Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 132

Archive 125

←

Archive 130

Archive 131

Archive 132

Archive 133

User AlverichA

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.

---

Some contentious editing on the Humanities desk and a quick perusal of their contributions suggests that they are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia or to request information, but rather to make an argument - perhaps even WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and get the WP:TRUTH out there. Just a heads up. Matt Deres (talk) 15:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

That's what it looks like. I've hatted both (so far) of their humanities ref desk sections. If you want to un-hat them, feel free. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

These questions appear to ask about the English-language terminology used to describe the geography and peoples of the western hemisphere. Whether the OP is here to learn, or here to make trouble, I cannot say: I rather prefer to follow the wisdom of one of my role-models; hypotheses non fingo.

Not very long ago - in January 2019, we had a legitimate question about the correct interpretation of terminology on a similar subject.

In that January question, which I interpreted as a good-faith request for information, I wrote a well-cited, referenced response that included links to multiple independent verifiable external sources.

I also wrote a commentary to introduce and briefly summarize some of the related issues of terminology.

May I make an impassioned dispassionate plea: whether the original question is intended in good faith or otherwise, may we assume good faith and write responses that are of encyclopedic quality? This is the best way to answer questions, even if the original post is trying to stir controversy. We may accidentally educate a few people along the way - including ourselves.

I am not a historian or a geographer, and I rarely contribute on the Humanities desk; but I sincerely hope that we can all uphold these standards. Our regular contributors who have greater subject-matter expertise should be able to defuse controversial topics easily, by progressively explaining these questions using resources suitable for this encyclopedia, and by writing responses in dispassionate, polite style.

Nimur (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

This message is for user Baseball Bugs, I must assume you are from USA and for that reason you erased my subjects. Your answers to my questions are very regionalists not valid. You also said that my facts are erroneous AlverichA (talk) 17:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@AlverichA: What published, reliable sources contain the information you keep trying to add to Wikipedia articles? Wikipedia is built on published, reliable source text, not on what we feel, or what we think we know. If what you say is true, then published, reliable texts will have written it already. Produce those texts. --Jayron32 17:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Please note AA's questions came after dubious article edits like this, this, this and this. I am perfectly willing to see this as a newbie who is trying to find their way but it also should be said that they are not listening to the replies that they have received and hatting the threads keeps other editors from having to state the same thing over and over again. MarnetteD|Talk 17:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC

In 1507, some scholars at Saint-Dié-des-Vosges in northern France were working on a geography book called Cosmographiæ Introductio, which contained large cut-out maps that the reader could use to create his or her own globes. German cartographer Martin Waldseemüler, one of the book's authors, proposed that the newly discovered Brazilian portion of the New World be labeled America, the feminine version of the name Amerigo, after Amerigo Vespucci. The gesture was his means of honoring the person who discovered it, and indeed granted Vespucci the legacy of being America's namesake.--AlverichA (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

All of that is true. But it is entirely irrelevant towards supporting the changes you are trying to make to articles. --Jayron32 17:53, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I didn't erase anything. I merely boxed it up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I just asked, " why the Aztecs, Incas, Mayas, etc. are not consider native Americans?" If they came thousands years ago just like the native Indians of USA ---- AlverichA (talk) 19:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Your question has already been answered. You just don't like the answer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And you were answered - "Native American" is an almost uniquely US term (see Native American name controversy for more information). Indigenous peoples of other regions in North and South America are known by other names. It's purely an issue of terminology, and not an implication that only the indigenous peoples of the United States are the true natives. If you don't like that answer, well, that's your problem. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

That is a very regionalist answer, it doesn't mean because USA adopted the word America they have to proclaim themselves the only Americans, maybe it doesn't exist a correct way to called the natives of USA like in other languages and that's why they are called Americans ---- AlverichA (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Maybe you're unaware that Mexicans, for example, call us Americanos. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Bugs is correct about usage among Spanish-speaking inhabitants of the Americas (North America and South America).

Among French-speaking inhabitants of the Americas, indigenous people are called "autochtone" from the Greek auto, own, and chthon, land.

Among English-speaking inhabitants of the Americas the use of the term Native Americans is common only in the US, having been adopted by the US government as a correction to the former term "Indian" (from a misnomer used by European explorers who erroneously thought they had landed on the Indian subcontinent). In Canada they don't use the Term "Native Americans". In Canada, indigenous people are called the "First Nations" (with certain subgroups called Inuit and Métis) again used to correct the erroneous "Indians", which is considered offensive.

Related: The phrase "China" is often used to refer to the People's Republic of China even though the Republic of China exists. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:46, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Quick point of order - I believe it was established some time ago that, when hatting a section on the RefDesk, that we should sign the HAT portion so it's is clear who has performed the action. Matt Deres (talk) 14:23, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

You're right. I'll fix that. Although the subject had no problem figuring out who did it. He just didn't understand that it wasn't an erasure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Surprised no one pointed this out yet, but Native Americans is actually a disambiguation page. While none of the articles on indigenous peoples of the Americas other than the USA ones have Native American in the title, we do have articles which seem to include those from outside the USA titled Native American cuisine, Native American religion (although coverage outside the USA is limited), Native American weaponry (which I think also isn't restricted to the USA), Native Americans in German popular culture (although it's likely a lot of the influence and stereotypes are from the USA), Native American disease and epidemics (again coverage outside the USA is limited), . In addition Indigenous peoples of the Americas may be so titled, but refers to term Native Americans in various contexts outside the USA. So yeah the OP's premise that the term Native Americans is restricted to those from the USA is not supported. Although as others have said, for various reasons Native Americans is generally mainly in reference to those from the area now the USA. The use of the term outside references to those from the area now the USA in our articles is probably in part reflective that there's no simple accepted universal term and Indigenous peoples of the Americas or similar terms are somewhat long, but probably also in part the high degree of influence of USA. In other words, despite the OP's suggestion of bias in not using the term for those outside the USA, there's a good chance there's also a lot of bias in using the term for such. As Guy Macon noted, the term isn't even accepted by all of those in the USA, let alone suggesting it should be an accepted or the normal term to those from outside the USA. For example, as our article sort of implies and Abya Yala even more, some don't feel there is any need to use a term in part deriving from the name of Amerigo Vespucci (or Richard Amerike if you subscribe to that theory). Nil Einne (talk) 07:18, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

The user is now blocked as being WP:NOTHERE to contribute constructively. Matt Deres (talk) 14:26, 10 May 2019 (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.

