Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 119

Archive 115

←

Archive 117

Archive 118

Archive 119

Archive 120

Archive 121

→

Archive 125

OP calls out "subjective opinion" responses

I call your attention to the response by OP User:Mahfuzur rahman shourov and mine that follows, regarding the nature of responses to his query. I find the stated opinion prior to internal links provided by User:RomanSpa using the word "stupidity" is inherently insulting the OP and degrading to the Ref desk and its readers. If any of you can improve the explanation I attempted to provide about appropriate responding on the RDs, please do so there and here. -- Deborahjay (talk) 14:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

That was flippant, but wasn't directed at the OP. And he cited "Luddite", which is a pretty common term for someone opposed to technology. The OP was also given other links. What info does the OP want that he's not getting? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

He's asking for respondents not to be flippant and to confine themselves to answering the question. I agree with him, and I would add that additions like [1] are also unnecessary. --Viennese Waltz 14:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I asked a reasonable question. I have as much right to ask a question as you or anyone else does. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

No, your question was not reasonable. It was not a genuine request for information, it was intended to draw attention to some perceived conflict between plain people and their use of modern technology. --Viennese Waltz 14:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Listen, wise guy... I looked in the "plain living" article for information on plumbing. There wasn't any. So I raised what I considered to be a fair question. If you have an answer to my question, state it or provide a link. Otherwise, shut your arrogant trap. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

lol --Viennese Waltz 14:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

What type of plumbing is a "lol"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Bugs, you have a right to ask questions, but in some circumstances it may be more polite to ask in a new section. As it stands, your question has very little relation to the OP question - you are asking a specific thing about a specific group of people, while OP is looking for general terminology and schools of thought. So it can be a bit distracting to the OP as well as a disservice to your own question to do these sort of tangential "tack-on" questions. To answer your question, some plain people use indoor plumbing, some do not. It is not a homogeneous group. Old Order Amish often have outhouses, while Beachy usually do have indoor plumbing, drive automobiles, and many even use the internet. The Mennonites themselves have a whole spectrum of how "plain" they choose to live, not to mention the various other sects. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

If I create a new section, may I copy your above answer into it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, for the future you may copy anything I write on WP, as long as you also include my signature. I should also add that some of what I wrote is WP:OR based on personal experience, e.g. the article on Old Order Amish does not say anything about specific about outhouses or plumbing. The Beachy article does mention that many of them use (filtered) internet. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Good enough. And now done. Thank you. And thanks also for answering my question instead of being a nattering nabob of negativism. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

For those who don't speak American. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Apparently Spiro didn't speak American either. StuRat (talk) 02:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

He used to lapse into Latin sometimes. Nolo contendere, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any contribution from you on that thread. --Viennese Waltz 14:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Look now (I was editing in two windows and encountered an E/C that ate up time.). Thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 14:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see it now. I agree with you, but you should have raised it initially on RomanSpa's talk page. --Viennese Waltz 14:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I think he was just being funny. But if the OP is not a native speaker, the joke might have been over his head. Hence the need for small print. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Posts intended to "be funny" and which do not answer the question are unnecessary. --Viennese Waltz 14:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Who appointed you the god of what's "necessary"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

While humor is "unnecessary" to answer a specific Q, I believe it to be important in making the Ref Desk interesting, which in turn ensures that enough people will read and respond to make it work. StuRat (talk) 21:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm someone who believes that a little tinge of humour belongs in every sphere of human activity and interaction, but I'm with VW on this one. The problem is that we have a few people here who have no concept of how to use humour judiciously (and, frankly, those parties are by and large just not nearly as funny as they seem to think they are, imho). We have people who seem to be looking for a joke in every single thread they respond to, no matter how distant and attenuated from the OP's inquiry they have to make the joke. We have other people who make snarky, sarcastic, and often astringent responses and then try to distance themselves from them by claiming it was all done in good-faith/good-humour, when it obviously wasn't -- or if it was, it reflects a basic lack of comprehension of how biting and inappropriate they were being.

If contributors could keep the jokes down to those rare gems that they just can't resist as a side-comment to an otherwise informative post, that would be one thing. But if the options are A) constant (and often not very clever) one-liners in the form of posts that contribute nothing else, passive-aggresive commentary, and small-print back-and-forth puns and B) just keeping things "strictly business" (as we are expected to do everywhere else on WP outside user space--and why should this space really be an different?), then I think the choice is clear. Snow ^{let's rap} 10:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Not every other place on Wikipedia. Talk pages, like the Ref Desk, often have humor on them. StuRat (talk) 04:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

"Often"? I'm not sure if I agree with that descriptor. You see the odd off-topic comment, but generally, in my considerable experience in that area, talk pages are pretty dry. Certainly I've never come across an example that hosts jokes and other WP:NOTAFORUM-violating content as frequently as do the RefDesks in recent years. If you have an example that you'd like to proffer of one that does, I'd be happy to concede the point. Though frankly that would just be a kind of WP:OTHERSTUFF argument in any event. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

A synonym of "unnecessary" here would be "gratuitous." WP purports to be an encyclopedia and provide knowledge, which is intrinsically of interest, certainly to the OP - it's unlikely readers come here for "infotainment." Tangential quipping risks disrupting the response process that often is needed to clarify a query. With Users Viennese Waltz and Snow Rise, above, I feel certain repeat jokesters too often have an obtrusive noise:signal ratio, and I'd like them to contribute more constructively with respect for the project, the venue, and the other participants. -- Deborahjay (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Editing the archives

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Mahfuzur rahman shourov edited the Humanities desk to ping myself and several others, here. Taken on it's own I don't think a one-time act like this is a big deal, although the question itself is a bit odd, to say the least. Yet I have to wonder if this is not a new user we are dealing with, but perhaps the "Russian" problem editor ("Is been being?") we had for a while back who had the same habit of posting outlandish and hard to scrutinize requests in what seemed to me more like a faked version of broken English than instances of honest mistakes by a non-native speaker. I cannot remember that user's name, if anyone else can recall it.

Mahfuzur rahman shourov, have you edited here under another name previously? Can you tell us what your native language is? Knowing it might help us communicate better. Please do not edit the archives again. If you have a new question or a follow up, post it as a new question on the relevant desk, and just give a link to the archive. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 17:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't look like Alex Sazonov to me. He normally posted to the Science Desk, and his English looked differently broken. I agree that editing an archive to ping users is disruptive editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I have considered adding answers to archived questions, and pinging users (at least those who asked the questions). Such editing appears to be in harmony with the information at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/October 2015: "While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages."

—Wavelength (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

What was posted was a follow-up question, not a new answer. @Ssscienccce, Aspro, and Baseball Bugs were also pung. I agree that the style of brokenness was different between is been being Sazonov(?) and OP Curious Shourov, but there are far more similarities than differences. Is there a link to Sazonov (sp?)'s user page? μηδείς (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Here's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Alex_Sazonov, I think the subject matter shows significant overlap, even if the is been being em oh has changed a bit. μηδείς (talk) 18:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Alex Sazonov doesn't have a user page, and hasn't edited in nearly a year. He does have a talk page, User talk:Alex Sazonov. When I viewed it, it asked if I wanted to translate it. I clicked Translate, and was told that it could not be translated. If the guidelines permit the editing of archived pages, I think that the guidelines should be revised. I think that the editing of archives in general should be discouraged. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

All of the archives should be permanently semi-protected. There's no point in anyone editing them, especially not an IP or redlink. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand the comment about redlinks. A redlink, in a user name, is a non-existent user page, but may be an auto-confirmed user. Semi-protection will prevent IPs from editing the archives, but not redlinks from editing them. An argument can be made for full protection of archives, allowing administrators to edit them for a valid administrative reason. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I should have said "drive-bys", as some established users don't have user pages. And I concur that full protection would be even better. When "transclusion" was being done, the most recent archives were necessarily not protected. That is no longer an issue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• Is there any rule, guideline, or suggestion that we cannot or should not edit the archives? You seem to be implying that MRS has broken some rule or custom, but you don't say what. I edited the archives myself on numerous occasions when the question got archived before I found a good reference. Call me sentimental, but I like to think that the additions may be useful to future searchers. Sometimes I may have pinged previous participants, sometimes not. I will continue to edit archived questions at my discretion, and support the right of any user to do so, until such time that a clear sanction against it is proffered. If you don't like MRS, feel free to ignore that user. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Editing the archives is very often a bad idea, but if you know what you're doing it can be a fine idea, and there is certainly no guideline (that I know of) that prohibits it. (Nor has there ever been a suggestion that it's more or less appropriate for different classes of editors. Not that Wikipedia ought to be a classed society anyway.) —Steve Summit (talk) 23:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

So you're just fine with trolls editing the archives? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Steve said nothing of the sort. Please don't twist the words of our respondents; it looks very much as though you're trying to pick a fight. If you know of any rule that says that anyone cannot edit archives, I will be happy to read it. Otherwise please play nice. SemanticMantis (talk) 02:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, he did. Realistically, who pays attention to the archives anyway? What's the value in keeping them unprotected? I'll go a step further: The search mechanism for the archives is useless. So why even have archives? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

You and I have clashed on this in the past and I certainly don't intend to argue about it now. I do understand that opinions on Wikipedia's classlessness (or classfulness) differ. You're welcome to your opinions about the proper classification and treatment of IP's, drive-bys, and other editors you don't like, but they're not shared by all. And SemanticMantis is right, you shouldn't put words in the mouths of others. I'm as fine with trolls vandalizing the RD archives as I am with them vandalizing the desks themselves, or this page, or any other page on Wikipedia. (Go ahead and twist that any way you like. I won't let you troll me in this thread again.) —Steve Summit (talk) 06:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

According to your no-classes view, as stated earlier and restated above, bad-faith vandals are every bit as welcome in your world as good-faith established users are. Now, if you want to do something useful in your copious free time, maybe you could re-engineer the archive search so that it's actually useful. At present, it ain't. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I picked the title to be as neutral as possible. It has been discussed before that adding a substantive referenced answer to a recently archived question in good faith is fine. I have done it perhaps twice, when I have come acrost a reference after actually searching my own or an institutional library to get an answer. When I have done this I have put a notice on the OP's talk page. But basically beginning new private discussions at otherwise unwatched pages is disruptive, and the least that needs to be said is that even assuming good faith the specific act should not be repeated. μηδείς (talk) 03:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I think full protection is a reasonable step, especially given the known habits of other users in the past. It's always quite easy to post a follow-up with a link to the active page or to the OP's talk page. If the answer is important enough, it certainly would not bother me to ask an admin to add a referenced answer to an encyclopdic inquiry. μηδείς (talk) 03:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Full protection is a bad idea. The disruption is very minimal, easy to fix, and a convenient honeypot for identifying known trolls. Seems like a win-win: The trolls self-identify by giving us their tells using the archives, and we block them. Without allowing full access to the archives, it wouldn't allow us to identify many trolls as easily. --Jayron32 03:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

If indeed it is a honeypot, I agree entirely. But do you have to have one of those special third gonads that admins get in order to have archives appear on one's watch page? This came to my attention only because Shouronov pang me. μηδείς (talk) 05:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The extra gonad doesn't confer that specific power. I don't know of a special way to "watchlist subpages of a given page", but if there were one it would only need the standard user's giggity-bits. DMacks (talk) 05:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I think full protection is a good idea. Very, very few good faith editors would be affected. I think I might have done one edit to the RD archives in my Wikipedia career, and that was to add an answer to an archived question. Sometimes you want to add something to an archived question, but we already have the edit request as a method to change protected pages. If the numbers of requests is small it wouldn't be much of a burden on the admins. Sjö (talk) 07:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The Reference Desk archives should not be protected, and appropriate editing of the archives (such as involved editors adding additional references or even the OP answering their own questions at some later date) should be encouraged for both registered and IP users (and as Wavelength pointed out above, this is specifically permitted by the instructions in the box at the top of each individual and monthly archive page). However Medeis brings up the important point that there needs to be a way to monitor the archives to ensure that this valuable resource is not vandalized.

The box at the top of WP:Reference desk/Archives contains "Recent changes to the X archives" links, such as Special:RecentChangesLinked/Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities/Links to all archives. This relies on links to each archive page being placed in WP:Reference desk/Humanities/Links to all archives, a practice which stopped in 2009. (The reason the Humanities link shows MRS' edit is that I just added that archive link to the links page to test it.) Does anyone see a problem with each of these pages holding 4,000 links now and growing that much each decade? Would that cause an excessive server hit when Special:RecentChangesLinked is run? It would be simple to populate the links pages (redlinks are fine so it could be populated a year in advance), and I happily volunteer to periodically patrol the archives.

The Reference Desk archives are not transcripts of a debating society which must be protected to keep someone from sneaking in WP:The Last Word, but they are a trove of answered questions which need to be safeguarded from vandalism while at the same time allowing involved editors to add information discovered after the time of archiving. -- ToE 14:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Is there a way for the archiving bot to automatically add the latest archives to a given user's watch list? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Consolidated Section on the Archives

I (Medeis) have archived the section above, since it was primarily meant to address one editor's behavior. The following other questions about the archives remain:

Speaking of archives, why is there no link on the current RD pages to, say, the newest archive page? —Tamfang (talk) 08:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

When searching for any particular sentence fragment, the archives return results in random order. Can this be changed, for example to order by most recent to oldest? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

From above, should the archives either be edit protected, or somehow be automatically added to user's watch lists, in order to prevent them being vandalized without contributors being aware of the vandalism? μηδείς (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

ToE and various others have mentioned good reasons not to edit protect the archives, but also the need to have an easier way for them to be kept under watchful eyes. My preference would be that any newly archived page that was on my watchlist becuase I had edited it stay on my watchlist after it is archived. I am not sure that there would be any way to implement this. If not, a link saying "add archived versions of this page to my watchlist" on each of the desks would be great. I also think both of Tamfang's and Bugs' questions are helpful. Being able to smart search or at least easily access the archives by date would help immensely. μηδείς (talk) 20:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Is this way [2] of accessing archives by date not sufficient? Two clicks gets you to any desk/date since 2006, and that has worked fine for my purposes.

