance. Sometimes categorization is futile, particularly when it entails meta issues, as with the category of all categories that do not include themselves. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

These ambiguities, redundances, and deficiences recall those attributed by Dr. Franz Kuhn to a certain Chinese encyclopedia entitled Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge. On those remote pages it is written that animals are divided into (a) those that belong to the Emperor, (b) embalmed ones, (c) those that are trained, (d) suckling pigs, (e) mermaids, (f) fabulous ones, (g) stray dogs, (h) those that are included in this classification, (i) those that tremble as if they were mad, (j) innumerable ones, (k) those drawn with a very fine camel's hair brush, (l) others, (m) those that have just broken a flower vase, (n) those that resemble flies from a distance.

— Jorge Luis Borges, "The Analytical Language of John Wilkins", translated by Will Fitzgerald

Hmmm....

The editor's mother was off to RfA. She worried about her little darling, who was always up to something trouty. She sternly admonished him, "Be good.  Don't treat Wikipedia like it is Whac-A-Mole.  Don't template the regulars, or do.  Don't Insult the Vandals.  Don't Bold, Revert, Revert, Revert.  Don't Climb the Reichstag Dressed as Spider Man." The editor had done all of these things on other occasions. Hoping to head off new trouble, she added, "And don't try to categorize WP:BEANS!" This was a new idea for the editor, who promptly tried it out.

^{It's obviously a humorous essay. Now don't go categorize it that way!} :D

LaughingVulcan ^{Grok Page!} 05:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Is there any evidence...

...that the phenomenon described at WP:BEANS actually occurs on Wikipedia? It seems like an excuse to discourage people from raising potentially plausible "what-if" scenarios. Tisane ^talk/_stalk 17:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, one could argue that if there isn't such evidence, that means people are honoring WP:BEANS and thus it works. So I don't think that's conclusive either way. • FWIW, I would say my experience with human nature in general aligns with the message in WP:BEANS. • I don't think WP:BEANS has prevented anyone from talking about stuff that needs to be discussed; I take WP:BEANS as more about "Don't put up notices saying not to do something just for the sake of forbidding it". IMO, YMMV. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 21:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

When I was a small child I did in fact stuff a plastic bead up my nose, which had to be removed by a physician. This was after overhearing my father make light of the foolish things children do, one of which was to shove objects up their own noses. This anecdote of mine is an ironclad counterargument to all past and future counterarguments to this policy argument; forever and ever, amen. —Clarknova (talk) 08:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like there isn't any evidence. Maybe this essay is WP:BEANS itself.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

How about pennies?

Stephen Colbert just inserted pennies in his nose in tonight's episode of his show. Are they any better than beans? *Dan T.* (talk) 04:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

It's a federal crime to interfere with the circulation of currency in that way.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Nose? NOSE????

   I suppose i say this for WP nostalgia more than suggesting rewording, but is "up your nose" used in the essay rather than "in your ears" on the plausible supposition that the nose-beaning craze the essay could trigger is less dangerous than the apparently better-known ear-beaning one? Before the songs, i was told that some parents try to float beans out of their kids' ears, which must be done with oil rather than water bcz (if it's lodged enuf not to shake out) water would make the bean swell up before flotation could be achieved.
   The first Dr. Spock edition was 1946, and does say

... stuff things like beads and wads of paper into their noses and ears. The important thing is not to push the object any further in, ...

The "don't say don't" meme could be older than writing, but the songs "Never Say No" and "Beans in My Ears" premiered in August 1959 and by 1964, respectively, each juxtaposing the legume and the aural orifice.
   Googling

"not to put beans" OR "Don't put beans" ears OR ear

gives 5330 hits to 4190 for

"not to put beans" OR "Don't put beans" nose OR noses

which is less dramatic than the results for the less honed searches that i started with, but two things still strike me as odd:

1. that our version matches neither the Web leader nor either of the songs,
2. that the songs haven't managed to tip the balance further.