I have some doubts about the quality of the above discussion. Note that wikt:americano, per my old Spanish instructor, says that the main meaning of "americano" is "an inhabitant of the Americas". Also, as far as I know, the Americas were called "the Indies" not out of some confusion about landing in India as we define it, but because traditional European scholars called literally anything far to the east India, no matter how far it might be. (While we're at it, the Indus River, for which all are named, is a central feature of Pakistan). True, Columbus - not being known for ethics of any kind - did oversell his case on this one, since the East Indies were indeed prized trading partners. Wnt (talk) 01:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Purpose

The ultimate purpose of the reference desks, in my opinion, is surely to improve the pedia. The only reason,I think, people access the reference desk is to seek out information that cannot be gleaned easily from the existing pedia pages. The desks should not be used as a source of amusing interchanges tween rd vultures soaring on high ready to pick to pieces any unsuspecting questioner. Constructive comments welcome . 80.2.20.28 (talk) 23:38, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

The reference desk also offers insight into the kinds of information that, de facto, isn't trivial to find elsewhere in our encyclopedia - or elsewhere on the internet. In that respect, the questions and the content on the reference desk comprise, metaphorically, the boundary between the set of all human knowledge that is easily discovered, and the set of all human knowledge which is not easily discovered.

To confound this metaphor of "all human knowledge," we naturally have a huge and diverse demographic. Information that is "easy to discover" for some is difficult for others. Additionally, some of our questions come from people who have not put in a good-faith effort. Many questions are answerable in a few seconds; so we may honestly wonder whether the person asking is really doing so in good faith.

I would love to see us enforce, more stringently, the Wikipedia guidelines on requiring competence from our participants. In specific, as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, I would love it if more of our participants actually read it - and read other encyclopedias, for comparison - more frequently. We live in an amazing era in which it is so easy to find so much high quality written knowledge. I wish more people took advantage of this privilege! But, as I wrote in our 2013 discussion on this topic: "We don't vet newcomers; so that means some newcomers are troublemakers, and some are just idiots."

And yet...

"This is not the end of the world. New contributors, fresh with enthusiasm, dynamically enter (or re-enter) the contributor-pool, and they are able to tolerate all the undesirables; and we reach a sort of steady-state or equilibrium: old contributors "burning out" and new contributors coming in with fresh ideas and higher tolerance levels. Wikipedia is over a decade old, and is widely regarded as a successful hallmark of the proliferation of free information. This model works, and anyone who is actively trying to disrupt it is failing badly."

I wrote that many years ago, and if anything, I think it is even more relevant today. We surely do have issues, problems, and disagreements; but we have reached a steady-state condition in which the perennial problems are counterbalanced by equally-powerful perennial solutions.

Nimur (talk) 02:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

As a fun fact, in the very earliest days of the Reference Desk, people would often "answer questions" by creating a new article on the topic that was asked about. The assumption was that if someone asked a question, it could only be because Wikipedia was missing an important article.

For instance, the "Coprophagia" article was created when someone asked why dogs eat their own poop. ApLundell (talk) 00:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

There is no "Universal List of Notable Topics" from which Wikipedia progressively crosses off items as articles get created. We have various Articles for Creation lists, and many individual editors maintain their own private lists (I do), although not all of these would necessarily pass our notability test. So, in a sense, the community is constantly "remembering" topics that were always notable but which had not been at the forefront of people's minds - until some event caused them to get there. Or maybe a topic had been very much on someone's mind but they had other demands on their time in the real world. Also, some topics, while notable, are boring to write about, so it takes a special effort of mind to tackle them at the best of times; and since this project is entirely voluntary and there are no deadlines, much notable (but boring) stuff falls by the wayside where it remains, forgotten, abandoned, unloved. But one day ... -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't know how relevant it is any more, but years ago I wrote this essay on the purpose of the ref desks, which @Sluzzelin: was kind enough to squirrel away a copy of. —Steve Summit (talk) 11:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Well-said, Steve. I aspire to meet and exceed those goals as you have written them out. Nimur (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

June 5th

Moved from the Ref desk Reference desk/Miscellaneous

What happened to June 5th? I had asked a question and had returned to see the responses but the whole day appears to have disappeared off Wikipedia, Misc, reference desk? Thanks Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 11:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

MarnetteD (talk · contribs) removed it as trolling. And I would tend to agree. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Were there no other questions posted on that date? Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 12:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

The thread was closed by another editor. The IP reversed the close. I closed it again and clearly explained what would happen if it was reopened. MarnetteD|Talk 14:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

The ref desks are not there to "prove" anything to editors trying to flame bait them. MarnetteD|Talk 14:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I am deeply disappointed at this result. This is not what I had come to expect from the Wikipedia reference desk. I had hoped to be able to find an honourable, first hand, source for some information. What I appear to have received instead of this is a mutation order imposed due to an unproven political stance held by the minority. Despite stating that I am not on either side of the debate and genuinely asking for reliable source, not a second hand source, to prove that what has been said about the man is true. If true, I would be more than willing to fall on the left of the debate. The fact that my Right to Freedom of Speech has been curtailed in this manner suggests that the left are not able to provide such evidence and pushed me toward the right, somewhere I would not have expected to find myself. I also find it incredulous that certain individuals have the apparent self-imposed ability to curb the freedom of expression of others. I am shocked and find that the actions taken by MarnetteD and supported by Baseball Bugs are deeply Un-American, unfair and bigoted (Def: ...intolerant towards other people's beliefs and practices...) I cannot express deeply enough how disappointing I am in your actions and the stance you have taken. Surely it would have been easier to simply direct me to a first hand, reliable source to prove that Trump is Racist?! You have not been able to do this I note, and further to this much like ANTIFA, you are not willing to enter into a discussion on the matter but would rather simply silence any suggestion of an alternative view. This smacks of Fascism. He should be innocent until proven guilty, not guilty because you don't want to discuss it. Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

What a load of old cobblers, marlarky etc etc. MarnetteD|Talk 17:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

You were given ample evidence, which you didn't like. As to freedom of speech, bear in mind that there is no constitutional right to edit Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

No first hand account was provided at all, only second hand accounts by others stating he has said X or done Y. No evidence was provided at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.40.58 (talk) 09:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

You seem somewhat confused. First hand means that the writer (or speaker) experienced it themselves. Second hand means giving a reference. You probably won't get any first-hand examples here, but you've already been provided with ample second-hand evidence. Here's another one for you: the Trump travel ban was racist. Or don't you think it was? --Viennese Waltz 06:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Anonymous user

80.2.21.170 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) appears to maybe not be making the most constructive contributions. Note also 80.2.20.209 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) from last week. Might want to check that address range. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 01:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

That particular IP appears to have gone away. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

archiving

Due to a computer crash, archiving will be sporadic for the next few days until I get everything recovered from backups. (Including my Wikipedia password...) --Steve Summit (talk) 11:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Fixed. 01:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Lua archive index

From the above section:

... Regarding Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Lua, for some time I've been meaning to ask Wnt what the status of that project was, as there appears to be only a dozen working /Lua monthly indexes, all from 2013?-- ToE 20:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

... As for Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Lua ... to me, it looks like something that was attempted in 2013 that was never completed or enacted with the exception of January 2013. Steel1943 (talk) 20:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I apologize. I started writing a tool to help index archives in the hope that people would be interested in going through the questions and making short digests sorted by topic, but nobody really went for it, and the project went by the wayside. I did not do anything to the original archives so far as I recall... the notion was that pages like Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2013_January_1 would be parseable into something like Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Lua/Science/January_2013 ... a pity I don't remember more about what I did... Wnt (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@Wnt: No worries. But what do you think we should do with it?