What do you mean by "smart search"? I've never had problems using the search archives option to find previous threads that I remember, and I don't understand Bugs' opinion that the search function is useless. For example, here's an easy search that shows all the times Bugs has asked questions like "who says it does?" [3]

Now, that's a known-item search (redlink, see e.g. [4]), and it's very different that say, looking for all questions about chemistry, because not every question about chemistry has the word "chemistry" in it, but that kind of semantic markup is probably not going to happen here any time soon. Anyway, before anyone can think about improving the archive search, we'd have to know what the problem is. As far as I can tell, it faithfully finds every page that has all the words I type, and respects quotes, etc. The only thing that I find a little tedious is the clickthroughs it takes to get to the actual content that has been "hit" - it would be nice if the first click in the results page took you to the page where it occurs, instead, sometimes the first click takes you to a year/month level archive, and other times it takes you to a day's archive. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Why are the results returned in random date order? That's the core problem I'm talking about. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

By "smart search" I meant an "advanced" search option where you could give a key word, a username, and a date range in separate fields. The best you can do now is type in the date and signature as well as key words all in the same field, but you get an enormous amount of chaff, with results blurred by the fact that if a name or a date is mentioned on a page the page will come back as a hit even though it was posted in a different year and the person named was being referred to, and hadn't actually posted anything there himself. For example, if you search "bowei huang 2015" you will get posts by him from 2012 and 2009 as well as mentions of him in 2015 although he didn't author them. God forbid you want to find a specific post by User:Russell.mo who has used an undocumented number of signatures. μηδείς (talk) 22:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

: Thank you for missing me . I was wondering why I did not receive anything (messages/alerts/posts). Btw, SM is your biggest fan, who had not jumped in the lake yet for you. That being said, you'll always be my Ms. Wiki-Queen Bee. -- Space Ghost (talk) 18:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Hence, the current search tool may not be literally useless, but it's nearly useless. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• From time to time, when I remember to do so, I look at "What links here" from my userpage and add any Desk pages shown there to my watchlist. —Tamfang (talk) 03:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Until [some date], the Desks transcluded the last few days' archives. I once asked why not have Desk content consist only of transcluded archive pages, so that when I edit a question it's properly watched. The answer was, iirc, that that option was considered and rejected. —Tamfang (talk) 03:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The problem with transclusion is that it's not possible (or wasn't possible when transclusion was in effect) to edit an individual section of a transcluded page, so that the entire source of the page would appear in the editing window. I don't know if the software has been updated to fix this. Tevildo (talk) 18:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Strange, I don't remember such a disability. The only way I could tell that a section was transcluded was to click (or hover) its edit link. —Tamfang (talk) 19:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Info Required

Hello!

What you all up to?

Thought I’d let you all know, I was on holiday, got back a couple of days ago.

Thank you for missing me. I missed you all too. Do you know why?

When I was on holiday, well, I thank you all for turning the physical world a dumber place to live in for me, by helping me all the time... Special thanks goes to all the wikipediots Wikipedians who are building WP articles (which helped my knowledge and English), also to those who are also, always helping me and others on the Reference Desk voluntarily (which helped my brain to think appropriately; a lot), also to those who always protected me (), helped me unconditionally, boundlessly, and so on...

Basically, I missed you guys too more than the Wikiladies not in a gay way Medis and SM mainly

Truely, I thought about you all, particularly for a reason, and wish to know now:

What is WP doing for you guys? It’s been open since 2000! And many are building WP, helping and assisting beyond My imagination, by using their 'free will'...

No deeds go unpunished! Definitely no good deeds go unserved! Some receive things while living, some after-death, some at both times; for good and bad deeds... As far as I'm aware, I found only one male human Satan - I e-mailed him and he was trying to act smart with me... Anyway f*ck him.

I wanted to do something for you guys but there’s too many of you. I used to save the ID’s but I had an issue with my google chrome browser application which deleted the saved bookmarks – (now I’m like you losers all, taking Wikipedia as a community, read and or help whoever possible in the community…) – now I don’t save anything, I only remember or recall some of the regulars who help/helped me and others whenever I see their names.

Main point is WP should be the one who should do something for you guys not me…

So what has it done so far? I especially wish to know about it because I want to know how WP is balancing its scales...

:

Space Ghost (talk) 18:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand whether there is a question. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Q: What has WP done for the ones who have had created/edited/modified/ammended/deleted the most articles, helped the most in the Reference Desk/anti-vandalism/Wikiprojects, people who contrbuted the most basically. Barnstars excluded -- Space Ghost (talk) 19:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Barnstars and the occasional thanks is all we can hope for :) P.S. medeis, myself, and many others may well be "wikiladies", so don't assume male gender as default. Some of us like to declare our genders, while others, especially women, may choose to conceal it so as to avoid sexist harassment and misogyny that is so frequently used against women online. Along those lines, mentioning "not in a gay way" can come off as a little homophobic, I mention this only to help you with your understanding of English. If you want to tell people you missed talking them, that is fine by itself, nobody will assume that you mean you are declaring homosexual interest. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay Btw, I wasn't calling you guys ladies - I was using it as a joke/humour. Sorry if it came across that way

Hmmm, sentence is upsetting, and I won't request for justice for you guys here, cause all of you Wikipedians good deeds are making another elevate in life, knowledge wise. All I can say is, keep up the good work(s) in this lifecycle. Its appreciated by some -- Space Ghost (talk) 07:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Update at WP:ANI

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Mahfuzur rahman shourov has posted an incomprehensible complaint at WP:ANI. (At least, one other editor and I find it incomprehensible.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I can read Danish, so I can read the source, but I suspect that may actually make the complaint even more incomprehensible to me… ;-) Anyway, the user has now gone over to posting from an IP, and being horrendously rude; I got that much. Bishonen | talk 18:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC).

Robert McClenon: Your comment what you made on the ANI sounded funny to me I can't really comment but I have set the reference up: [6] -- Space Ghost (talk) 18:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

It's perfectly comprehensible to me. It's just a lot of third person writing with a few missing pronouns, I find it hard to believe that you can't understand the basic sentiment. If anyone else is unclear, let me "translate": MRS has complained ANI that s/he was accused of being a sock of another user (here, above) and also accused of doing something wrong by editing the archives. Contrary to Robert's assertion, there was no consensus that the editing of the archive was "disruptive". We have no rule against editing the archives, and I can see why MRS felt the victim of a witch hunt. I do not think that any admin action is necessary; I think that MRS should instead learn the lesson not to ping medeis, and to be forewarned that any eccentric behavior here will often be construed as trolling by a few of our users. I personally don't care if MRS has ESL issues, or if perhaps they like to edit "in character". MRS's comments at the ref desk have been no less disruptive than many other regular users, and often more helpful and interesting than those of some of our frequent contributors. I recall one User:Quintessential_British_Gentleman who used to contribute at the ref desks "in character", throwing in lots of "old chaps" and other stereotypical phrases. I don't recall anyone of accusing him of being a troll for writing in an idiosyncratic manner, but then again, maybe there's a reason why he hasn't been around recently. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, and well put. Mahfuzur Rahman Shourov doesn't look like a troll to me (although I'm not familiar with the MO of the troll Medeis has accused him of being, so I wouldn't know). In my opinion, he's harmless, and if people can't understand or answer his questions they should just ignore them, as there are demonstrably others who can. —Steve Summit (talk) 14:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with the prior troll. This isn't him. I looked back through the prior guys contribs and known tells, and this one isn't the same guy. Or if it is, good on him, because he's carefully crafted a new character which has nothing in common with the last guy. --Jayron32 14:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@SemanticMantis, Russell.mo, Scs, and Robert McClenon:ping medeis did in archive reason medeis one of replier in question, question done by me. if user not want ping, user say direct, AGF, not false accuse of sock. pinger believe good faith, pinger always think other people convenienceMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 15:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Steve. The consistent part of the problem with Alex Sazonov, his later IP posts, and this user is a constant bombardment of the ref desks with demands for answers to his questions written in what appears to be broken English written by a Russian speaker. Yet the OP will not answer direct questions posed to him or respond in Russian, which many of us could understand better than his English. Sazonov used odd locutions such as "is been being", for which he ended up having his sincerity doubted, while Shourov does not use this affectation. That is the only obvious difference between them. Otherwise the two are extremely similar: constant bombardment of the ref desks with scientific pseudoquestions whose plain meaning one cannot understand, a refusal to communicate in his native language (Danish!?!?), the refusal to respond to questions put to him directly, and a fondness for disruption in the archives, at ANI and on the ref desks.

I'd also suggest one take a look at MRS's contributions and edit summaries. He's perfectly capable of speaking English when he wants an edit to mainspace to stand Avijit Roy ‎(books advocate irreligious state system with near-zero bureaucratic authority, but not total anarchy) but reverts to absolute BS Russlish pseudobable when he's on talk pages trying not to communicate: User talk:Supdiop ‎ (→‎If OP not curious, not come to net, not ask in desk: new section). This selective pretense at a disability is consummate trolling. μηδείς (talk) 22:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind, Medeis is on to something. --Jayron32 01:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe the user in question studied the collected works of Al Kelly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

In the meantime, there are several otherwise uninvolved users at ANI calling for a boomerang block of Shourov and immediate Admin action, see here. I have not been active in the thread, but support the proposed block in some form. Either indeff him or let him edit mainspace, where his English improves miraculously. μηδείς (talk) 04:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2015

Question: Buying books by width.

Detail: I need to re-read the entire Harry Potter books, but have long ago given away my copy. Shelf space in my apartment is limited, and as these are fairly wide books, I would be keen to buy the narrowest possible edition(s) - ie: ideally tall copies with small text / thin paper. However, I can't see any way of searching by width on any book-selling websites. How could I go about finding the narrowest copy? Thanks. Octavious Rind (talk) 16:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Amazon almost always gives the weight and dimensions of works that are still in or have recently been in print, look under the product details section, for example, about 1/4 of the way down this page the boxed paperback set is listed as 5 x 8 x 8.5 inches and 8 lbs. μηδείς (talk) 16:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I've moved the query and Medeis's response to the Humanities desk as requested. Deor (talk) 17:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2015 / Laggard as a free rider

Do different attributions to laggards exist in an environment of a Technology adoption lifecycle or a Free rider problem? This would be useful to know for the translation of a paper (doi:10.1086/668207) and to edit de:Trittbrettfahrerproblem.

(Citation of Michael Tomasello et al. 2012: „So what do humans do about free riders? The answer is of course social selection by means of reputation. Humans have evolved extremely sensitive “cheater detection” mechanisms of a type never observed in chimpanzees or other great apes (no studies have investigated apes' partner choice with respect to free riders) - which lead them not only to shun free riders but sometimes even to punish them (Cosmides, 1989). Because everyone knows this to be the case, individuals are very concerned that others not think them to be laggards, and so they have developed a concern for self-reputation, something also never observed in other great apes.“)

What would be a synonyme for a „laggard with a free rider problem“ in real English? Thanks, --Edward Steintain (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC) Edward Steintain (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done - misplaced - as it says in big letters on the edit page:-
Please do not ask knowledge questions on this page. This talk page is where the reference desk itself is discussed. To choose an appropriate reference desk to visit, click here
- Arjayay (talk) 18:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Posted to Humanities desk. Arjayay, this was an edit request to post a question on a protected page, not an instance of "ask[ing] knowledge questions on this page". If you don't understand what edit requsests are, don't respond to them. Deor (talk) 19:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2015

Please post this question on the Language Desk. Thank you.

Meaning of a word used in King Lear

When Shakespeare wrote "Her voice was ever soft, gentle and low", what did he mean by "low"? Could it had had the two meanings it does now (low in volume, and also low in pitch) or would he have meant one or the other? Thank you. 184.147.131.85 (talk) 16:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Done. Anyone who has an answer: please post it at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language#Meaning_of_a_word_used_in_King_Lear, thank you. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks Sluzzelin.184.147.131.85 (talk) 17:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 09/11/2015

Could some kind registered editor please add the following to the Query: "Ne Me Quitte Pas" (rounded vowels in French songs) on the Language RD?

It may be relevant that neither of the two cited artists were entirely French. Piaf's mother was Italian, which may have influenced Piaf's accent, while Brel was Belgian. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 14:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Done, thanks. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Another 9 November 2015 semi-protected edit request

Please post the following answer under WP:RD/H#File:DiodotusCoinFront.jpg, in response to the query "Does the book concerned identify the photographers seperately?":

Ah, good point. I see no photo credits

• On the copyright page.
• In the introduction to the second edition, where it is stated that the plates are being added for this addition but there will actually be several issues, each containing the full text of the book but only a few of the plates, the idea being that museum visitors will want to buy the book but wouldn't like the cost of all the plates. Fortunately, Google's scanned copy has apparently had all the plates assembled, except that, as I said, it's missing some.
• On the plate pages themselves, the ones I looked at. There is a line of small lettering at the bottom of each one but it just says AUTOTYPE.