How about it, contrarians? Should we hypothesize that Google is disproportionally sensitive to song lyrics vs. common usage, and the song writers have criteria that casual speech ignores? Does "up your nose" (e.g. "Up yer nose, with a rubber hose!" in Welcome Back, Kotter, and later, My Favorite Year) pack more subliminal punch than "Stick it in yer ear!"?
--Jerzy•t 19:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It is much less dangerous to suggest (not) sticking them in your nose, because one could very easily rupture an eardrum. It is a bit harder to do serious damage in the nose. Google is less sensitive to the relative dangers.

Regarding ears, when I was a child I was admonished "never put anything smaller than your elbow into your ear." Of course, I then tried to put my elbow in my ear. Thanks to the wisdom of not mentioning beans in connection with ear insertion, no damage was done. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

My father was a pediatrician for 35 years and personally attested that the song "Beans in My Ears" did indeed produce a minor epidemic in our town in 1964. LineChaser (talk) 05:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

All I can say, since this just came up on watchlist again, is be very, very, VERY glad that the article contributors picked nose instead of being into legume suppositories. You may ewwwwwwwwwwwww now. LaughingVulcan ^{Grok Page!} 23:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Turn this into guideline

This essay should be a guideline. It's treated like one, with all the incoming links, so why shouldn't it be one? KATMAKROFAN (talk) 15:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Uh...

Does the link actually crash WikiPedia? From, Mapleya (MAY-peel-YUH) (talk) 18:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

@MapleTrees16: try it and see. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:03, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

My god, the huge manity! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 19:15, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I did and it does not :) Mapleya (MAY-peel-YUH) (talk) 23:29, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

What's the point?

What's the point of this silly essay? It does nothing for the encyclopedia? Idiots! Moomoomu 09:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Making personal attacks, are we? 22:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

If it weren't for this essay Willy on Wheels would have destroyed Wikipedia by now. oTHErONE _(Contribs) 11:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see the point of this essay either.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:04, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I found this essay to be a helpful reminder for me because I'm always interested in how things work and need to remember that not everybody needs to know things that could cause issues Jecgecko (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Revert of section "A serious side"

Hi, I reverted this edit. I do not believe it is consistent with P&G in the first instance and it is something that certainly needs (IMO) a "good" consensus for it to be included. Arb policy requires transparency with limited exceptions that mainly relate to RW privacy or legal reasons. The exceptions do not dissolve the requirement for transparency but reduces it to the extent consistent with the requirement for the exception.

The proposal as written might be too easily construed and abused (intentionally or unintentionally) as an "excuse" to act "carte blache" or dispense perfunctory "justice". IMO, any decision must be delivered with an appropriate degree of transparency. I agree that it would be unwise to publish how X "actually" went about taking-out WP's web servers.

A response to an hypothetical case where user X launched a virus to take-out WP's servers:

Checkuser identifies X with a RW person capable of writing such a virus. Analysis by expert Y identifies a coding style that significantly correlates to the style of RW X. Tracing the source of the virus by expert Z leads to an IP registered to RW X and WP X. there is sufficient evidence that X intentionally tried to take-out WP's servers and is indefinitely blocked.

This hypothetical does not disclose the "how to" but is sufficiently transparent to demonstrate "due diligence" in reaching a decision. Nor does it disclose "who". Persistent requests "might" be responed to with a link to here; however, it would be much more transparent to say: "I cannot give details of the attack for reasons of security" or "I cannot disclose the RW identity of X for legal reasons".

Consequently, I see little or no justification for the edit and many good reasons to oppose it. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:32, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Re: "I cannot give details of the attack for reasons of security":

"In security engineering, security through obscurity (or security by obscurity) is the reliance on the secrecy of the design or implementation as the main method of providing security for a system or component of a system. A system or component relying on obscurity may have theoretical or actual security vulnerabilities, but its owners or designers believe that if the flaws are not known, that will be sufficient to prevent a successful attack. Security experts have rejected this view as far back as 1851, and advise that obscurity should never be the only security mechanism." Source: Security through obscurity