• All it would take to extend its current functionality from those few 2013 monthly archive indexes for which it is currently active to the entire archive would be to create one file per archive per month under Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Lua/ containing the single line:

{{#invoke:RDIndex|month}}

• Alternately, if we don't want to activate it for the entire archive at this time, we should probably remove the following line from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives:

An alternate index produced by Lua script tracks some additional details such as usernames of contributors. It is under development at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Lua.

-- ToE 13:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Archive restructuring

Yesterday, User:Steel1943 made nearly 300 edits -- mostly page moves -- related to the Reference desk archives, and appears poised to do more. The archive structure has been a bit of a mess, particularly given the location change from back in 2006, and could probably use some cleaning up, but I don't currently have the time to check on these changes. -- ToE 11:56, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• Agreed, they are bit of a mess. Right now, I'm working on getting most of the pages that start with "Wikipedia:Reference desk archive" to "Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives" so that they match the current naming scheme. Then, I plan on looking at pages that link to the archives to determine a cleaner way to link them all on those respective pages, possibly by utilizing {{Calendar}} in one way or another once I can figure it out. Steel1943 (talk) 12:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

When I click on "Archives" I get nothing later than October 2006. Can someone fix this? 92.31.143.72 (talk) 11:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

For the record, this edit probably resolved the aforementioned issue. Steel1943 (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives, specifically Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Answered questions. It's had that problem for a while; see here This is probably because the "Answered questions" pages stopped being created around October 2006. For now, you may want to consider using the search function on the archive page; now that all archives pages have been moved to titles that begin with "Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives", at least with that search box, you should now be able to find pages for all dates using that search. (I wasn't editing in October 2006, but while updating the names of the active pages, I did notice that a major change with how the pages are structured happened around 9–17 October 2006, specifically 17 October 2006 as I did a few page merges for archive pages that represented that day.) Steel1943 (talk) 12:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

While you're tinkering with archives, can you figure out a way to make the results return in something resembling an order? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:48, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think I'm going to get that lucky since that's more of a MediaWiki software deal (which is beyond my realm of knowledge), but one never knows... Steel1943 (talk) 18:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@Steel1943: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives (via the link at the top of this page and along the side of the individual reference desks) is the primary method of accessing every monthly archive index for all the reference desks, and was working until recently. I just reverted your two 26 June edits to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Answered questions, and it has fixed the Archives page. What led you to think it "Hasn't been used since October 2006 - clearly historical", particularly given CiaPan's regular maintenance? Was it because of the redlinks when viewing that page directly? That's because it uses relative links with respect to the Archive page which includes it. -- ToE 19:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@Thinking of England: Thanks for the heads-up on that. I was looking at that page's code when I saw the IP's response earlier, and I thought it was a bit odd that I did not see the string "/Answered questions/" anywhere in the code. (That, and yeah, I thought it was a bit odd that the page has been maintained for almost 13 years with red links every year after 2006 .. but that now explains why.) Either way, thanks for noticing the error behind my edit, and my apologies that broke stuff for a bit. I'll do better to not be careless in that manner again, especially since messing up something like that is not in the norm for me at all. Steel1943 (talk) 19:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@Thinking of England: By the way, can you link me to a page Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Answered questions appears on besides Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives or Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Lua (the only transclusion of Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Answered questions that appear on its transclusions list) if possible? I'd like to see that in action, but I can't see it properly off either of those pages. Steel1943 (talk) 19:51, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

No worries. (Some questions I'll try to pose later tonight -- but no worries.)

Regarding "/Answered questions", I'm not aware of its use beyond those two pages.

Regarding Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Lua, for some time I've been meaning to ask Wnt what the status of that project was, as there appears to be only a dozen working /Lua monthly indexes, all from 2013?-- ToE 20:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, that's odd. I could have sworn that the transclusion of Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Answered questions on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives had all red links after October 2006 before I did the edit that broke stuff, but that either seems to not be the case anymore or was never the case. Anyways, I don't see me touching that page again for the time being, or probably ever (depending on what other fixes I may find.) Anyways, there was another page I was looking at earlier that I was considering trying to use {{Calendar}} on that had a list of makeshift calendars with links on them for pages in the reference desk archives, and I can't recall what the page was, but I think the page was either created by you or maintained by you, ToE. Steel1943 (talk) 20:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

...As for Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Lua ... to me, it looks like something that was attempted in 2013 that was never completed or enacted with the exception of January 2013. Steel1943 (talk) 20:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I apologize. I started writing a tool to help index archives in the hope that people would be interested in going through the questions and making short digests sorted by topic, but nobody really went for it, and the project went by the wayside. I did not do anything to the original archives so far as I recall... the notion was that pages like Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2013_January_1 would be parseable into something like Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Lua/Science/January_2013 ... a pity I don't remember more about what I did... Wnt (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Thinking of England: You may be interested in seeing the current state of one of my sandboxes. I noticed that you had created a calendar-like list of the archives, so I was attempting to utilize {{Calendar}} to make the links easier to navigate and replicate. However, it stops working after so many uses of {{Calendar}} (as you can probably see) due to technical issues; simply put, I initiated a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Lua#Template:Calendar - Request to Lua-ize in hopes a "module" can be created to resolve that issue. Steel1943 (talk) 00:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing/Links to all archives, etc. pages weren't really intended to be viewed directly, but are for the "Recent changes" (AKA "Related changes") links from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives. (Unlike most WP archives, we actively encourage appropriate editing of archived Reference Desk sections, and the "Recent changes" links allow us to patrol those edits.) They used to be just bulleted lists of links, but when I started maintaining it I converted them to that makeshift calendar format as I preferred the look.

Until 2018 I also kept "Links to all archives" for all seven reference desks consolidated onto a single page for one stop shopping, but adding that year brought it above the 2048 kilobytes wgMaxArticleSize hard limit. Your calendar {{Calendar}} does make for much smaller pages, allowing the return of the consolidated page -- assuming it could be made to work. -- ToE 01:50, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The RD archiving bot itself keeps its own copies of all the questions and answers it archives, because I thought it would be useful for building better, user-friendly, searchable archives. But actually all this function does is use up disk space on my computer, because I've never managed to do anything with those copies.