Nor does the author explicitly take credit for the photos himself. I don't know if present-day users concerned with copyright are allowed to assume they were his or not. --70.49.170.168 (talk) 16:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Done, thanks. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2015

Please add this reply to StuRat to my question on the Language Resk, under the heading Meaning of a word used in King Lear

I wouldn't assume that at all. In Shakespeare's time, the character would always have been played by a boy or teen. His voice might well have broken; the audience might well be hearing a speaker low in pitch. That's why I'm asking if "low in pitch" was a possible reading for the word in 1606. Appreciate the reference from Lindert.184.147.131.85 (talk) 12:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. 184.147.131.85 (talk) 12:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Deor (talk) 13:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks Deor.184.147.131.85 (talk) 15:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

It would be nice to have a link or a diff, so I could actually find this. μηδείς (talk) 16:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Considering the edit request listed the title, and there are currently 15 question headers on RDL requiring a skim through about 70 words or so, it's extremely easy to find Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#Meaning of a word used in King Lear. That said, if editors are having trouble finding such simple things and fortunately it doesn't seem to be the people making the requests, perhaps another timely reminder that editors should check out the actual desks and read the questions and answers there, rather than worrying too much about edit requests if they're not sure how to deal with them. Nil Einne (talk) 18:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Your link helped me to open the page up in a new browser's 'tab', took me straight to the point. Thank you, I would've forgotten about viewing the WP:RD/L if it wasn't open. -- Space Ghost (talk) 19:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2015

Isn't the capital of Pakistan now Islamabad CT 94.175.78.214 (talk) 14:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes Sam Sailor ^Talk! 19:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit requests

When an editor posts, on this talk page, a request that a query be added to a semiprotected desk, would editors please either (1) add the query to the desk or (2) decline to do so. Responding to the query here is not appropriate, since a query needs to attract the attention of all potential respondents, not just folk who happen to have this page watchlisted. I've seen several instances of such behavior lately, as a look at the threads above will indicate. Deor (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

^^ Seconded; thanks. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Where's the harm? If someone decides it's appropriate to post the question on the ref desk, they can take the responses with it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Why have a separate talk page at all, then? One case - little harm, I agree. Many cases - a recipe for chaos. Thin edges of wedges and all that. If the Q remains here, it will never show up in any part of the Ref Desk Archives that the reasonable man would look in. This page is for discussing the Ref Desks, not for asking questions about other matters. Please don't defend breaches of that protocol. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

If it's deemed appropriate to move it to a ref desk page, any additional comments can be brought along. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Whaddaya mean "if it's deemed appropriate"? The question is: Who ever deemed it appropriate to post subject-matter questions here in the first place? That's the core issue. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Moreover, if the question isn't "deemed appropriate", then it might as well be removed here too, and certainly needn't be answered, as there is no point in celebrating a trollfest of offensive minority-bashing questions and the like on this page either. The desks (unfortunately) get semi-protected, time and again, not because we need a filter of appropriateness for all questions asked by non-registered users, but to prevent trolling committed by very few hyperactive non-registered people. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

If you deem a given question inappropriate, you could delete any responses along with the original question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Again with the deeming. Listen, ALL posts to this page that do not relate to discussion of the ref desks are out of scope of this page and are automatically inappropriate. Nobody has to go around "deeming" them to be so. The poster made them so. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Doer: All the messages I sent in this page, if you check, you'll see that, it's something I thought 'all WikiPedians should know', or can help in one way or the other by being/as a 'Wikiteer' Also, if I could do anything for them... All because this page receives the most attention and is handled by experienced members. Mr. Octavious is asking about a 'Harry Potter book' (lol) in this page. Ammm, I'm messaging just to let you know about the difference in thought(s). If you still mind about me then let me know, I won't anymore. Regards -- Space Ghost (talk) 03:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Look, the matter is quite simple. An edit request is just what it says on the tin: a request that someone perform an edit that the poster is unable to perform himself or herself. Either comply with the request or pass it by and let someone else do it. This talk page is not the place for responding to users' questions. Deor (talk) 10:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• Frankly, while I was willing enough to give a very obvious answer to a rather simple question by a single-purpose account who would not be able to post a follow-up on the protected page anyway, I was low enough on my AGF prescription (I can't refill it until next week) to do all the work of moving it and doing all the links and so forth. The low potential return in reader interest and the unlikeliness of a response from the OP seemed to argue there was a better way to spend my time, like editing Phyllisi Diller or explaining the origins of a line in John of Gaunt's "This blessèd plot" soliloquy. I am surprised this has gone on for so long. μηδείς (talk) 19:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to continue perpetuating it in that manner. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

The edit requests may be a little confusing, because this talk page is the talk page for multiple reference desks. However, the general purpose of an edit request is that it is a request for an edit to a semi-protected article page. In the case of this talk page, edit requests come here when one of the reference desks themselves is semi-protected due to trolling or sock-puppetry. If an editor determines here that the request is a good-faith question, not by a troll or a sock-puppet, they should either post it to the proper reference desk or post it and reply to it at the proper reference desk. I agree that discussion of the edit requests here is not useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Medeis means by "moving it and doing all the links and so forth". If someone requests that a query be posted on a semiprotected page, just click "edit" next to the header, copy the query, and paste it to the appropriate desk (adding a suitable header). Quite simple and no "doing links" (whatever that may be) required. Deor (talk) 20:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

As you guys wish, no problem at all with me. I won't message here anymore .

Thanks Bugsy Arguing about this matter is a waste of time. I guess, it can be concluded as, many have messaged in this page in the past (nothing like mine of course), yet another person probably messaged after viewing my message... Some understand, respect, value, appreciate what they have (friends like some of you) e.g., Wikipedia, some don't. I'm not stupid. Regards. -- Space Ghost (talk) 21:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

By doing the work of moving I meant not just Melkorian copy pasting, but placing a "copied to here" link at the old location, and a "copied from here" link at the new location. μηδείς (talk) 06:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

You don't really have to do any of that. The only thing you have to do is do what Deor said and then come back here and changed the editrequest to answered and leave a signed comment saying you copied it to the requested place (no links needed) so that people know they don't have to deal with the editrequest. Technically the signed comment isn't needed, but it reduces confusion as to who actually dealt with the editrequest. If it wasn't stated what desk the requested edit was for (as has been said, it can be a bit confusing because this page is for multiple desks and not all editors realise that), then you should also mentioned which desk it was, preferably linking to the desk (which even from a mobile device shouldn't take more than 10 seconds, remember you can always use shortcuts like WP:RD/H). That said, you still have the option of not doing anything, which as has been said, is better than replying here. Nil Einne (talk) 12:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Concur with the preceding and others. No "copied to here" is needed for an edit request here, any more than it is needed for an edit request in an article. It's less clear if the requester doesn't use the edit request template. Is that a malformed edit request, or a misplaced post? If they didn't state a desired target page, it's a misplaced post and needs some way of indicating where you copied it to; the "copied to here" template is the most standard way of doing that, although you could just type a reply with a link instead.
I agree that this page is not for responses to RD questions, and it's not overly anal to enforce that. 68.97.47.26 (talk) 08:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Can you pass a psychometric exam if you fail the numerical reasoning part? Do you need to achieve a minimum score for each component of the exam?

Let's say the exam is composed of verbal reasoning, numerical ability, and abstract reasoning (each part has 50 items). Let's also say you scored low on numerical ability but achieved a fairly high score on the other two. Would you pass the exam?88jaymm (talk) 07:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC) 88jaymm (talk) 07:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done Nil Einne (talk) 12:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Please kindly click the 'edit source' link to find out more - where this is posted... -- Space Ghost (talk) 18:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Can't edit text of Reference Desk - non-violent conflict escalation

I want to add something to the reference desk. I added a note to a page and got no reply. I waited two weeks and now come here. Somehow this is exactly what my concern is: Relaxed conflict escalation. The current article is focused on escalation which results in violence. Maybe I am on the wrong track. Maybe the English word "escalation" does imply violence. I think there are mayn non-violent ways to do "conflict escalation". I am not brave enough to change the wikipedia article. I want to start a discussion first. How to proceed?

My quote from two weeks ago:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Conflict_escalation#Relaxed_Conflict_escalation.2C_climbing_up_the_hierarchy

Guettli (talk) 07:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I have responded at Talk:Conflict escalation. Looie496 (talk) 14:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2015

Please post the following answer under WP:RD/H#File:DiodotusCoinFront.jpg. Thank you.

Google Books knows about several editions of this guide, but at least for me in Canada, it only provides full-text access to one. This is the second edition published 1881, and is found here. On this edition the full title is Synopsis of the Contents of the British Museum Department of Coins and Medals. A Guide to the Principal Gold and Silver Coins of the Ancients, from circ. B.C. 700 to A.D. 1.

Unfortunately, judging by page 74, it appears that the illustration of the coin is on Plate 39, and that plate is missing from Google Books's copy, which goes directly from Plate 38 on what it calls page 193 to Plate 41 on what it calls page 195.

Anyway, the title page of the book identifies Barclay V. Head as the museum's Assistant Keeper of Coins. He does have a Wikipedia page, at Barclay V. Head, which contains links to further information about him. These sources agree that he died in 1914, and my non-expert understanding is that this means his work is no longer copyrighted anywhere. --70.49.170.168 (talk) 06:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Done, thanks. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. --70.49.170.168 (talk) 16:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Side comment

This continuing semi-protection of some of the RDs is getting annoying. --70.49.170.168 (talk) 06:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Oofh! If only there was another way to control the members and non-members from being disruptive... -- Space Ghost (talk) 09:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean that the semi-protection of the Reference Desks is annoying and should they should therefore be unprotected, or that the disruption of the Reference Desks that causes them to be semi-protected is annoying? 70.49.170.168, you can create an account and be auto-confirmed in four days. (You make more than 10 edits in 4 days.) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I mean that the situation is annoying, and in the past has been cause for complaints here. As for registering, I know, but it's not going to happen. --70.49.170.168 (talk) 16:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

How badly do you want to edit? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I would rather log into my Facebook account. -- Space Ghost (talk) 19:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, agreed. Robert, Wikipedia in general, and the reference desks in particular are open to non-registered users. That policy hasn't changed as far I could tell. Regular editors here have repeatedly asked to restrict semi-protections to a minimum amount of time, as shutting out querents (and volunteers) for days and weeks defies the desks' purpose. As has also been pointed out on this talk page and demonstrated at the desks, repeatedly, there are usually enough people hanging around with the desks on their watchlist, who are capable of and willing to revert obviously disruptive trolling (while the less obvious and less disruptive trolling could also just remain there, ignored, and glaringly stupid). But I'm tired of arguing this point over and over again. So I'll just add my agreement, that it's annoying. Now I'll go deal with edit requests further below. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Sluzzelin that the amount of semi-protection of the Reference Desks is excessive. Trolling is seldom a good reason for semi-protecting the Reference Desks. Trolling can be deleted or ignored, and some of the Reference Desk editors are administrators who can block the trolls. Outright vandalism, which is less common than trolling, may warrant semi-protection. In particular, given the structure of the Reference Desks, with one talk page for multiple project pages, the semi-protected edit requests are differently disruptive than the trolling. At the same time, I have no sympathy for the complaint of 70.49.170.168, who is suffering from a self-inflicted injury. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it would be better to let obvious trolling stand rather than reverting it multiple times until an admin just happens to notice it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

weird edits

5.81.235.234 (talk · contribs) was making some strange edits, mostly to the Entertainment desk, some damaging to the structure of the page. Some of the damage was fixed, but not all. I don't have time to check and fix any more of it, but someone else might want to. (But beware that some/all of the affected entries have now been archived.) --Steve Summit (talk) 03:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

(Lack of) Questions

I thought I'd nreak the silence by asking why literally not a single question was asked here for two days. Is there a bug? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.27.47 (talk) 11:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Given that there are responses (just above) from the 14th and it's still the 15th, I'd have to say that there's probably no bug and it also hasn't been two days. :) 99.235.223.170 (talk) 14:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I changed the title to make it clearer. You might ask on the Math Desk what the chances are no Q would be asked 2 days in a row given the number typically asked each day. Also, I believe the Desk was semi-protected recently, so that might have had an effect. StuRat (talk) 16:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

[this question was moved here from miscellaneous. μηδείς (talk) 17:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)]

No Bugs here , only Wabbits. And the Wabbit may talk soon.--178.98.130.96 (talk) 01:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I do not understand what is going on here. So it seems that you have made it so new people cannot ask questions on the reference desk, and then people are asking why people are not asking questions on the reference desk, and then when someone asks a question on the reference desk you move it onto a page that is not the reference desk? Why do you even have a reference desk if all the discussion is happening on this talk page? Octavious Rind (talk) 20:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

We apologize about that. We've had a problem where unregisterred users were abusing the reference desk and being highly disruptive. For short periods of time, we need to shut it down until they go away. If you've run into one of those short periods of time and could not ask a question, we're sorry about that. They really shouldn't be protected for very long at a stretch, just long enough to convince the person creating the disruption to find something else to do. You can always try again later. --Jayron32 20:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Or you could ask the question here and someone helpful could move it to the main ref desk page. Or you could register an account and add the question yourself. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

For the record, all of the desks are currently unprotected. I'd rather we kept it that way as long as possible, if the same person who's been causing the problem comes back, we should just block them, or keep the protections short (a few hours). There's enough of us admins around to take them down pretty quickly. --Jayron32 21:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

I just wanted to post a quick note of thanks for the users who have been re-posting questions to the desks from here due to the recent page protection action. So... "Thanks!" 99.235.223.170 (talk) 02:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Admittance requested

Hello, could you make it so I can ask a question here please?

I have 21 edits and don't want to wait four days.

Thanks! Q48dado (talk) 13:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Confirmed, but as per that page it's fairly unlikely your request will be granted. I suggest you make an WP:edit request instead. Nil Einne (talk) 13:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Can I request/suggest you strike the "as" from "as per"? It's a fine word, on its own. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

That may be so, but the expression is common in colloquial British English: for example, my 80-year old mother uses it frequently. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 15:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I certainly don't want to challenge her. Request withdrawn. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Mahfuzur Rahman Shourov should simply have patience. New users don't post complaints such as this, they accept that everyone has to deal with the same rules. μηδείς (talk) 17:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The Archives are Still a Problem

We still have socks of indeffed users editting the archives. The issue was left without any resolution before, and the problems like the difficulty of patrolling the archives or any usefull way of searching them still stand See this edit by an indeffed sock (I have reverted it) Octavious Rind who posted just above on this page. μηδείς (talk) 03:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, the only workable solution to the problem is 1) you see it happening 2) you tell someone who can block them 3) we block them and clean up the mess. Since all of that pretty much has already happened in this case, I would say the problem is already solved. --Jayron32 03:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but what happened here was; I fully expected the faux Potter character to be blocked. He was blocked but today. I checked to see what the "thank you" thread was about. I saw he was indeed blocked (just today!) and checked his history out of curiosity. I saw the archival revisionism.