A virus designed to take-out Wikipedia's servers is attacking servers that are, by design, highly resistant to such attacks (I have studied the WMF's security measures in detail, and they really are doing everything right). If a weakness is identified by someone who then designs a virus that gets past our security, there is a benefit to notifying the WMF first to give them time to address the vulnerability, but shortly after that the details of the attack and the weakness it exploited should be openly discussed. Secrecy doesn't increase security. it reduces it. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:25, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

My initial comments were "in general", where total transparency may not be appropriate but it [transparency] should not simply be discounted. Security was just one of several possible examples. I do not disagee with you that security by obscurity is flawed as "the only security mechanism". I agree with the premise of Kerckhoffs's principle. However, assuming that "the enemy knows the system" is not the same as "give the enemy the information because they probably already know it". Was your edit/RfC made in reaction to this section Guy Macon, or because somebody was citing WP:BEANS in such a context that your added text alludes to? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• I disagree with that revert and would support adding back in Ritchie333's change. People are quoting this essay rather regularly in discussions about security concerns. If I was an uninformed editor it would be helpful to understand why editors are making reference to this article. This has nothing to do with whether such transparency is or is not a good thing for the project. That's a different discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:35, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
• As explained in the section below, Guy Macon has got "Security through obscurity" and Kerckhoffs's principle all wrong, as it only refers to designing security systems to be optimal, and as Cinderella157 notes, is nothing to do with how users of a real-world security system should behave. The benefits and drawbacks of disclosing information about an unfixed security flaw are complex and a balance of pros and cons, and there are no famous laws or guidelines to tell us how we should always best behave. Keeping details of a current security flaw secret is quite standard practice among security experts, who certainly didn't stop doing that in 1851. The idea that secrecy reduces security is a bit of a flawed dogma, popular among open source advocates, and impatient nerds who want to know everything. One can find examples and arguments for both approaches. -- Colin°^Talk 16:39, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

• You are wrong. Keeping details of a current security flaw secret is what security experts DON'T do. They often delay disclosure to allow time for a patch to be written and deployed, but then they reveal all. The nearly universal consensus among security experts is that the good that comes from having a wide variety of people talking about and learning about the details of security issues far exceeds the bad that comes from cluing in those rare attackers who don't already know about the flaws. It isn't a "flawed dogma" and it isn't just held by "impatient nerds who want to know everything".

• https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/01/code-review-not-evil-security-through-obscurity
• http://web.deu.edu.tr/doc/oreily/networking/puis/ch02_05.htm
• https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/D89P37G1
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/656.html
• https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/blr/vol83/iss4/3/

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Nobody at all is complaining about revealing information about already-fixed security details, or about security problems that are known to be already know to hackers. Once the cat is out of the bag, information can be beneficial. You however, seem to have a problem with people saying "I cannot give details of the attack for reasons of security" out of misunderstanding of certain principles and a dogma that thinks information and publicity is only beneficial and secrecy is only bad. If there is a current flaw on wiki that bad folk might exploit, then for f**k sake don't tell every sad bedroom hacker about it. This is an especially stupid thing to do if the number of potential helpers (developers, experts) is vastly outnumbered by the potential bad guys. Life isn't governed by simple rules or dogma, as they say, "I Think You’ll Find It’s a Bit More Complicated Than That" -- Colin°^Talk 23:04, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Because of your repeated personal attacks on multiple pages, I do not wish to have any further interaction with you. From now on, If I see a comment with your signature on the bottom of it, I will skip it unread and move on to the next comment.

"The most hostile group was the one with high but unstable self esteem. These people think well of themselves in general, but their self-esteem fluctuates. They are especially prone to react defensively to ego threats, and they are also more prone to hostility, anger and aggression than other people.

"These findings shed considerable light on the psychology of the bully. Hostile people do not have low self esteem; on the contrary, they think highly of themselves, But their favorable view of themselves is not held with total conviction, and it goes up and down in response to daily events. The bully has a chip on his shoulder because he thinks you might want to deflate his favorable self image."

-Roy F. Baumeister, Evil: Inside Human Violence and Cruelty, p 149

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Insert this

How about this to be inserted somewhere appropriate... "Prophylactics often slip off the little guys."(?) Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  17:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)