Here's something I've learned. I say this not with the intent of disparaging anyone's ideas or work. It pains me to say this, because I am a published author of a book-length FAQ list. But here's the sad truth: FAQ lists and other archives of previously-asked questions don't work. Or at least, they don't always work, if by "work" you mean "make it so no one ever needs to ask these questions again". When people need help, and even if they're in the habit of trying to help themselves first, sooner or later, they're going to need help, meaning that they ask a question and get a fresh answer that's just for their question.

So if you're trying to make it easier for people to (maybe) find their question in the archives, ask yourself: why are you trying to do this? Is it truly, solely, to make it easier for (some) people to find their question in the archives? If so, that's perfectly fine, and more power to you. But if you're doing it because you're annoyed (as I certainly once was) at the reoccurrence of questions that get asked again and again, if you're hoping to reduce the rate at which common questions get asked again and again, then I'm sorry to say, you are doomed to failure, because there are certain questions (plenty of questions) that are going to get asked again and again, no matter what you do. It's simply human nature. —Steve Summit (talk) 14:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• ...Well, either way, I moved all of the older pages to the "Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/" prefix from the "Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/" prefix, so now the search bar in the reference pages that searches for pages utilizing the "Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/" prefix will work better. So, I've completed the baseline I set out to do, and now I'm just winging it and might honestly lose interest if {{Calendar}} is not converted to a module ... because yeah, I'm seeing a lot that could be done, but besides the aforementioned point, most is just cosmetic, so it may not even be worth it. Steel1943 (talk) 15:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

It may have been better to at least mention the plans here first but FWIW I've long believed the old archives should be moved to the RD/A location and in fact planned to do it myself but never got around to them. As mentioned, it ensures that they are searched by you search bar. And for that matter I suspect many people constructing Google or whatever external engine searches were also likely to miss the old archives. Nil Einne (talk) 04:33, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@Steel1943: Above we discussed the "Links to all archives" pages which allow for "Recent changes/Related changes" monitoring of edits to the archives. I see that you moved one:

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing/Links to all archives -> Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/Links to all archives

but left the other six in place. What is your intent here? They needn't be under "Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/" to facilitate a unified RD archive search since they haven't any relevant content, but I see no problem having them all moved there if that is what we want purely for organizational purposes. -- ToE 14:57, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• ToE, I went ahead and reverted that move for the time being, given that I did that when I was trying to figure out the archive pages. At the present time, I have no plans or opinion on the matter. Steel1943 (talk) 22:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Deleted question

Moved from the Misc Desk:

On multiple occasions now my responses to questions asked have been deleted. I would be keen to know who has deleted these and why. Also Is there a Wikipedia rule stating that if you delete someone's post you should state who you are and why you have done this? I have my suspicious... Thanks Anton — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.40.58 (talk) 10:43, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Of course there are Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines.150.143.61.8 (talk) 10:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Here's one diff where B. Bugs deleted your post. But here's another one where you deleted Sinister Lefty's post. Do they cancel out? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

And this one:[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:11, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I was following the lead of another user who deleted it first. I just assumed he knew what he was doing. 81...58 also had one deleted that looks like it was an edit conflict. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

The response was initially removed by User:CiaPan, with an edit summary of "not funny, not useful either". Perhaps they could elaborate? Matt Deres (talk) 18:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

He's already admitted he was wrong to delete it [2]. --Viennese Waltz 18:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you 150.143.61.8 your link has provided this: Don't edit others' questions or answers ...except to fix formatting errors that interfere with readability (like a leading space or unclosed markup tags). Do not correct spelling or presumed typos, or anything that might change the meaning of the question. If there is no title to a question, add one. You may also add to a non-descriptive title (such as "question"), but it is best to keep the original title as a portion of the new one, as it may be used by the questioner to find the question. Don't add wikilinks to a question or the title; it may unduly suggest to others that the questioner was aware of the Wikipedia articles. Instead, if relevant, just include these links in your response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.40.58 (talk) 13:27, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

The surest way to link back to a question is to look at your contrib history and click on the little arrow next to the edit summary - assuming someone has added an "anchor" statement to preserve the original question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: adding assignment for psychology issues

Opinions?--Hildeoc (talk) 12:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I think it's better to leave it as is. First, because there's no end of things that could be added, so we might as well keep the line where it is. But second, because there are psych questions that would be better in the Science Desk and others that would be better in the Humanities Desk. Leaving it off allows people to pick whichever desk they wish. Also, picking the "wrong" desk is a complete non-problem so long as even a smidgen of good faith is involved. Matt Deres (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Use

I read this article several times, and nowhere does it show how to ask a question. Primal Groudon (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Click on a topic, and then click "ask a question". Someguy1221 (talk) 19:09, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

What "Use" article is the OP referring to? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

You are misreading the OP's heading. He's not referring to any article about "use". He's read some page, probably Wikipedia:Reference desk, and he's saying that it doesn't explain how to use the ref desk. That seems pretty obvious to me, so I'm not sure how you came to a different conclusion. --Viennese Waltz 16:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I was misled by the expression "this article". In any case, either he's got it figured out now, or doesn't care. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Correct use of Computer section

Can I use the computing section to ask questions about a specific piece of code I am working on, similar to how Stack Overflow is used, or is it only for abstract questions on computing? --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 02:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I would say go for it. --Viennese Waltz 08:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Any thoughts on an FAQ?? (moved from language desk)

I would like to know if anyone can put an FAQ that has some popular questions at all the reference desks. Any thoughts?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:30, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, and nothing came of it. I think it was discussed on the ref desk talk page rather than the ref desk itself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Ironically, one of our FAQs is whether we should list FAQs. SinisterLefty (talk) 02:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

There are not enough FAQs to make an FAQ. In all my years on the ref desk I can only remember one question coming up several times, and that is why are analogue clocks and watches always set at 10:08 when displayed. (The answer used to be in a WP article, but it got deleted.) --Viennese Waltz 08:55, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

There are a handful. What language is the hardest to learn? What if Hitler had...? None of which, IMO, would be helped by an FAQ. However... technically, the question we get the most often is "What animal/plant/car is this?" and that could potentially make for a handy resource for us to use when answering such questions. For example, we could keep a handy page with online resources for identifying firearms, cars, movies, bugs, etc. The expectation wouldn't be for questioners to consult them first, but rather to serve as a handy place for us to build up a repository of useful sites. So, not an FAQ, per se, but a resource list for people answering queries. Matt Deres (talk) 20:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

It turns out FAQ lists don't work very well -- and I say this as the author of one.

People ask for help because they want: help. They don't just want answers. There are a million FAQ lists and other web pages with answers out there already. Virtually everyone by now knows how to use a search engine to find those answers. The search engines are very good -- you can just type in your question, the same question you'd ask on a refdesk or Q/A site.