Normally such historical revisionism would go unnoticed, since there is no way to watch the archives. One could easily imagine a huge amount of mischief being done with no one noticing. I think there should be some way for editors to watch at least the archives of those pages which they themselves editted when the page was still live. How that might be done I don't know. Can the issue be brought to some higher power? μηδείς (talk) 03:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

You can watch the archives just like any other page. Open the archive. Make the white star turn blue. You're welcome. --Jayron32 03:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

That's like saying I could check the oil level every time I start the car, six times daily. A low oil light would be more helpful. I assume you understand my point, and are not just teasing me. μηδείς (talk) 03:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I understand what you are asking for. I could be perhaps be more blunt in stating that there's no way to make it work how you want it to. If you want the archives watched, the only option you have is to watch them, the old fashioned way. Wishing other options existed to make your life easier does not mean those options actually could exist. --Jayron32 04:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

And I still think full protection is a very reasonable solution, since the need to edit the archives is very rare, and as someone said above, "There's enough of us admins around". μηδείς (talk) 04:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Fully protecting every archive individually is no less onerous than watching every archive individually, and more restrictive overall. Every Wikipedia core value on restricting access is based on principle of least restriction: do the thing which requires the least restriction to achieve the goal. If a person has to open every archive in existence and protect it, that's just as much work as opening every archive in existence and watching it. --Jayron32 04:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

It sound like something that could be done by a bot. Can somebody who knows about what bots can and can't do at least check if the archives can be protected by a bot? Sjö (talk) 06:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I can tell you that today scsbot, the current RD archiving bot, would have no way of protecting the archive pages as it creates them, because it (like its owner) does not have admin privileges. (I don't know whether there are any Wikipedia bots that have these privileges.) —Steve Summit (talk) 11:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, to answer a similar question that I think came up recently, I don't believe it's possible for the bot to populate a new archive page's watchlist (that is, based on a predefined list of interested regulars or anything). —Steve Summit (talk) 15:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I oppose full protection of archives. Typical edits on archive pages are users updating their signature after a name change, which often is a privacy issue. Keeping archives editable allows them to do so without raising much attention. Also, templates get changed or substituted, and full protection makes all these things more difficult than necessary. This is a wiki, so openness of editing is a fundamental principle, and it applies to archive pages as well. Note also that if there is "a huge amount of mischief being done with no one noticing" then the impact of that mischief seems fairly low. The easiest way to check whether any archives have been recently edited, by the way, is to use the "recent changes" links provided on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives. You click these links once per week and catch all vandalism of all archives. —Kusma (t·c) 12:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, at least in theory. In practice, Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities/Links_to_all_archives and similar pages need to be updated. That should be a simple bot task. —Kusma (t·c) 12:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes. That is an easy task to do as it can be populated six months or a year at a time. Last time this came up I expressed my uncertainty about the server load of a Special:RecentChangesLinked run against a page with many thousands of linked pages. I will populate one of them and ask about the issue on Village pump (technical). -- ToE 13:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

There's a simple trick that the bot could use to create a semi-protected archive page. Have an admin create a "dummy" page that is semi-protected. Then have the bot create the new page from that page, and then fill it in with the newly-archived material. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I would likewise oppose full protection, even if you could get approval for an WP:admin bot (which do exist). I'm also not seeing evidence of historical revisionism here. While it was fine to revert the changed by Octavious Rind as a banned sock, the edits were fully signed with time stamps, so there's no historical revisonism. And they should not have been deleted if Octavious Rind was not a banned sock. Note Octavious Rind was the one who originally asked the question, and did so under the same account, they were only identified as a sock later. This isn't like with Bowei Huang who likes to delete comments they don't like. Nil Einne (talk) 15:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be wonderful if someone gets the motivation to write a bot to look for deletions in archives. I don't particularly care what people insert, even if it is abusive - the few readers who come have a serious purpose, and if they step in some stray Wikidrama that is nothing, while if they find someone who said a-ha! and came back a year later (as I occasionally do) that is everything. Still, you could have the bot flag those few edits for manual review also. You could also use the edit filter mechanism to get eyeballs on edits to the archives (I'd be surprised if there isn't one set up already). But no action is actually necessary - even if there were widespread defacement of the archives, we could simply put on the main refdesk page a notice for people to check the history and look for one of the first few revisions of the pages. Definitely I oppose any kind of page-protection. Wnt (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

RD Misc Desk query November 23 – Metal loops sticking out of walls – please add reply below

It's difficult to be sure from the photo, but these are probably for attaching PPE lanyards/ropes and Safety harnesses to allow personnel to work on the outside of the building. Such attachments (in the UK, and presumably elsewhere) have to be regularly inspected to ensure they will still bear the required force without pulling out of the walls, and may not be used if the last inspection tag has passed its expiry date. In our office we have some on the inside load-bearing wall pillars, to allow personnel to attach and then climb out of the windows for whatever reason necessary. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 15:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Y Copied it to RD/M. Sjö (talk) 15:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2015

Just wanted to note that you refer to a Balkan country as Republic of Macedonia when in fact it is currently FYROM which is also disputed by the Greek people and Government. I would like to find out how you have chosen to call this Balkan country Republic of Macedonia and not FYROM when this contradicts history which is the reason your website exists. 78.87.239.169 (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

That's not really a question for the reference desk, but it's easy to answer here: it was decided during a thorough discussion in 2009, now archived at WP:NCMAC, where you will find a lot of material on the background of this decision and the rationale for it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: you should be aware of the irate shitstorm that arose when I answered now indeffed User:Octavious Rind's question on how to find the width of a book (answer:Amazon) here instead of moving the question to the appropriate desk and answering it there. μηδείς (talk) 17:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

There's a big difference namely that this question isn't a question for the reference desk as FPAS themselves noted, so technically the edit request could simply be denied as there's no real requirement to fix a malformed edit request, but that's less helpful than simply answering it. (Although if the page was unprotected, it's not the sort of question that's that likely to be deleted unless someone moved it to the help desk. So moving it there and answering would also have been largely harmless. ) Since it doesn't really belong on the RD, it's no real loss if it isn't moved there to anyone. It probably should be asked at the talk page Talk:Republic of Macedonia, although could also be asked on the WP:Help Desk either way there's no need to make an edit request here.

This is different from when instead of either ignoring or leaving a non-malformed edit request (i.e. on something which is appropriate for the RD), which should have been fulfilled based on the info available at the time, you answer it here. Noting that Octavious Rind was not indeffed when you decided to answer the RD question on RD talk. And that if they were indeffed, the edit request should have been denied, or simply deleted rather than answering the question.

Of course the other big (albeit related) difference is that the question, as with many reference desk questions, had many potential answers, which it did received on the reference desk but which would be very confusing if they were here (and it probably would have been missed by many too). By comparison, this question doesn't really need multiple answers, and in fact, if it did need multiple answers the people most likely able to provide the best answers would be on the talk page of the article or perhaps the help desk, not on the RD/M.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2015

I have a question about vocabulary. If a person looks at something terrifying, they are terrified, and experience terror. If they look at something ghastly, they are aghast, and experience... what? 212.105.160.248 (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC) 212.105.160.248 (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Moved to RDL. --Jayron32 21:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. 212.105.160.248 (talk) 21:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC) Thanks also to Dbfirs for the answer. Is "gast" or "ghast", meaning "fear", used by Shakespeare or other authors of that time? 212.105.160.248 (talk) 22:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Answered on main page. (Thanks to Tevildo for noticing this second question.) Dbfirs 23:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

RD Question "How has the rotschild family managed to dominate world banking"

For information, the above-titled query (which looks mighty like trolling) on the Humanities RefDesk has multiple text entries under it, but when edit is clicked (I was going to add a sardonic reference to Solipsism) an entirely unrelated text relating to Virginia Woolf appears in the edit box. I lack the time and expertise to unravel this. Edited to add: OK, now it all appears as a legitimate Virginia Woolf query – not sure what's going on here, but doubtless someone thinks they're amusing. {The poster formerly known as 87.81/230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 15:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Probably because it was removed by the time you clicked edit. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

To explain in a bit more detail, when you click on Edit it apparently grabs the section "that far down" (let's say the 28th section from the top). If that section no longer exists, it will then grab the next section (whatever section is 28th now). This method causes the problem you encountered, but also if a new section is inserted above it between when the page is refreshed and you click edit, you also get the wrong section. The alternative would be for the code to look for the section with that name, but then if the name was changed it won't find it. Perhaps a hybrid system would be better, where first it looks for a section with that name, and if it doesn't find it (or finds more than one section with the same name), then look for that section number. Not fool-proof, but should have a lower fail rate (it would still fail if section removed, but not if it was just moved elsewhere on the page). Does anybody know if this approach would be practical ? StuRat (talk) 21:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, StuRat. I was afraid that a clever hacker had managed to find a way of displaying text and obfusticating the edit box to prevent replies or removals! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 15:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I suspect it's a well-known issue, and that there's an open bug on it. (But I don't know how to search MediaWiki bugs.) You could try asking on VP/T; I bet somebody there would know. —Steve Summit (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not just when a section is deleted, I believe, but also if a new question has been added since you refreshed the page. This is a natural (not inevitable, but natural) consequence of the fact that this page, unlike every other discussion page in Wikipedia AFAIK, uses top posting. --ColinFine (talk) 10:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by that. New comments are added beneath old ones -- and new sections are added at the bottom, too. That does tend to exacerbate the problem -- but that's how every discussion page on Wikipedia works, isn't it? —Steve Summit (talk) 13:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Random interesting article

I've been trying to get some interest in adding a button that generates a random article - but which endeavors to make it be an "interesting" article (and yes, I'm aware of the difficulties with the definition of that word!).

I know that a lot of people who work in the WP:RD's do so as a means to broaden their minds - as a source of serendipity to provoke them into learning new stuff that they wouldn't have bothered with otherwise.

It's evident that in the top half dozen Google hits for "Wikipedia random article" that many, many people hit "Random article" in an effort to broaden their minds, and to find something serendipious to read. Sadly, as Wikipedia has grown, we have more and more "database" articles about things like freeways, Japanese Railway stations, Pokemon cards, episodes of "The Simpsons" - that really don't fill their need - and which mask articles like Coconut crab that people tend to find fascinating (world's largest land-arthropod, kept by children as pets!)

Anyway - if you have suggestions - or wish to help, please join the conversation at: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Random_interesting_article.

SteveBaker (talk) 13:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for not going elsewhere, but the first thing that comes to mind is limiting the selection to anything that has been a featured article, or a "did you know". --LarryMac | Talk 16:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Vague question about Black Brutality on WP/RD:M

A currently unanswered query has had its heading changed from Black Brutality in Gloucestershire, UK to just the first two words, in a subsequent edit from the same IP address as the original query. Since the deletion also added a spurious character which removed the formatting, I happened to notice, looked at the relevant edits, and restored the abridged title (with formatting) and a NOTE showing the change. A query about interracial police brutality is going evoke different responses if geographically limited rather than not. I'm raising the matter here because that same IP addressee removed my note with an edit description of "not me, vandalism" - to which I restored my note and put a time stamp to my revision, explained in my edit summaries. Because the revised wording is potentially offensive and gives no indication that the context is police actions, I feel it needs some watching. Your help is appreciated. -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 12:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The location was added by a different user[7], presumably using a highly dubious geolocation basis. The original[8] does not specify a location. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Evidently I didn't read far enough back to the actual original posting. So the "specify location" edit is attributed to User:Medeis? I'll give this a rest now. Thanks, User:zzuuzz, for clarifying. -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to note for the record that the issue User:Deborahjay mentions has been going on for over two weeks since this thread was started, Black Brutality and has nothing to do with me or my behaviour. As far as I can tell, without wasting the time looking at the history, well over a dozen, if not a score of editors have been snared in this ongoing attack, and I bear no responsibility for it, as might be assumed if one only reads the first few comments. μηδείς (talk) 01:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Adding the geolocation was kind of a chancy thing to do, but the question does look like race-baiting trolling. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

It's the same guy that posted this bit of Jew-baiting. There's been a rash of this stuff here, and the admins have blocked most of them, but they missed this one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

If the unsigned IP wasn't trolling with his unsupported and unqualified racial claim, he could clarify himself. Otherwise the comment should just be removed as obvious troll is obvious. μηδείς (talk) 17:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I removed it, and he put it back. It's a troll, and not blocked yet. I'm guessing the admins are doing other things at present. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, so Medeis and BB do run the Ref Desk. How convenient. Also, claiming that I'm behind some sort of anti-jewish claptrap is like suggesting I'm Osama Bin Laden. Complete and utter nonsense, with no basis in fact whatsoever. And no, nor were the moon landings faked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.27.47 (talk) 18:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, so the above IP is blocked for a month - and not by either Medeis nor me, as we have no power to issue blocks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, this edit looks like an attempt to revert a series of edits, but an IP can only do one. This is of course stupid and ridiculous, but it's from a few weeks ago. Drmies (talk) 18:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

FYI this is at ANI. I don't always agree with accusations of "trolling" thrown around here to justify removals/hats, but the comment immediately above, if I'm reading it correctly as purporting to be the OP, does make the whole thing look like a trolling exercise. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

This edit is a dead giveaway that it's trolling. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• OK. That antisemitic question was from a now-blocked one-off account. The writing strikes me as coming from a different person than this IP editor. I do not agree, Medeis, with your addition of the location--come on now. If you think you're being baited, don't bait back. As for the IP's questions, I think they're malformed and rather silly, and I would block immediately if I saw it anywhere else in the project, but this page isn't the normal Wikipedia that I'm used to. So yeah, the real admins are elsewhere and you have to settle for me. The me who's about to go home, by the way. Drmies (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• The user is an obvious troll, discussed at ANI. He's been blocked in his various sock and proxy forms (posting from among other places, NYC, the UK and Paris) and the page has again been semi-protected. And even in the light of this we have experienced editors restoring the material and demanding Moses bring down a third tablet before they will drop the matter? μηδείς (talk) 19:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Darn those experienced users! Always pulling stunts like asking you for actual evince instead of a vague "See ANI". How dare they! --Guy Macon (talk) 01:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately for those evil smugglers dressed as ghost pirates, we meddlesome kids.... It's one thing to ask politely for a diff. It's another to be so blind as not to look at a history or a talk page when there are a dozen reverts, and insist on abetting a troll because ...must...answer...every...question. That's why we can't have nice things. Someone can hat this until tomorrow, same bat time, same bat channel. μηδείς (talk) 02:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I think you mean weevil jugglers dressed as pirate ghosts. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I often disagree with the way μηδείς handles these trolling or alleged trolling situations but I don't find much fault in the reversion. The only thing I would have done different, is I would have referred to this talk page, or not referred to anything rather than refer to ANI, but that's a minor thing. (Also it is relatively easy to find the thread at ANI by searching on the page for "reference desk" and I would have expected someone like StuRat could do that.)

WP:DENY explicitly encourages us not to make a big fuss about these things, hence why I left zero comment here despite reverting the comment about four times early on and would prefer we didn't need to have yet another one of these dumb conversations.