But the questions keep coming, and it's natural to imagine: Why don't we collect the frequently-asked questions into a list, and then people can find the answers there, so they don't have to keep asking, and we don't have to keep answering? But there are two fallacies there:

• As I said, sometimes people want: help. They're stuck, they're at the end of their rope, they're frustrated. They're at the point that they want to ask, and get a specific answer from an intelligent person, to their question. If they were inclined to do their own research, they would have. (And in many cases, they are doing their own research, but the question they're asking now is one that came up when they were researching the question that came up when they were researching the question that came up when they were researching the original question they were really trying to answer, and that's why they're getting frustrated and looking for some personal help.)
• We've set up this reference desk, we've suggested people can come here and ask their questions, we've implied we're waiting here to answer, because we like to -- but then we turn around and say, oh no, you have to ask a new question, if the question you have is one that people have asked too many times before, you're supposed to realize it, you're not supposed to ask it, you're supposed to do your own work and find it on that list over there.

My current attitude is that when I see yet another occurrence of the same old question, I don't think, "If only there were a better FAQ list with the answer to this question on it, the asker could have found it there". What I tend to think is, "Wow. This is a really great question. Even though it's been asked and answered a million times, people are still asking it. Either none of the answers out there are good enough yet, or this is a question that everyone thinks is brand new, that they're the first to ask, so it doesn't even occur to them to try to look up an answer, they just automatically ask." It's a fascinating phenomenon.

So you can create a new FAQ list if you like, just don't imagine it's going to actually do much to cut down on the frequent questions that get asked. —Steve Summit (talk) 14:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Can you give me an example of a question that "has been asked and answered a million times"? Because, as stated above, I don't actually think there are any. I don't frequent maths and computing. --Viennese Waltz 14:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

No examples from the Language desk, nor indeed any of the WP RD's, no. (But I've been spending some time on Stack Overflow, and my favorite example of a question that's been asked a million times there, and answered at least 500,000 times, and is so bizarre that it never occurs to anyone to try to look up the answer first, comes from C programming: "Why did i++ + i++ not give me the result I expected?" But I mention this only by way of example, not to invite anyone here to speculate on the answer! We don't need 500,001.) —Steve Summit (talk) 16:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Rather than a FAQ with a list of topics people want to know about, we could organize the info into a separate page for each topic, something like an encyclopedia. Oh wait, we have that. No need to duplicate it. RD is for a different purpose and a FAQ would be both useless and a drama locus, so "-1" from me. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 06:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

What we really need is a usable archive search method. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Boiling on the Science Desk

See this edit on the Science Desk. There was an earlier edit that was also inappropriate. Guy Macon, Andy Dingley, I don't think this should be on the RefDesks, please stop.—eric 13:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

If you had deleted my comment [3] while also deleting the snarky comment I was responding to [4] I would have let the deletion stand. Your behavior (leaving an insult in while deleting the response) was disruptive, biased, and a clear violation of WP:TPOC. Nobody voted you in as Moderator Of The Reference Desks. Your revert had the effect of retaining false information posted to the reference desks and while deleting a correction of the false information. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you EricR for alerting us to the totally unacceptable situation that has developed on one of the Reference Desks. The combat between Guy Macon and Andy Dingley is disgraceful, and will be an embarrassment to many of the Users who regularly do good work here.

The tragedy is that the situation is described almost exactly in the Guidelines that are provided for use by everyone who contributes to the Reference Desks. If Guy Macon and Andy Dingley had shown appropriate respect for these Guidelines, there would never have been any combat between them.

The wise folks who compiled the Guidelines must have anticipated the temptation these two would feel to engage in combat with each other. In the lead (2nd paragraph) it says As always, any responses should be civil and avoid anything that could even remotely be considered a personal attack or ad hominem.

In Content and tone, the 3rd paragraph shows exactly how wise these folks were in anticipating the combat we have witnessed. The 3rd paragraph says:

Questions usually attract more than one answer and it is always possible to discern a variation in the quality of these answers. Some answers will show a high degree of expertise and professionalism, and others won’t. If you see an answer you think is amateurish or lacking in technical rigor, simply supply a better one. It isn’t necessary to draw readers’ attention to the fact that you disapprove of one or more of the earlier answers. If one of the earlier answers is inferior to yours, readers will be able to determine that themselves. The only acceptable grounds for making adverse comment about someone else’s answer is if that answer contains advice that is likely to be harmful to readers.

I would like to suggest Guy and Andy go away for an hour or two and read the Guidelines. Become as conversant with them as you obviously are about matters scientific. In particular, study the sentence that says “If you see an answer you think is … … simply supply a better one.” What brilliant advice – simply supply a better one!

Guy Macon has written about other Users posting “false information”, and he has displayed his penchant for angrily denouncing what he perceives to be false information. Clearly, he imagines that false information is unacceptable at the Reference Desks. The Guidelines show that he is incorrect. There is no expectation that answers given at the Reference Desks will be correct! See the 3rd paragraph (quoted above): "Some answers will show a high degree of expertise and professionalism, and others won't." Providing an answer is not giving medical or legal advice, that answer must be allowed to remain on the Reference Desk. If we disapprove of an answer, we simply supply a better one.

The only grounds for making adverse comment about someone else’s answer is if that answer contains advice that is likely to be harmful to readers. If a User is moved to make adverse comment about someone else’s answer he must simultaneously explain why he believes that answer is likely to be harmful to readers! Got it? Harmful to readers.

Before anyone jumps on the angry keyboard, reflect on the fact that I am advising of the existence of a perfectly reasonable set of Guidelines, and asking everyone who contributes to the Reference Desks to read those Guidelines and respect them. There can’t be any harm in that, can there? Dolphin (t) 12:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

+1

Plus, if everyone focused as much as possible on the OP question, instead of on other answers, it would be great. Nobody is perfect. Gem fr (talk) 13:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure it's just a storm in a tea cup. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

It is. One said the glass is half empty (microwave are not efficient at heating things except water), the other strongly disagree, call names and enter edit war path because he can prove the glass is half full (microwave does heat things that are not water, although not as efficiently). Makes the feud even worse, actually. Gem fr (talk) 13:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Please stop saying things that you know are not true. Andy Dingley wrote "The microwave wavelength is chosen so that it's absorbed effectively by water. Dry food isn't heated by it, nor is ice." --posted by Andy Dingley on 21:30, 29 November 2019 [5], emphasis added. He didn't write that "microwave are not efficient at heating things except water" He wrote tthat microwaves don't heat ice. And when I corrected him, instead of acknowledging the error he he responded with "Go boil some water in an ice cup, then come back and say that".

Dolphin51's solution is a good one. I stopped commenting and let Andy Dingley have the last word. Gem fr's solution -- seeing a content dispute and edit warring to retain the bad information while hiding the correction (and hiding the only reference to a reliable source in the entire discussion) is not acceptable. Gem fr, please hat the entire thread or none of it. You are taking sides, which is OK, but you are also violating WP:TPOC and WP:EW in order to support your side and shut up the other side. That's wrong. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Makes the food even worse too. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC) The whole discussion has been fascinating; hard to tear oneself away.