To be fair, I think DENY is sometimes overapplied, in particular I'm not sure if there's any point in applying it liberally to editors like Bowei Huang, who whatever they are doing are possibly not seeking or getting anything from people recognising or memorialising them and I'm not sure if they're exactly seeking attention either. (For that matter WickWack, who may or may not be back but likewise although they apparently wanted to always be right, they did so by maintaining at least 4 identities & didn't seem to actually want to recognition of their name or identity or otherwise want attention.)

Over liberal application of DENY can make things confusing when dealing with someone irregular or where it's a bit difficult to see the problem. It also mostly rules out engaging with the problematic editor and although I perhaps have a tendency to over-engage sometimes, there are times when it seems to make the editor realise the game is up. (And I also recognise it's generally unclear what some problematic editor is trying to do, hence why I too often at a minimum, try to avoid naming editors when I can.)

However from what I've read at ANI and elsewhere, it's likely this is a case where deny is a good idea as the editor probably is seeking attention. More to the point, this discussion is and was the most recent in this talk page. And even the header tells you it's about the same thing. Furthermore, by the time Medeis had reverted, the editor had been reverted after using 4 different IPs with extremely different geolocation data by me before the page was protected. (No edits then happened until the protection expired and the IP came back and reverted which Medeis reverted which StuRat then reverted.) In other words, even with the application of DENY, there was no reason for someone with the experience of StuRat on how to use wikipedia and the RD, should be confused about the IP being up to no good.

And even if StuRat is really incapable of noticing any of this, as has been said they could have always asked someone what was going on. I presume this is why an admin who doesn't frequent the RD except to deal with this stuff reverted StuRat [9] with the comment "rv proxying for block-evading troll".

BTW I actually do agree that adding the IP geolocation was unhelpful, but the Clinton question did strongly suggest the IP was simply trolling even if there was any doubt over the black brutality bit. (As has been mentioned, the Jewish question thing seems to be a case of confusion as the IP was trying to remove the question.) In any case once Drmies blocked, it became a moot point. If the IP wanted to ask for an unblock, they could have and did (and were denied by someone else). In fact, I'm still uncertain whether the IP is even the same as the person who keeps adding the comment back but it was clear that the (South Korean) IP who added it back was unwanted from the first time they added it back, which they proceeded to prove by adding it back using 3 very different IPs.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

As I'm sure everyone has noticed, this problem has not gone away - is there anything we can do other than locking down the Misc desk permanently? Or are we happy continuing to manually delete the question? Tevildo (talk) 20:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• Well, the same user is back with the black brutality question. Can @Jayron32: or some other admin either block the user or semi the page? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 20:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Follow up; TRM has taken care of it. μηδείς (talk) 22:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

And he's back. The short-term page locks don't appear to be working, and presumably it's not possible to block the range of IP addresses in use. Should we lock the Misc desk for a longer period (a month or so) and rely on talk page edit requests? Or is there a better long-term solution? (One is tempted to mention the Computer Misuse Act 1990, but we're probably not at _that_ stage yet). Tevildo (talk) 23:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit filter would work spectacularly here, if I'm not mistaken. It works very well in cases where a formulaic troll is hammering a page with the same shit over and over. I don't know the technical details, but I'd be willing to draw up a formal request; though I'd almost like an informal consult with an experienced EF admin, I'm going to ping @Samwalton9: and see if he can drop by and first indicate if this is the sort of thing the edit filter could stop. I suspect it can, and the edit filter is nice because it can target something like this, and leave the rest of the desk open for editing, which is most ideal. --Jayron32 02:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I was almost tempted to say we should have an RfC to ask whether the ref desks should be retasked as "tools for registered users", but decided against that, since many registered users do use the ref desks without the intention of using the gained information to improve an article, even though such users are here, for the most part, to improve the encyclopedia in at least some small way. μηδείς (talk) 03:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

FYI we already have an edit filter set up for reference desk trolling (which may or may not be primarily aimed at this troll, I'm not sure) at Special:AbuseFilter/731. I've added the latest couple of characteristic strings to the filter. Apologies that it's hidden but it would be quite easy to work out how to avoid it. If you want to enquire about its contents please contact the mailing list. Sam Walton (talk) 09:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

thanks Sam. You're the best!--Jayron32 10:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: He's back. The edit filter needs some tweaks, he's using breaching experiments to get by it. Check the history of RDM for some more patterns. Thanks in advance!--Jayron32 22:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

This is getting a bit ridiculous. Further changes made. Sam Walton (talk) 15:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again! --Jayron32 16:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Too bad you can't just go to that guy's flat and threaten to destroy his collection of rubber duckies. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, my parole officer has told me not to threaten such violence. μηδείς (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

An Apology

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Just wanted to apologies to the RD and it's regulars for my periodic disruption. I recently had a complaint sent to my home address via my ISP regarding some of my online activities. I don't know whether it relates to my Wikipedia history or something else. But regardless, prior to getting that awful letter I didn't really think there were any consequences to my actions online. But now things have really hit home. I have thought twice, and decided it's time for me to stop. Additionally, I wanted to say sorry for any inconvenience caused. In the spirit of friendship, I hope we can all move on. My apology is unconditional, I do not expect to be unblocked for this.

Wick. (WW) --83.228.126.159 (talk) 13:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

It's a start. As an experienced admin, I'd be willing to hold you to the "Standard Offer", which states that if you abide by your existing ban for at least 6 months, and then ask for a formal review of your ban accompanied by proper allocution and assurances of changed behavior, we may have a community discussion to revoke your existing ban. I will, of course, let others weigh in, and my opinion has no additional weight over anyone elses. I appreciate the earnestness of your apology, and I hope it leads to positive growth. --Jayron32 13:23, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Wickwack is in Perth, Western Australia. The above IP address geolocates to Bulgaria. --Viennese Waltz 13:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Which doesn't mean that he's not now using a proxy or other means to mask his geolocation. Saying that also doesn't mean that the above is not a different troll pretending to be Wickwack. The best we can do is both assume good faith and accept that On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. Which is to say, if the above is Wickwack, the offer is valid. If it isn't Wickwack, they can take a flying leap. Either way, we're good here. --Jayron32 14:26, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but if this is Wickwack, then he shouldn't be using a proxy to mask his geolocation. If this is him, the masking shows he's not serious about mending his ways. --Viennese Waltz 15:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Unless he has other reasons, unrelated to Wikipedia, to mask his geolocation, related to security issues completely unrelated to disrupting Wikipedia. It's not always about us, you know. It could be, but the first choice we make should not always be "How are they trying to screw Wikipedia!" That's what AGF is about. I'm not saying that if you aren't correct, we shouldn't wash our hands of this mess. I'm just saying that we shouldn't jump to the "disruption" conclusion first. --Jayron32 15:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Right, also WP:PROXY and WP:SOCK don't say that we shouldn't use proxies, they say that we shouldn't be disruptive. Who knows, but after you've extended the standard offer perhaps we don't need to discuss this issue here in any further detail. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, if this really is Wickwack, I'd invite you again to take the standard offer. If you really are a cranky old engineer in Perth, then I think you have potential to help us out! You seemed to know a lot. If you are polite and give references and don't play identity games, then I for one would welcome your participation. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

This is the real Wickwack. I don't know what the Wick above is playing at but he/she IS NOT ME. Their intent can only be mischievious - thsy either are wasting your time, at best, or worse, trying to get you to lift the ban and will make further posts

I ceased posting on Ref Desk a few years ago. I still however make good use of Wikipedia itself (not Ref Desk) and occaisonaly have a look at Science Desk and teh talk pages to see what you are all up to. I don't realy care about the ban. If folk acting in good faith revoke the ban, I rather think certain others will continue to enforce it.

I have never regarded the ban as legitimate, and do not applogise for any of my posts. However, it was NEVER my intent to cause disruption or offence on Ref Desk. However I have respected the bann by not posting.

The ban "officially" seemed to be because my IP address is different each time. That is rather silly, because my ISP uses Dynamic IP. That measn I get a different IP allocated to me each time I boot up my PC. There is absolutely nothing I can do about it. While I did use two alternative sign-off names (depending on subject matter, to facilitate finding my posts using the Ref Desk search facility, I was no t aware this was forbidden for quite a while. I often saw refrences to "socking" but didn't know what it meant. After a while I realised what it meant, but it was too late then. If some admin person had asked me to use only one name, I would have complied.

A carefull read of teh thousands of words written about me reveals that the excuse (and it clearly was an excuse) was that tyhe same sign-off used multipe IP address, and athe same IP address was used with different signoffs. In one case (check it and see) the same IP was used several weeks apart. It happens. People do win the Lottery.

A careful read of the stuff written about me reveals that the real reason for the ban was because I embarrased certain people by posts that showed that their facts were wrong. You can see this from the names of the people who drove the ban - eg Medeis, Steve Baker. Even if I registered and stopped signing off poasts with an IP address, I doubt that these folk would accept my presence. Some folk appreciate when they are shown to be wrong. It is another way of learning. But a small percentage of folk take deep offence - usually those who know they don't have subject matter expertise. Though I could be a little more diplomatic I guess.

The real sad part of this is not that I upset 3 or 4 people, not is it that I am banned. I don't really care - I stopped posting when teh ban was put in place, two or three years ago now, at least. I contribute to other forums without any fuss. The real sad thing is that, effectively, you have erratically banned everybody who posts using an IP address from the Telstra Australia IP address pool.

If you wish to discuss this is good faith, or verify this was indeeed posted by the real Wickwack, post here and invite me to your talk page. You can be 100% certain the Bulgarian above is not the genuine Wickwack.

To assist in dealing with false Wickwacks, I respectfully suggest you leave this post intact, despite the ban - I posted this in good faith.

Wickwack120.145.13.248 (talk) 16:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the ban was not for using different IP addresses, so please do not mischaracterize it as that. The ban was because you used different aliases (like Wickwack, Keit, Floda. I may have messed up the spelling of a few of those) when signing your posts, giving the illusion that you were more than one person, when in fact you were just one person. We don't care if your IP address changes, but to pretend you are more than one person is not allowable under Wikipedia rules, and for that reason you were banned. It was also considered that, after abiding by your ban for at least 6 months, if you wished to return to the ref desks, you could be allowed to do so so long as you registered an account and stuck to that one account. It would have also been likely to be allowable for you to return if you stuck to one alias (as you sign your posts with Wickwack now) even without registerring. The ban was solely for the use of multiple aliases to deceive, and the revocation of the ban is only contingent on you agreeing to stick to one alias. The IP address issue had nothing to do with it. You and anyone else can read the entire ban discussion and proposal here. --Jayron32 16:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Jayron, you are quite wrong. If you read the words supporting and leading to the ban, and all teh othger words written about me (I found the immense volume of words about me astounding! It amounts to thousand!) it is very clear the real reason was that I made certain folk feel silly becasue their facts several Ref Desk post wrong. The ban was driven 99% by those folk. Check archives carefully and you'll see. Check talk page archoves - you'll see that certain folk have made it quite clear that even if I was to register and/or always sign off with teh same name, they still want me banned. They have made it explicit they don't like being shown wrong. Wickwack120.145.13.248 (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

You can keep telling yourself that if it makes you sleep better at night, but absolutely no one at the ban discussion mentioned any of that. That you can read the minds of people is an amazing gift; it's a shame you can't use it to better use. In the meantime, we're left with what people wrote in the ban discussion. Every single person who voted in favor of enacting the ban noted that the only reason for the ban was the use of multiple aliases, and noted that the ban could be lifted if you agreed to stick to one alias, either by registerring an account and/or by simply always signing with the same name. Furthermore, your explanation and naming of Medeis and SteveBaker as your imagined enemies breaks down when you see that, in that discussion, both of them voted against the ban. So literally, you've claimed that the people who supported you are somehow your enemy? Seriously, it's all there in the text, you and I and God and everybody else can read it whenever we want to. You can assert anything you want, especially if it makes you feel better or gives you the illusion that you have been persecuted so others may mistakenly believe that as well. If, instead, they read the text of the ban discussion, there is no evidence of that at all, and indeed your named "persecutors" voted against banning you at all. The ball is in your court, you get to decide what you want to do: you can be simply unbanned by agreeing to stick to one alias, and no one will ever bother you again so long as you hold to that, or you can keep maintaining the unsupported allegations you keep making. --Jayron32 17:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

To ask the obvious question: How did he know about this discussion? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Bugs, can't you read? Check above. I use Wikipedia extensively as a source of references, and now and then I take a look at Ref Desk and teh talk pages to see what you all are up to. Its pure chance that I happend to look today.

If you have any doubts, treat anybody who pretends to be me as a troll. Don't feed them.

Wickwack120.145.13.248 (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Now, because you shouldn't feed trolls (this thread was started by a troll), if you want to discuss this, do it else where where the troll won't be interested. We've given him enough fun already. Wickwack.120.145.13.248 (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

If OP was seriously sorry about ban evading, why would they ban evade in order to let us know how sorry they are about ban evading? It's obviously another avenue of disruption and attention seeking. Just look; this is a huge thread with all the regulars discussing a well-known troll. Nothing gives a troll more joy than seeing their antics being discussed and a put on a pedestal. This might satiate the trolls hunger for a few days or even weeks, but rest assured they will be back again and up to their old tricks. 39.169.136.154 (talk) 18:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Good idea. --Jayron32 18:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WickWack problem

As others may have noticed, WickWack was given an inch on the Science desk this morning, and, predictably, has taken a mile. I've hatted the discussion between his first contribution and Nimur's last posting (diff) - some more radical but precise surgery may be appropriate, or we can just delete the whole thing, per WP:DENY. Tevildo (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I think DENY is best served by leaving what you did and nothing more. I concur this is our old Australian friend returning yet again. Behavioral evidence became clear after a few posts. Good one. --Jayron32 18:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I thibk its possible that Wick wack and Light current are in fact the same person. They seem very clever at changing their ips.--178.110.28.209 (talk) 02:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

This crusade of trying to ban specific anonymous posters is beyond ridiculous. But if people are actually filing reports against specific IP addresses for the imagined not-crimes of hundreds of other IP addresses, it's also dangerous. Why did China win the Cold War? Why is China's conception of human rights now the international standard? Because the rest of us have all these notions of how things are supposed to work, "freedom" and "privacy" and all that, but nobody seems willing to believe in them, to pay the slightest price for them, not even the cost of skipping over a question you don't think somebody ought to ask because ooh, it might be in poor taste. And no matter how doomed and absurd your effort may be, you'll still be out there on the golf course hunting the Great White Gopher with nuclear weapons tomorrow, saying this time will finally put a stop to it. Wnt (talk) 19:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

(1) He's a banned user and is not allowed to edit. (2) In case of questions, refer back to point (1). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

Please append to WP:RD/M#Detective Sergeant or Sergeant Detective:

• In any case, "Sergeant Detective" is indeed the correct rank in Boston. See pages 1-2 of this PDF from the official Boston Police Department web site. --76.69.45.64 (talk) 05:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Deor (talk) 05:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Xmas!