I suggested an edit to Andy Dingley's post, which he has kindly permitted. Guy Macon has reverted three times each attempt to close down the argument. (→‎Microwaving food: No. You do NOT hat the correction of false information without hatting the original false information as well.), (→‎Microwaving food: No. You do NOT hat the correction of false information (claim that microwaves only heat liquid water) without hatting the original false information as well.See WP:TPOC.), (→‎Microwaving food: Edit warring to retain bad information while hiding correction.) See WP:3RR. DroneB (talk) 14:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Funny that you have been counting reverts I just finished counting some reverts myself. See:

1. [6]
2. [7]
3. [8]
4. [9]

That being said, two wrongs don't make a right, and I acknowledge that my 3RR is roughly 2RR too many. I should have stopped after trying no hat and a whole thread hat. I will do my best to not go past 1RR in the future. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Great. You write that, and then 14:57, 3 December 2019, 5 minute later, in your great peace effort, you just spread the flame further Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Gem_fr_reported_by_User:Guy_Macon_(Result:_). Wonderful. clap. clap. clap.

Feel free to comment there, anyone.

Gem fr (talk) 17:28, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

DroneB's attempt to stop this was much better than mine.—eric 17:16, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

But it seems that someone (add pointing finger you know where) would have none of it, anyway. Gem fr (talk) 17:28, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

What a brouhaha. Everyone needs to take some chill pills (or ice cubes). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:03, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

We have shown to the OP who never expressed interest in microwaving ice a curiously evolving sentence about the subject:

Date posted	Sentence	Critical response
21:30 29 november	Dry food isn't heated by [the microwave wavelength], nor is ice.	Incorrect
23:48 2 december	Dry food isn't heated so effectively by [the microwave wavelength], nor is ice.	Correct
14:05 3 december	Dry food isn't heated by [the microwave wavelength], nor is ice.	Incorrect and misquoted

DroneB (talk) 20:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Misquoted how? That's what he wrote, letter for letter. Is it the bolding that you say is a misquote? I was careful to write "emphasis added". He also wrote that our article on Microwave oven is wrong (ignoring the editor who pointed out that the claim was sourced} Also, your "We have shown to the OP" comment is misleading. You just quoted two claims from the thread the OP started and a third from the refdesk talk page.

Again, who is correct about microwaves and ice isn't the point. The point is hiding one side of the dispute without hiding both sides of the dispute. There are two appropriate responses. You could leave both arguments up and let the reader decide. That would be acceptable. You could decide that the discussion became too heated and hide it. That would be acceptable. Selectively hiding the arguments from one side is not acceptable. Hiding the only comment that bothered to give a citation to a reliable source is also not acceptable. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Guy Macon Your persistence on 3 december in quoting a sentence that the poster and I had explicitly agreed to redact a day earlier, where you deliberately neglect the redaction and apply emphasis to prolong a dispute, is misquotation. Since you wish there to be a dispute, my contribution is that I found Andy Dingley's response when I approached him on his Talk page to be cooperative and reasonable, while I think you Guy Macon have severely disrupted our collective response at the Science desk in a forlorn search for revenge, see WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. DroneB (talk) 02:43, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Smooth move. You managed to agree with AD to change his claim, but never notified me, then criticized me for not re-reading everything on the page every day just in case someone changed their comment and didn't tell me. Nice. I also appreciate you approaching AD on his talk page but not approaching me on my talk page. Then you capped off your behavior with a personal attack ("in a forlorn search for revenge") that is based upon the assumption that you can analyze someone's internal mental state over the internet. Might I suggest that when you see two editors disputing a claim that jumping in, taking sides, and personally attacking one of the two disputants is not exactly helpful? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@Guy Macon You asked how the 3rd sentence in the table is a misquotation and that has been answered. Besides being the source of that misquotation for the reason that you explained, you had earlier disrupted the question handling with personalized advice and prediction in: "Don't bother responding to Andy Dingley. I never do. Once he says that ice isn't heated by microwaves, he will never back off and admit that he was wrong. Talking to him about it is a waste of time." This gratuitous advice seems to be aimed at User:Ouroboros who was responding civily to Andy Dingley. I "jumped in" against your advice by contacting Andy Dingly on his Talk page and I am happy that Andy's cooperative response debunked that rude prediction.

Noting (as we must because you tell us) that you are after 23:48 2 Dec 2019 posting to a thread whose content you neglect to monitor, and which has been de-boned of your bone of contention with Andy, the combative energy in your edit-warring posts [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] at ANI to Gem fr [15] is remarkable. Guy Macon I suggest, if you can, WP:RELAX rather than rageing on to probable WP:WOOPS in the hole you have dug. I propose that the Science Ref. desk is best served by rolling back the unnecessary edit war, or simply by deleting the whole question from the archive as a salutory reminder that our high collective abilities count as nothing without WP:AGF by all parties. DroneB (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Battleground

I am trying to get laymans terms for a math termWikipedia:Reference_desk/Mathematics#Euclidean_plane?. There's been no definitive answer to the enquiry. From the outset of making the enquiry I have been harassed, and now a tag team is edit warring an archive template onto the section. You don't have to answer a question if you don't want to and if you can't, then it's none of your bloody business let alone your remit to prevent anyone else from answering it. ~ R.T.G 15:03, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• Please see: Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#When_to_close_discussions ~ R.T.G 15:10, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
• Please see Wikipedia:Tag_team#Goals_of_tag_teams ~ R.T.G 15:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

@RTG: This probably isn't the best place to discuss this, but since you brought it up here, I'll acknowledge that some of the comments made toward you weren't appropriate. However, you have to realize that if you ask a vague question, you're going to get vague answers. In terms of answers, you've gotten above and beyond what one should expect, with good pointers to where you can pick up some more of the requisite background knowledge needed to ask a more meaningful question. It's time to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse. The close of the thread was probably the most reasonable way to end the mess, and as someone not involved in the thread, I support it. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I am not complaining about the answers except insofar as they didn't answer the question. If I went into a cafe, for want of a better example, and ordered 2 coffees, but was given two buckets of tea, then had to explain at length that the caffine in tea didn't quite make it coffee... for which they barred me off the premises with the excuse "wouldn't shut up about the coffee..." the cafe has not only upset me, but they've crossed into the bounds of discrimination, no matter how many buckets of tea they offered me. Instead the cashier could just say sorry, I know what coffee is, but I don't have any to give you. I have not raised a stick here. I HAVE NOT RAISED A STICK. It is not time for me to do anything. Closing an active talk section is purely disruptive and can never be truly excused unless the question truly is resolved. Saying, oh I got pissed off being one of a crowd not really being able to answer it is not covered in the guideline I have posted here Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#When_to_close_discussions. ~ R.T.G 15:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Those templates are for discussions that have come to a natural close. Using them as a barrier when you cannot control yourself is abuse. What do you mean this is not the place to discuss what happens here? What do you mean by that? ~ R.T.G 15:41, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Guidelines#When_removing_or_redacting_a_posting It's not covered. ~ R.T.G 15:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

You've gotten your answer. I strongly suggest that you just let this one go. You're not going to get anything better at the ref desk itself, and if you really want, "When further contributions are unlikely to be helpful" applies here as a valid reason to close the discussion. The ref desk is good when someone has a specific question or needs pointers to further resources, but it's not good when someone doesn't really even know what they want to ask, and continues to get people to explain things in increasingly contrived ways. Please trust me on this one. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm with Deacon Vorbis on this. Without wading into who was right and who was wrong here, whether or not you should have gotten different responses is irrelevant at this point. As Deacon Vorbis notes, closing a discussion is for the best "When further contributions are unlikely to be helpful", and that discussion had descended well past the point of helpfulness. The only thing to gain from leaving it open further would have been to allow one side or the other to continue their incivility and personal attacks. That is not a reason why one should leave a discussion open. --Jayron32 16:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I did not apply the battleground here. I have done nothing wrong here. I am trying to improve the encyclopaedia. I was not "incivil". There were no "personal attacks". You are wikilawyering in deception. Is that part of what what you think these desks are for? Well, that's why I made this thread in the first place. ~ R.T.G 02:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Euclidean geometry is a particular type of geometry. Hyperbolic geometry is another. I recommend you review those articles and see if they make sense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Irrelevant. The topic here is called "Battleground". If you are not capable of answering a question, leave it alone. For instance, Bugs, did you answer the battleground question here? No. Are you trying to skirt it? Yes. What sort of satisfaction can be had from such input? Battleground satisfaction. Don't need it. Answer the question about Euclidean, address the battleground, or go back to your own business. We have already a full tag team to fight on me. There is no need of any of it. It is become important for the desks to define this situation. ~ R.T.G 02:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

If you're not willing to learn about the subject, then what's the point of this megillah? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

"Willing to learn"? Could you not just say not to answer questions you can't answer? Do you have to win a fight here? Are we no longer capable of the rhetoric which puts us above all that? I've not done a wrong here yet I have been subjected to treatment. If every respondant of my query just answered it and moved on, that would have been fine. A crowd-controlled-situation was not fine. Are you not "willing to learn" and put paid to the long history of bullshit towards questions which cannot be answered or understood on the reference desks? In every case, except for cases where the post really is toward disruption, a situation like this represents a form of biting noobs. In every case. Go on ahead and give me a response which ignores it, then blame me for pointing out your ignorance, then blame me for pointing that out. Blame, blame, blame? We need better than this.. We need, better than this. ~ R.T.G 04:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

You, a noob? I don't think so. Your first edit was in 2008. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

And if you're looking for a "layman's" term for a Euclidean plane, how about "flat surface"? Because that's the underlying concept of a Euclidean plane. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I already asked that at length, Bugs, so what is the problem there? That I didn't know what question to ask? Here is the original enquiry in its entirety: "Please tell me, is the Euclidean plane the concept of two dimensional space only, or is it the concept of 2D space + something else?" So can you tell us again how you are on their side because what I am seeing is someone who seems to agree with me but is stuck in the mud. ~ R.T.G 08:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

The answer is that it's the concept of two dimensional space only. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

So the whole section has been an exercise in purposely creating this argument for a laugh. ~ R.T.G 09:26, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

No it isn't, there are many possible two-dimensional spaces; the surface of a sphere is another. Euclidean space is just the one that has been defined to follow your intuition of what a flat 2D space "ought to be". Which is, of course, more or less what we were saying in various ways. The issue is that you need to know more about geometry than you already do in order to formalise that intuition. That is not disputing "how short [your] intellectual skirt" is as you would seem to have it in your posting here; it's simply that understanding of mathematics is heavily cumulative. You can hardly expect every article to explain everything from square one, but as you learn more and more, more of them become understandable. And trying to understand something where you don't have the prerequisite knowledge is rather futile, so the best thing to do in that case is to (1) find out what you need to know first and then (2) learn it. Well, we pointed you to (1) – you need to learn geometry rigorously to understand the subtleties that can occur and why we need a word specially for what seems intuitively to be the only way things can be. Without doing (2), there's no way you're going to get an answer that is simultaneously (1) correct and (2) comprehensible with your current knowledge. Again, that is not meant as an attack on your intellectual level; it is simply an objective statement of what your question shows you do and don't know, and the sort of response you can get for your question at this stage. It's not unusual at all in mathematics that one has reached the level where one can ask a question and not understand a word of a correct answer. I've gone through multiple such levels of understanding myself and there are lots and lots more up above; it's common to everybody. The important thing is to get pointers on what to learn first and where to learn it. The first we gave you; for the second, there are a lot of resources online. Double sharp (talk) 14:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Is there anything about Euclidian planes that you still don't understand? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: I suggest not using your time on this, RTG refuses to actually learn geometry in a rigorous fashion (in the same vein as WP:IDHT applies to our policies), instead expecting us to understand hand-waving. @RTG: Wikilawyering does not change the ever-clear consensus that you do need to drop your WP:STICK on this discussion. You have no entitlement to any further answers on this subject.--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

That's becoming rather apparent. A Euclidean plane represents a flat surface. In Euclidean geometry, parallel lines never cross. In other kinds of geometry, they can. These various geometries start with basic assumptions (axioms, laws, or whatever term to use) and all the proofs within those geometries are based on the axioms. It seems rather simple and straightforward to me, but there's apparently something about it all that the OP finds confusing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

It's hard to answer wikilawyering that says "you are wikilawyering" on it, right Jasper? ~ R.T.G 12:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

RTG: I'm sorry we couldn't answer your question, and I'm sorry you feel you're being ganged up on, but you're right; we cannot answer your question. Furthermore, the attempt to clarify the question (so that, maybe, we could answer it) wasn't working -- not only were we still not able to answer the question, but everyone was getting cross. That's why someone boxed the question up. I'm sorry, too, that the boxing-up seemed like an insult to you as well, but really, it was for the best, because the fact remains: we cannot answer your question. We can't even understand your question. Our lack of ability to understand it may well be our fault, not yours, but it's going to stand in the way of getting the question answered no matter what. —Steve Summit (talk) 06:46, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

I wanted to thank all our fellow Wikipedia Reference desk contributors for all their hard work and dedication over the past year and say Merry Christmas to you and your families and have a Happy New Year. Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 09:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

New archiving solution likely needed

Tonight scsbot, the bot I run which archives the reference desk (and a few other pages), stopped working. The antique HTTP infrastructure it uses is incompatible with security updates being imposed by Wikimedia. I doubt I will be able to fix it; I certainly won't be able to fix it tonight. So RD archiving (and automatic date header adding) will be on hold until either (a) I find the energy to update my infrastructure or (b) we switch to an entirely new archiving scheme. (There are numbers of other Wikipedia archivers, and I assume that most/all of them use proper, updated infrastructures that are and will stay compatible with Wikimedia's requirements.)