Merry Christmas community members!

This is for all the Wiki-Ladies

And for Wiki-Gents - Lets do something new this Christmas together

Hope you have a lovely Christmas.

Space Ghost (talk) 22:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Very nice. :) Tomorrow is a good day to hit the gym and go a few rounds, as it will be Boxing Day. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:33, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Whatever-Doesn't-Offend-You ! :-) StuRat (talk) 16:33, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Love you guys (all)! -- Space Ghost (talk) 21:36, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Read Boxing Day. While going to the gym is a good way to get off any weight one has gained from Christmas dinner, the name of the day does not refer to a martial art, but to the regifting of presents in boxes, formerly by wealthy Britons to their servants, so engage in any sort of exercise that you want to engage in. Also, if you then eat a lot of the leftovers from Christmas dinner, you might still need to work off more weight. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:28, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

And Yuletide Felicitations to you, Space Ghost. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:27, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

-- Space Ghost (talk) 21:02, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

And another semi-protected edit request

Please add this under WP:RD/H#GSD:

I've done some searching in Google Books and it seems that in the Improved Order of Red Men, a month was called a "moon", a year was a "great sun", and G.S.D. stood for "great sun of discovery", that is, the year counting from Columbus's first arrival in the New World. Although the word "moon" might suggest a lunar calendar, they used the same one we do, just with the months renamed and the years renumbered. One source I found in Google Books for this is H. L. Mencken's book The American Language, 1945 edition. --76.69.45.64 (talk) 05:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done ―Mandruss ☎ 09:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

Please add the following under WP:RD/L#Referring to art works by the artist's name:

• I agree that works of literature are not referred to in the style "three Shakespeares", but I don't think this extends to genre or series fiction. "Three John Grishams" or "three Agatha Christies" seems a normal enough usage to me. Or similarly, "Are there any more Agatha Christies here?" And just as people might see (or not see) "the latest Almodovar", so they might read (or not read) "the latest Grisham". Of course, if the series features a single lead character, the character's name may be used in the same way, but that's another matter. --76.69.45.64 (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done ―Mandruss ☎ 09:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Notice to Good-Faith Unregistered Editors

This talk page and some of the Reference Desks have been semi-protected again due both to trolling and to outright vandalism (the unexplained removal of posts). I am aware that most of the unregistered editors at the Reference Desks are good-faith editors, but because there are a few bad-faith unregistered editors (trolls, vandals, and other subspecies of Internet riff-raff), I would suggest that you seriously consider registering. Most of the arguments against registering are mistaken. For instance, some unregistered editors think that they protect their privacy better that way. Pseudonymous user IDs have better privacy than IPs. Registration has several advantages. The obvious one at the Reference Desks is the ability to edit through semi-protection. So, if any good-faith unregistered editors are reading, consider registering. (Since this talk page serves for multiple reference desks, the use of the feature of requesting an edit does not work as well as it does at articles.) Robert McClenon (talk) 19:12, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Seconded. More specifically, (1) we know where you live, and (2) one could launch a DoS attack or other bad stuff against your IP address. Exposing your IP address is a Bad Idea from a security standpoint. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, we don't know where they live, that's a complete fallacy. These vandals use IP cloaking software and can change IP addresses (and hence "where they live") every minute. To think otherwise is extremely naive I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm speaking to the good-faith IP users, per this section's heading. Most of them have IP addresses that don't change very often, and don't cloak their geolocation. Mine, for example, went unchanged for about five years and correctly shows my location. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, but that's still not true, many good faith editors using IPs can and do cloak their IP addresses, for this very reason. It's trivial, some browsers provide it as a feature. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:50, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Point taken, leaving the elimination of the need to do that (there must be at least some small performance hit involved in that) and the other few dozen reasons to register. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Any performance hit would be negligible, how large are even the largest Wikipedia pages? You wouldn't notice it. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we have many good-faith IP users, but some IP-hopping trolls, especially the recent foul-penned IP who uses 119.202.84.124‎; 46.241.20.93‎; 162.248.243.167‎; 174.61.146.61‎; 175.214.114.70‎; 176.36.58.132‎; 182.239.181.212‎; 197.46.255.97‎; 2.132.159.228‎; 203.243.3.13‎; 210.217.150.148; 121.130.53.145‎; 27.1.179.7‎; 36.3.252.154‎; 36.72.119.27‎; 157.7.133.230‎; 123.109.127.76‎; 59.6.194.166‎; 61.94.133.83‎; 116.41.206.254‎; 115.252.130.5‎; 112.121.8.40‎; 107.195.141.240‎; 1.34.157.111‎; 1.236.233.212‎; 113.151.114.168‎; 101.99.7.237‎; 221.118.44.26 etc. -- and that's all this morning! Dbfirs 12:00, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is. But, if most good-faith users of the desks were registered, it would be more acceptable to semi-protect them when necessary as a defense against said IP-hopping trolls. In effect, then, the good-faith users who don't register are helping enable the ongoing disruption of the desks by bad-faith IPs. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

We need some better abuse filters for sure. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, and I'm sure this has been pointed out more than once, there's little gained by leaving the page unprotected when it's so difficult to sneak in a good-faith edit while the page is in its normal state. I think only one such edit occurred during the 90 minutes of continuous reverting today. Otherwise, there was no good-faith use of the page, registered or not, and it might as well have been semi'd. At least then it would have been usable by autoconfirmed users. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:48, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I suppose we could have given the vandal exactly what he wanted, yes. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

He said that's what he wanted. What if, heaven forbid, trolls don't always tell the truth? What he wanted was disruption, and which is more disruptive, 90 minutes of reverts that almost completely disable the page for everyone, or semi-protection that disables it only for unconfirmed users? I say the former, and I say you were played. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Say what you like, no skin off my nose. I'll leave it to others to worry about from now on since it's clear that there's nothing but criticism coming out of this. FWIW, the Humanities desk has been semi-protected until late-March, if you'd prefer that for all the reference desks, just ask at WP:RPP, should be simple enough to do that across all the ref desks, for consistency. Or perhaps we simply disallow IP editors from contributing to this specific part of Wikipedia altogether (which, effectively, is what medium-to-long term protection means). Perhaps write that up somewhere so IPs know that they're not part of this microcosm of Wikipedia after all. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

And just re-visiting your claim of a "few dozen reasons to register", there's a total of twelve, one of which is to vote for picture of the year? Your own talkpage? IPs have talk pages. Unified login? If an IP wants to edit Wikpiedia, who cares about "unified login"? Honestly, don't brainwash yourself. And more importantly, don't try to brainwash others. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I personally do not consider unregistered editors who use IP cloaking to be good-faith editors, but that is my opinion, and others may disagree. I personally think that a mistake was made more than a decade ago in allowing unregistered editors most of the same privileges as autoconfirmed pseudonymous editors. I am aware that decision is not likely to be changed within the next few years if ever, but I personally generally support nibbling away at it, including the use of semi-protection (rather than pending changes protection) against bad-faith unregistered editors. My original comment had been that good-faith unregistered editors should register. Even if most of the advantages of registration are trivial, the perceived disadvantages of pseudonymous registration are invincibly ignorant. A few unregistered editors know, beyond knowledge, that they will compromise their privacy by registration. (They will compromise their privacy from Checkusers if indeed they give reason to do Checkuser, but I am not persuaded that there is a privacy right to be a sock-puppet.) A few unregistered editors then whine whine whine about how their rights are abridged by semi-protection, when they always can just register. That is my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:01, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Has anyone considered pending changes protection instead of semiprotection? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, I wasn't even sure that pending changes was still in widespread use. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Pending changes is not in widespread use. I don't know if it ever was in widespread use. But it does exist. I disagree with using it for the Reference Desks, but that is only my opinion. I would prefer to completely lock out the bad-faith unregistered editors, and let the chips fall where they may, and encourage the good-faith unregistered editors to register. I still don't think that they have valid reasons for not registering. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Does that mean the change would not happen until a user with pending-changes enabled approves it? If so, it's certainly worth a try. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, that's precisely what would happen. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Details are at Wikipedia:Pending changes. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps that's a great first step, putting all the RDs under pending changes would at least allow regular editors while stopping boring psychopathic IPs. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure pending changes is sufficient here. The edits would still happen, they would still be in the history, they would still be seen by regular editors, they would still have to be reverted, IP vandals could still revert-war over them if they chose to, they could still create confusion. In the case of the "Vote (X) for Change" disruption on the humanities and language desks, I don't really like the idea. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, if there's a psycho-vandal pending change, but a normal editor makes an edit, is that edit then automatically accepted, overtaking the psycho-vandal's edit? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the claim that "The edits would still [...] be seen by regular editors":

"When a page under pending changes protection is edited by an unregistered (also called IP) editor or a new user, the edit is not directly visible to the majority of Wikipedia readers, until it is reviewed and accepted by an editor with the reviewer right." -WP:PC.

  --Guy Macon (talk) 05:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's probably true for articles, assuming that "the majority of Wikipedia readers" are unregistered. But how large is that proportion on the refdesks? How many unregistered people read here, apart from the few that have been asking questions at any given moment? In any case, I'm not convinced it would make a difference to the trolls either way. Their purpose in doing what they do is not to reach some other unregistered readers; their purpose is to force their presence on us, the regulars, and they will have reached that purpose no matter whether other unregistered people see it or not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I think that the assumption is that the majority of Wikipedia readers are unregistered or not logged in. However, the majority of Wikipedia editors are registered. I think that that applies to article space. The Reference Desk is primarily used by registered editors to talk to other registered editors, and secondarily by a combination of good-faith unregistered editors and bad-faith unregistered editors. So any statement about a majority of readers is not applicable. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I just made a test edit to Wikipedia:Pending changes/Testing/4 using an alternate account (User:TestAccountZboxx3R7ql001). I confirmed that the page did not contain the edit (but did contain a small box saying that there are pending changes) when I was not logged in, logged in as a non-autoconfirmed user, logged in as an autoconfirmed user, and as an autoconfirmed user with pending changes reviewer rights. In all cases the page did not have the edit.

I then reverted the edit using this account (I am a pending changes reviewer). The small box that says there are pending changes went away, and of course the page did not have the edit. Again, it looked exactly the same when I was not logged in, logged in as a non-autoconfirmed user, logged in as an autoconfirmed user, and as an autoconfirmed user with pending changes reviewer rights.

In all cases the edit could be viewed by going to the history, which in my opinion is an important safeguard against a pending change reviewer misusing the user right.

I could find no example where registered and unregistered users see anything different. With all due respect, it appears that the above comment is based upon a misunderstanding of how PC works. Could it be that administrators see something different? I am unable to test for that. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Please put it back, and I'll see if I can see it while logged out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Done. BTW, what you will see depends on the setting "Show the difference between the latest accepted version and the latest pending revision when editing pages" in your preferences. I believe the default is to have that option unchecked. I will confirm that and will check whether those who are not PC reviewers even see that option the next time I log out. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, the "Show the difference between the latest accepted version and the latest pending revision when editing pages" check box in the preferences is only there if you have PC reviewer rights. The rest of the options are the same. In Preferences --> Recent changes --> Pending Changes, the defaults are "Use small icons and minimal text to show review status of pages" and "Use the default settings for each page".

If you choose "Always show the latest version" it shows the edit even though it has not been accepted. If you choose "Always show the stable version (if there is one)" or "Use the default settings for each page" it doesn't.

Are the default PC settings on any page set to "always show the latest version"? It seems like that would stop the PC feature from working. Is there some situation where that would be useful? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm able to see it even when logged out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I can't see it when logged out. I always clear my cache when testing things like this. Any chance you are seeing a cached version? Other than that, I don't know how Wikipedia can tell the difference between me not logged in and you not logged in. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I oppose Pending Changes for several reasons, including: (a) they will prevent people from acting on IPs who potentially could be reporting serious abuses; (b) regular edits can get stuck behind the IP edits and not show up either until a reviewer happens along; (c) the system is not reputed to work well under high volume, and our whole problem is that IPs want to deliver high volume. Wnt (talk) 16:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Request to Deal with Request for Vandalism

IP blocked
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
We just had an unregistered editor make a request that another editor vandalize one of the reference desks. Can an administrator please block the requesting IP as a would-be vandal? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:20, 30 December 2015 (UTC) Geez, it was a joke. You don't seriously think I was expecting someone to vandalize on my behalf, do you? The two above topics are both edit requests, I just on a whim made a joke one, mostly to show up the tediousness of semi-protection. You reverted it, that's the end of the matter as far as I am concerned. If punishing me makes you happy though, you could try reporting it to WP:AIV 62.37.237.15 (talk) 19:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC) Read Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. You disrupted Wikipedia to make a point. Maybe this talk page should be semi-protected. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC) Read WP:STICK. It was a joke. It's gone now. There's no further issue unless you make one yourself. By all means overreact, have me banned, and have the talk page protected if that's what you want. Or you could sit down and have a nice cup of WP:TEA and let the matter be confined to the history tab. 62.37.237.15 (talk) 19:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC) Next time you take a plane, talk in a loud voice about hijackings and bombings, and see if the flight crew sees humor in it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC) Because a joke on the reference desk and hijacking a plane are totally the same, right? What an hysterical hyperbole of a comment. 62.37.237.15 (talk) 20:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC) It's true that the one could only lead to an edit block, while the other could lead to a cell block. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2016

Please post this answer on the Language Desk under December 30, the question about Jamais mon amour. Thanks!

More likely than it being a translation of an English song, it refers to a French song. If you google the phrase, all the first hits are lyrics sites for the song Jamais mon amour by the French singer Castelhemis.184.147.121.46 (talk) 00:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

184.147.121.46 (talk) 00:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Done. Tevildo (talk) 09:43, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks.184.147.121.46 (talk) 13:43, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Protection of ref desks

All, this morning we had a minor blip of attacks from a determined IP-hopping vandal on the Miscellaneous desk. The desk was at no point protected but it was unusable, as the IP vandal changed addresses every minute or so and continued to attack the board. I noticed that the Humanities desk is semi-protected until late-March 2016. This very talkpage is protected until 29 December. It seems we have a very inconsistent approach to this across the Ref Desks and associated talk pages. Is this deemed to be acceptable, that IP visitors can edit some desks and not others? And some are protected for a few days, while others may need protection for three or four months? The thread above, I believe, is an attempt to forewarn the concept of long-term semi-protection across all such pages. Is that was is required here so that "genuine" editors can participate here, and IPs are effectively banned? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

A couple of ideas, one new, one old:

(1) March seems excessive, and the 29th might not be enough. To fix the inconsistency, when protecting one, set a standard such as 5 to 10 days, and then protect them all at once, for the same amount of time, so the troll doesn't get to jump to other desks to continue the havoc. That protection would also extend to this page.

(2) Create a separate, non-protected page for the sole purpose of requesting the posting of questions, to be used whether or not the pages are protected.

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I feel your characterization of the preceding thread is inaccurate. I can only speak for myself but I certainly did not say or intend anything about long-term semi. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Really semi-relevant to the point being made, but if you insist on derailing this, then that's your play. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I wish I had a clue what I'm insisting on derailing, but I'll cease forthwith. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I wish you had a clue too. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a clue either as to what User:The Rambling Man says that User:Mandruss is derailing, but I would suggest that implying that an experienced editor doesn't have a clue (in general) is uncivil. I am aware that a few editors think that civility in Wikipedia is optional. If so, please show me the policy that says that civility is optional. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Unless the vandals are using bots, one or two determined refdesk regulars can undo vandalism as fast as a vandal can introduce it. I'm not sure we have enough determined refdesk regulars any more, but my preference would be for more manual vandalism removal, and less (much less) semiprotection. —Steve Summit (talk) 16:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Today's vandal wasn't using a bot, but as noted above, it rendered the desk unusable for over an hour. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Does ClueBot or one of the other antivandalism bots watch the RDs? If not, should it? —Steve Summit (talk) 18:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

It might do, but it doesn't do more than revert a couple of times. Once the psycho-anon changes IP addresses, it starts all over again. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

My understanding is that ClueBot and the like reliably detect blatant vandalism (which the recent spate certainly was!) and revert it almost instantly. Whether the same or different vandalism was or wasn't performed recently by the same or a different IP is immaterial. Is my understanding incorrect? —Steve Summit (talk) 18:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

No, that sounds right, but once it's reverted a couple of times, it's no use. And if the signbot gets involved, more issues arise. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

When the vandal is just as determined as the regular is, you end up playing pingpong with the IP-hopping vandal... until such time as an admin notices it and semi's the page yet again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

First, I agree that there is too much inconsistency in the protection of the reference desks. Often they are not protected long enough, and occasionally they are protected too long (although I personally would favor long semi-protection in general). When one desk is protected, I would suggest that they all be protected. Otherwise the trolls or vandals just move around in a game of Whack-a-Mole. I disagree with Bugs idea of creating a special page for non-protected edits. The good-faith unregistered editors can register, and the trolls and vandals will just use it for their mischief. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no particular need for "consistency" between the various ref desk pages, as long as the problems on each are different, which is the case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

We tried an edit filter for a while, but that also became a game of whack-a-mole as they tried to get around it, making it little more effective than just blocking the IPs. Sam Walton (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I personally think that, although no solution is ideal, Bugs' second proposal has the best balance of advantages and disadvantages. It means that IP users will still be able to use the desks, and that vandals won't be able to disrupt them, as happened this morning. The open page will still be liable to vandalism, but we won't need to deal with it "real-time" to keep the main desks running. Tevildo (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

@Sam Walton: Semi-protecting this page really makes me wonder where the buck stops. I think the edit filter approach can work, but it must be an open source edit filter. No more "trust me, I have a secret formula" security through obscurity. The filter I want is simple: it should allow non-autoconfirmed editors to add text to this page, but not change or remove it; each edit must be a single continuous block of added text and it must contain a four-tilde signature or it will be rejected. That can be an upfront policy and there's no getting around it. Added text is not nearly as much a problem as deleted text because everyone sees added text and can decide how to handle obvious abuse, whereas the deletions require people to look at the history. Wnt (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I'll add that the signature must be at the end of the added text, save for a few characters of whitespace. This is to deal with the problem that Abe says "I am an analyst for SuperCo --Abe" and Bozo makes it "I am an analyst on this case. --Bozo /n I am a lunatic looking to write ads for SuperCo --Abe". People expect a signature to work backward and so that is what we must demand of the IPs. Wnt (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Very good suggestion and well worth implementing across the ref desks wholesale. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I would also support this - indeed, can we extend the signature requirement to logged-in users? Tevildo (talk) 18:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

It's far from a solution that would make protection or other edit filters superfluous, but it would probably be some help. I'm not sure it can be implemented technically though. Edit filters have to be stated in terms of regular expressions. Are those criteria evaluated before the replacement of ~~~~ with the actual signature, or after? If the former, the filter would be easy to set up; if the latter, not so. (Also, no, it wouldn't be right to enable it for logged-in users too: regular editors do sometimes have to make edits without a signature of their own – e.g. refactorings of scussions, or reinstating postings that were removed accidentally or by a vandal.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I was afraid it might require new code to do this, but if the idea has enough support we can request it. I think that established editors can be trusted to refactor their own comments here; imposing this restriction on everyone would make a talk page into almost a sort of lab notebook, which is more formal than we generally need. Wnt (talk) 12:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: I took this to WP:VPT; we'll see what they say. Wnt (talk) 22:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

kiss kiss kiss = xxx

How come, kisses in letters were/are abbreviated as xxx / x x x ? The oldest mentioning I find in 1937 Any games with pronounciation? Why not kkk ? Play It Again, SPAM (talk) 09:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Why do I have to go through this hassle although I'm a registered user?

Even though you're a registered user, you're not autoconfirmed and thus still affected by semi-protection. You need ten edits and an account older than four days to become autoconfirmed. clpo13_(talk) 09:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Although someone closed this edit request as answered, the query was not acually added to a ref desk. I've posted it on the Miscellaneous desk. Deor (talk) 10:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Three months Semi-Protection?

The Language desk has been semi-protected since December 23. The block will expire after 3 months. This on the grounds that in one contributor's opinion "keeping this page open to IPs is simply not worth the trouble".

I say harrumph, and also, "no consensus here for that". --76.69.45.64 (talk) 19:29, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree (with the lack of consensus, that is). But others seem to believe that we have to destroy the desks in order to save them. —Steve Summit (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

That's a funny one. So are you volunteering to watch them 24 x 7 in lieu of semi-protecting them? Or do you figure that's somebody else's job? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Bugs, that is a thinly-veiled personal attack, a lack of assumption of good faith, and it is not funny. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Retract your ridiculous comment about "destroying the ref desks" and I'll retract my response. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

That's a fair point. Some people feel we have to redefine the Reference Desks as we have known them in order to save them. —Steve Summit (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this "cure" is worse than the "disease". StuRat (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

IPs can leave an edit request at WT:RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Here's what happens when you try to ask a question on a protected desk, if you don't have an account here.

(1) You see the usual top of the desk, "Welcome to the language reference desk" etc, and click the blue "Ready? Ask a new question!" button. (i.e., your first impression is that your question is welcomed and invited.)

(2) Clicking, you get "Permission error. You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason: This page is currently semi-protected so that only established registered users can edit it." (Which is probably incomprehensible jargon to someone new.)

(2b) However, that page also has a "What can I do?" section, with a new blue button "Submit an edit request". (Note that the instructions say this isn't for asking questions, but only for "if you have noticed an error or have a suggestion for a simple change". It may not be clear you can still go ahead and ask your question, or maybe people won't read all this and will just click the button anyway. It certainly isn't welcoming.)

(3) Clicking, you get a new section on this talk page. The entire top of the screen is warnings and lengthy instructions, and includes a big yellow banner reading "Please do not ask knowledge questions on this page. This talk page is where the reference desk itself is discussed. To choose an appropriate reference desk to visit, click here." (Clicking "here" takes you back to the main desk splash page.)

184.147.121.46 (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

You realize that not displaying that potentially misleading "click here" you're mentioning in point (3) would require having edit attempts on protected pages tracked, it is not practical. The rest is only normal routine. Otherwise I'm also presented with that rude yellow red-banner "Please do not ask", presently, so you did it all right. --Askedonty (talk) 15:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

What I mean to say, is that normal routine is not at all user-friendly for the good faith newcomer/reader. Can the wording in (2) be improved, or the step bypassed while the desks are protected? Can the yellow banner in (3) be removed while the desks are protected?184.147.121.46 (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Why not encourage ref desk regulars to become reviewers and then give pending changes protection a try? -- ToE 01:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, pending changes are visible, which kind of defeats the purpose. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't mean flagged revisions. Have you read (at least the lead of) WP:Pending changes? -- ToE 02:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Try a test and see if it works. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Bugs, try setting your preferences to the defaults. It looks like you have set them to make pending changes visible and are now assuming that everyone sees what you see. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Forget it. Just implement it and see if it fends off the IP's and redlinks successefully. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The Reference Desk is found when you click the "Help" link in the left sidebar, where it is advertised with this wording:

If searching Wikipedia has not answered your question (for example, questions like "Which country has the world's largest fishing fleet?"), try the Reference Desk. Volunteers there will attempt to answer your questions on any topic, or point you towards the information you need.

That is, it is presented as a service for readers, not a service for the people who are writing the encyclopedia (that service is Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request). "Fending off IPs and redlinks" fundamentally changes the nature of the service. 184.147.121.46 (talk) 13:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

That service does not implicitly extend to trolling IPs and redlinks, which is the problem being discussed here yet again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

But it's a fair point. Very few of the approximately 4 billion IPs (not counting V6) do troll. What is the threshold for disruption we accept? We don't ban the sale of gasoline despite arsonists, or cars despite "average" drivers. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The bottom line is how much time you and your fellow admins want to spend dealing with the trolls. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

What's complicated is that there are three different costs -- three kinds of disruption -- we're juggling here:

• If there's unblocked vandalism, we waste significant amounts of volunteer time reverting it
• If vandalism goes unreverted, the appearance of the desks to visitors is diminished
• If we protect the desks, unregistered editors can't easily ask or answer questions

Now, various of us have very different opinions as to which of these costs we're more or less willing to bear. —Steve Summit (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Pending changes protection stops vandalism just as well as semiprotection does, but allows unregistered editors to easily ask and answer questions. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Pending changes protection says that autoconfirmed and confirmed users "can edit; changes go live immediately (if no previous pending changes remain to be accepted)". Thus anytime IPs edit at nearly the same time confirmed users do when a question gets posted the confirmed user may get "pended" too, which would likely be more of a problem for us and the OPs than even the IP and even more so for everyone than the present occasional hassle of an edit conflict. Perhaps this is why it says "Pending changes protection should not be used on articles with a very high edit rate, even if they meet the aforementioned criteria. Instead semi-protection should be considered." Of course most of us can become reviewers, but it will still take significant time for reviewers to read the queues, thus needlessly slowing down the question and answer process. Thus simply keep the length of semi-protections short as possible for everyone's sake. [Because of our need to be hospitable I've reconsidered my objection [10] and I'm OK with giving Pending Changes a try] --Modocc (talk) 22:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Define "short". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Anything more than four days would be long, but long enough for a hot button topic to be archived or died out. So in comparison, short would be anything from two days to a few hours. And in the opposite direction, anything more than a week would be far too long. --Modocc (talk) 02:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Any length of time that the trolls feel like they can just "wait out" and then resume their mischief, is too short. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The refdesk threads get archives after 1 week at the earliest, and the particular vandal in question here has been known to continue edit-warring persistently over the same threads for weeks, whenever they can. Protection time need to be measured in terms commensural to the known persistence of the vandals, and in this particular case that persistence can only be measured in months. Anything shorter just won't work. We've tried it; how many more times do people need to learn it doesn't work? When protection was lifted yesterday, the trolls were back within a day, one of them in less than an hour. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The threads frequently do get archived at one week [11] and some threads may have already been active several days so a five day block would suffice. In any case, simply reapply semi-protection when that happens. As for "working", what makes you guys think the troll(s) will go away in three months when this has been happening for years? --Modocc (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise, are we protecting the archives at all? I removed some of that trolling a couple of weeks ago; I really see no reason not to protect them. Drmies (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2016

Please add this answer to "Donald Trump and foreign reporters" on the Humanities Desk, thank you. 184.147.121.46 (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Try "Trump Mexican reporter", "Trump Canadian reporter", etc. [12], [13], [14]. 184.147.121.46 (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Modocc. 184.147.121.46 (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Math Reference desk and med/legal comment.

All of the reference Desks have Wikipedia:Reference desk/header at the top. Thus all of them have "Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice." However of all the desks, the med/legal part seems least suitable for the Math Reference desk. Feelings?Naraht (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. Not giving medical or legal advice is still good advice. I see no need for different headers. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that a single boilerplate for all desks is fine. While you wouldn't expect to see requests for medical advice on RDMA, we do occasionally get things like Long term level of drug in blood based on halflife. -- ToE 18:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanx.Naraht (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

In Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Texas Rangers, this item

The only "specific state" restriction I'm aware of at the federal level is that the president and vice president cannot be residents of the same state. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

is currently unanswered. If it hasn't already been said, someone please post this response (appropriately positioned and indented):

• There's no prohibition on the president and VP being residents of the same state; it's just that if they are, they need to get elected without any electoral votes from that state. If it was a small state and a popular candidate for president, that wouldn't be much of a hindrance. --76.69.45.64 (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• Technically true. Nonetheless, when the major parties choose their candidates, they always make sure to have them come from different states. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done

When did Medeis and Baseball Bugs appeal and have their Reference Desk ban lifted?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

turns out it was quashed on second opinion here
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I bring this up in light of, among other recent things, the frankly absurd and acceptable conduct shown by Medeis at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#Have_you_ever_heard_.22eight-to-two.22_used_for_.22eighty-to-twenty.22_or_.22four-to-one.22.3F, where (s)he complained about a user's question (that two other users had had no trouble answering), bickered with him when he responded much more reasonably and patiently than Medeis had any right to expect, and then had the gall to close the tangent thread that (s)he had started with a message that implied the questioner had inappropriately/deceitfully edited the question. The question had indeed been edited, but only after two of us had managed to answer it just fine, and not in a way that remotely justified any of Medeis's behavior. If no one else has a problem with the question but you, the problem is probably with you, not with the question. If this had been an isolated incident, I might simply have ignored it, but the fact is that this sort of arrogant and disrespectful behavior is the rule rather than the exception with this user. This is something I've noticed personally as a frequent reader (but infrequent contributor) of the Reference Desk, and more importantly, something that the community at large has taken note of, with the result that Medeis was indefinitely banned from the Reference Desk pending an "appeal to the community." Since both (s)he and Baseball Bugs are again posting, I can only assume that appeal took place, but I've been unable to find the record of it. I am particularly interested in whether there were any stipulations relating to not continuing the problem behaviors. As I said, I'm quite inactive on the Reference Desk (and Wikipedia as a whole), so I am very reluctant to insert myself into this sort of "drama." But the bottom line is that I remember when I could read this desk and expect to find people giving their best efforts to provide answers to questions, even unclear/poorly written/ignorant ones, rather than a parade of complaints about how questions are asked, bad jokes, and closures and hattings. Seriously, just take a look at some archives from ~2010 or so...it's like a whole other world. And it seems to me like it's a very small number of users driving this, and Medeis above all. If his/her appeal was indeed approved pursuant to not being a problematic presence the Ref Desk again, then I think the ban needs to be reinstated. This needs to stop. -Elmer Clark (talk) 04:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC) This Talk page is intended for the discussion of the operation and improvement of the Reference Desk. This is not a noticeboard, and not the place to discuss your opinion and/or complaints regarding other editors, especially if you have not notified them of the discussion. WP:ANI is that-a-way. General Ization Talk 04:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC) I mean, I suppose, but I felt like it was very much a Reference Desk-related discussion and figured it was much more likely someone here would have a link to the appeal discussion (I'm primarily looking for that rather than just complaining - sorry, I realize that may have been lost in all that). It also seemed sort of...I don't know, stab-in-the-backish/deceitful/"snitchy" to go straight to the administrator's noticeboard rather than bringing it up with "the reference desk community" first. But if others also feel that this belongs there then I'll move it. -Elmer Clark (talk) 05:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC) And thank you for reminding me to notify Medeis! I certainly meant to immediately, but it just slipped my mind, and I apologize. -Elmer Clark (talk) 05:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC) You appear to be a sporadic editor, so you may have missed it. It was probably almost 2 years ago. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC) Do you have a link to the archived discussion page? -Elmer Clark (talk) 05:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC) No, but I would assume it's in this talk page's archive somewhere. Look in maybe January or February of 2014. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC) Ok, thanks, I'll poke around. I didn't realize that it referred to the reference desk community specifically. -Elmer Clark (talk) 05:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC) If you don't find it there, you could check the ANI archive for around the same time period. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC) It's definitely not in the RD talk archives, so I'll look there. -Elmer Clark (talk) 05:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC) It's referenced in the talk page history at 11:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC) Ah, thanks, I missed it the first time over (if anyone else is wondering, the relevant section is here - turns out the ban was "vacated on appeal," so to speak). I'm satisfied with that, and will not take any further action, although I would kindly encourage Medeis (and everyone else for that matter) to try and refrain from this sort of conduct in the future. I'll go ahead and close this, but if Medeis wishes to respond (s)he may feel free to reopen it or just respond to my talk page message instead. -Elmer Clark (talk) 05:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

As a point of honour, I would like to point out that this matter is four years old, and that it involved problems between myself and User:The Rambling Man which somehow spilled over into the otherwise uninvolved User:Baseball Bugs. Bugs and I are diametrically opposed on just about everything, except our respect for America and the WP process. See my talk page to find where both this spurious RD ban was reversed, and to see where TRM's request that the IBAN between himself and me was mutually voided, at TRM's request.

Pardon my bile, but none of us is joined at the hip, and this recurrent "Medeis and Bugs" meme is popular with trolls (by which I do not mean Elmer) but otherwise abhorrent. μηδείς (talk) 19:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

And we're all getting on swimmingly, so quite why Elmer Clark felt the need to stir a hornet's nest and then patronisingly state that we should all try and refrain from this sort of conduct in the future. Who do you think you are? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't referring specifically to the dispute between you three, I was referring to poor-quality/abusive responses to questions like the one I quoted. Clearly that problem has not been resolved. I'm glad to hear that everyone is getting on swimmingly now, though. -Elmer Clark (talk) 22:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean "Clearly that problem has not been resolved"? What are you talking about? Who are you? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Farbeit from me ever to agree with TRM, but I do so agree. This seems like some sort of revenant licht, looking for fresh meat, and nothing to do with ITN, ITN/RD, or the Ref Desks. μηδείς (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The problem of Medeis giving unhelpful and abusive answers to questions. That problem has clearly not been resolved, as proven, for example, by the question I originally linked to. Who I am is a frequent reader and occasional contributor to the Reference Desks who is having my experience made worse by these sorts of posts. Do I need more "cred" to bring up an issue related to an established user's problem behavior? Blatant violations of WP:AGF are a problem, and it doesn't matter who is committing them or who is pointing them out. -Elmer Clark (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I, too, am glad to hear that we're getting along swimmingly, but Elmer's complaint (which I would agree with) was that this edit was unnecessarily harsh towards the OP. The original question was a reasonable one about usage; there was no need to label it tendentious, take umbrage at the political leanings of the citation, or dismiss it as a request for opinion. —Steve Summit (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, just to address your last point, which I missed before - I only mentioned Baseball_Bugs because he was also part of the same sanction I was inquiring about. I would have mentioned the Rambling Man also, but I hadn't noticed him posting here recently and assumed he was just still banned. Besides that, none of what I'm saying applies to Bugs, and I was unaware that you and he even had such a reputation. -Elmer Clark (talk) 22:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

If you have a real issue (which it looks like you actually don't in any way, shape or form), then WP:RFC or WP:ANI is the place to go. This odd dragging up of historical issues is beyond me. Whoever you are is really irrelevant, I only asked because I've never seen you or anything you have contributed to Wikipedia in the past ten years and was curious as to your motives. I assume you're trying to improve the Ref Desk, but when did you last actively contribute to anything positive for our readers of the encyclopedia we're striving to create? It looks like you've fallen into the classic "assume makes an ass out of you and me" syndrome. A little bit of reading would have saved you looking so foolish. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

TRM: He no longer has a real issue, that's why he hatted his own thread. If you want to blame someone for the fact that we're still arguing, blame Medeis for ignoring the hat and reopening the draammaa. (And blame me, too, for falling for the bait.) —Steve Summit (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

This seems unnecessarily harsh. It's true that I'm an infrequent contributor, but don't the impressions of readers matter too? I brought this up because I was tired of seeing responses like the one I linked to distracting from questions being answered and making the reference desk environment more hostile (which, incidentally, is part of why I'm so inactive - I was quite a bit more active on the desks 5+ years ago). That sort of thing harms readers like me as well as contributors. I was aware that Medeis (along with two other users) had been indefinitely banned about two years ago pending an appeal to the community, with posts like that being at least a contributing factor in the decision. Since that was the last word posted on the relevant AN/I page, I assumed that that ban had indeed gone into effect and Medeis and Baseball_Bugs had at some point appealed and been reinstated. Ban reinstatements on Wikipedia are often conditional - for example, on not continuing the problem behavior. That's why I wanted to see the record of the "appeal to the community" and the ensuing reinstatement - if it did indeed say that Medeis was unbanned from the Reference Desk on the condition of not continuing to make unhelpful and abusive posts, then I wanted to report this (as well as other examples from the past few months) as violations of that condition. But it turns out that the ban was never actually enforced to begin with, so there's no such recourse. I still hope, however, that instead of making me look "foolish" this will help Medeis to see that certain of his/her contributions are seen as very unhelpful and detrimental, including by casual, uninvolved readers like me, and encourage him/her not to make posts like that in the future. -Elmer Clark (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe, but none of this is doing anyone any good at all, in fact it's the opposite. You've made yourself appear unprepared and that's a bad thing. Making assumptions without adequately researching it is a bad thing. If you had simply asked the question in a neutral tone, rather than "the frankly absurd and acceptable (sic) conduct" outburst with which you initiated your post, perhaps things would have worked out differently. Right now it seems that you need to go back to whence you came and look at your own behavioural issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

He hatted his own thread, hours ago. What more do you want him to do? —Steve Summit (talk) 23:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Explain his bizarre outburst. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

• If he thought better of it and retracted it, he doesn't have to.
• He did explain it.
• It wasn't bizarre: the edit he complained about was, if not absurd, certainly harsh and unacceptable.

—Steve Summit (talk) 23:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Medeis's conduct with regard to that question was absurd and [un]acceptable (whoops!) regardless of the facts behind the reference desk ban. And I made a good faith effort to find the discussion myself before asking here, but it was in a very hard to find place - it was in the main WP:AN archives, when the whole incident itself had played out in WP:AN/I and this talk page. Sorry if you saw this as a "bizarre outburst," but I saw it as trying to do something about what I saw as legitimate behavioral issues making the reference desk worse. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree if you think how Medeis acted there was no big deal, or was some rare exception, but I think WP:AGF is on my side. -Elmer Clark (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to condense this discussion which doesn't appear to be heading in any direction to assist anyone with anything. Serious issues such as bad editor behaviour are dealt with elsewhere. If you have an ongoing issue with Ref Desk contributors, start a new discussion at ANI. In the meantime, do some homework before coming at us all guns blazing. WP:COMPETENCE is required. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

When I saw the initial question here, I wondered what the OP was on about. I quickly concluded (assuming good faith) that the OP's information was out of date. Medeis and I and also TRM were briefly banned from the ref desks, two year ago. This thought was reinforced when he said something about going to WP:RFC/U which apparently isn't even in use anymore.[15] As to Medeis' reaction to the question about "8 to 2", I suppose it was because Coulter is a polarizing figure, and the OP (Dismas?) mentioned Coulter by name, so Medeis might have thought it was a shot at Coulter specifically. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I know it's the new year, but I just checked my calendar and thankfully confirmed I didn't get stuck in a time warp. It's 2016, not 2018. As Baseball Bug said above, the banning (which appears to have) resulted in this thread/original question happened two years ago. That's quite a long time ago, but also not four years. Perhaps the problems with lead to the brief ban started four years ago, but um, that isn't a good argument in favour of it being ancient history if 2 years later it lead to that brief ban, whatever honour was involved. Nil Einne (talk) 18:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Is this a chronic hysteresis? Can we rehatten this? The issue began in 2013, led to an iban in 2014, was amicably resolved in 2015, and it is now 2016. Is this a chronic hysteresis? If the OP wants to take me to ANI for saying it is tendentious to bring up a WP:BLP for ridicule for not using a simple fraction, than so be it. Is this a chronic hysteresis? I only posted here because my name is in the header, hence I feel entitled to defend my honour. Were my name removed, I'd be happy with the entire thread being hatted. Is this a chronic hysteresis? μηδείς (talk) 05:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

What this is is sternly berating the uninitiated. Elmer Clark has learned his lesson; he will not be back here to trouble us again. —Steve Summit (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Elmer has been here for over ten years. I'm not sure that could constitute "uninitiated". Incompetent perhaps. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Nearly 11 years now, but a sporadic editor. Not "uninitiated", but perhaps insufficiently active to be aware of everything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Summary: A guy made a forgiveable mistake and was excoriated for it with unacceptable bullying and intimidation tactics, and kept his head nevertheless. Somebody please archive this example of Wikipedia at its most wretched. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

And if anyone calls you on the bullying and intimidation: never admit it, much less apologize; either bully and intimidate your critics, or dodge the question by quibbling over terms. —Steve Summit (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Go ahead and archive it... after you've read hyperbole. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, a guy made a mistake; he seemed to be a charming individual by acting like some kind of prefect. "This needs to stop."? It stopped about two years ago. Competence is expected from editors who have been around since 2005. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

TRM, I understand that you were involved in the issue two years ago and so are taking this personally, but in the interests of accuracy, we must observe that while Elmer did refer to that stuff two years ago, the request about needing to stop was motivated by a questionable edit that occurred a few days ago. —Steve Summit (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No, I'm not taking it personally at all, after all the opening thread didn't include me at all. But it is fascinating that I've now been threatened with a block because i reverted your inserted comment which was clearly one that I was entitled to respond to, hence my suggestion a new thread be opened. Funny how many uninvolved parties suddenly became involved. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)≠

Actually, I didn't know that Medeis has had previous sanctions on the Reference Desk before. He is currently harassing me with dubious accusations and threatening to have me "indefinitely blocked" [16]. Can I ask for some intervention on the matter? Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 04:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request – What does the media in the Arab world report about the New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany?

Could someone kindly add the following information to the above Query on the Humanities RefDesk?

Indirect Reporting, but the following appeared on the BBC Website last week:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35251167

Hope this is of help. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 14:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks! --Jayron32 14:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Medeis' disruptive behavior

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Medeis keeps harassing me on the basis I keep asking "homework questions" and puzzlingly reverts my questions to the desk on the basis that I'm asking both homework questions and asking professional advice. Even if they are homework questions (they are not), I think my questions are reasonably well-thought out and I'm not asking anyone to do my intellectual work for me, I'm just trying to solve a problem. Also, I don't think my organic chemistry questions are requests for legal advice, financial advice, or medical advice, which is AFAIK what the restrictions on professional advice is supposed to cover. It does not restrict asking questions at a "high level" -- simply because it solicits advice a professional chemist (or a professional photographer, or anyone reasonably skilled at their art) might use. He went so far as to threaten to have me indefinitely blocked a few days ago (on my talk page ([17]). I have opened a discussion on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents on this matter. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 04:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Section link: WP:ANI#User:Medeis has some sort of vendetta against me on the Reference Desk: Science board.2C and keeps harassing me. -- ToE 05:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.