Sorry to blindside y'all with this, but I was blindsided by this tonight. —Steve Summit (talk) 04:49, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

When I manage a software development project, changes are tested, things that the changes break are identified, and time is allotted to either fix the now-broken software or to notify users of an upcoming loss of functionality. Nobody is blindsided.

I have had long discussion with several WMF developers about this sort of thing. They aren't stupid, nor are they inexperienced. They know all of the above and would do it the right way if they were allowed to. The problem is not in the developers. The problem resides in the management structure they work under and the orders they are given. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:52, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

A recent ref desk question asked what the WMF does with their many millions of dollars. This kind of thing is part of the answer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Steve, let me know if you want any technical assistance, software-development, or Q.A.'ing assistance. I probably don't have the time to author an archiving solution by myself, but I can volunteer some time to assist you if you're working on it. Nimur (talk) 23:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the offer, but see below. —Steve Summit

So it turned out that updating my low-level HTTP fetcher to use TLS 1.2 was (mostly) straightforward, and scsbot is now working again. (Next I have to go back and see if using the latest 1.3 is equally straightforward.)

[As an aside, although I won't deny being somewhat annoyed at the way WMF forced this issue -- in my world, backwards compatibility is sacred, and you only break it when maintaining it is impossible, not just to prove a point -- the SSL 2 and 3 that my "antique HTTP infrastructure" had still been using were truly obsolete, and I really did need to upgrade.]

Sorry to have wasted everyone's time with that epic scramble I touched off to decide on a replacement archiving solution. It wasn't completely wasted, though: I'm not going to be doing this forever, and one day you really will need to select a replacement, so it's good to have started thinking about it. —Steve Summit (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

The big picture is this: the WMF has $104 million USD in annual income, spends $81 million USD, and has $134 million in the bank.[16] They are spending like drunken sailors on on things like Wikimania meetings in exotic locations, buying ski trips for executives, and trying to create a search engine to compete with Google. Meanwhile basic functionality like archiving is in the hands of unpaid volunteers with no support from anyone at the WMF and I still have to remember to put ~~~~ at the end of this post. What's wrong with this picture? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

You've heard the expression "You get what you pay for"? Wikipedia is kind of the opposite of that. At least there's some good news: You can get around the tilde typing by putting the template "YesAutosign" on your page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

In any event, thanks, Steve, for your constant and loyal assistance to the desks. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

For those wondering about this, it seems that the foundation didn't actually completely disabled TLS below 1.3. If you try to visit with TLS below 1.3, you get this error [17] which according to it, is set to continue to the end of this year. Maybe they should have made an ignorable error message first (although are we sure they didn't?), but I suspect they figured it wouldn't have helped much since everyone would have just ignored it until they couldn't. Nil Einne (talk) 14:41, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Reading a bit more, I came across Wikitech:HTTPS and Wikitech:HTTPS/3DES Deprecation. I couldn't find a specific page on 1.3, I suspect it's on the mailing lists and/or Phabricator. I suspect it was about the same though. The WMF started with a small number of page views getting that message. This was increased over time. Eventually about 1 month before, it was increased to 100%. So I think they did try to communicate the change. Unfortunately the bot was probably designed to ignore the message, treating it as an unimportant error like those server problems etc you get at times. So there may be merit to suggest changes in the way they communicate with bot owners especially if the bot uses a unique user agent enabling it to be identified. However this is best done elsewhere since I quite doubt anyone at the WMF is going to read this page. Nil Einne (talk) 14:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I was looking at something else and came across this discussion Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 177#Security warning issues and from that found this Phabricator:T238038 which looks like it provides details on the timings of the warnings and rampups etc. Nil Einne (talk) 15:21, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Was sincere but unsourced

Just for the record, here I was sincere, but had no evidence for my suspicion, which if correct I am sure we would have heard about by now. EllenCT (talk) 02:32, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

@EllenCT: Okay I know this is ancient now and I should have asked when it first occurred to me, but something which has been bugging me for a long while. I don't understand why if your suspicion was correct, we'd have heard it "by now". I personally think you suspicion is nonsense since I see absolutely zero reason to think it's them compared to the millions of other scenarios you could come up with e.g. MAGA supporters, Musk supporters, antifa supporters, Texan extremists or frankly IMO most likely just some bored people who just think it's "fun".....

But AFAICT, we really have no idea who is behind this and why to this day [18]. Police probably know a little more than us, e.g. they know what the non-firearm projectiles are which probably means they have a good idea of how they're being launched. But I'm guessing there's a good chance they also have no real clue of the motivation. And even if they did have some clue of the motivation e.g. the person is including messages with the projectiles, they seem to have decided not to reveal it. The perpetrators have seemingly decided not to reveal anything more publicly than whatever they may be revealing to the police.

Let's remember it has been going on for many months before the OP posted it in mid-December. (Although the link I posted just now says over a year, other sources say earliest reports were in February [19], with a big jump in October [20].) So why would we have "heard about by now", about a week after you first posted your suspicion, but not have heard something when you came up with and posted your suspicion many months after the attacks first started? Or to put it a different way, I don't quite understand why you had enough suspicion to post in the first place. I don't see anything about the time the OP happened to ask about this which made it especially likely that's we'd have received confirmation whether or not it was radical environmentalists within a week.

P.S. I'm assuming you knew it had been going on since February since the first source posted by the OP mentioned the February [21] so it seemed a basic detail you'd know before coming up with speculation of the motives.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: I don't remember when I first heard about those attacks, and it may very well be nonsense, but apparently the general suspicion is not mine alone. EllenCT (talk) 04:32, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

How many of these kinds of things (i.e. targeting random drivers) have proven to be politically motivated, as opposed to just thrill-seeking? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Is the I-551 stamp on a passport acceptable for carnival cruise?

Is the I-551 stamp on a passport acceptable for carnival cruise?

My girlfriend lost her green card and her passport expired! 🙄

We started the new green card process, which takes longer time then we have until the cruise. So we're getting her passport renewed and getting the I-551 stamp. We are going to the Eastern Caribbean, all U.S. territory. The lady from Carnival said DHS does all the checks and she didnt know what they accepted. A lady from DHS said it is acceptable but she didn't sound too confident. I'd feel more comfortable if I heard form someone or someone who has known someone it has worked for. Kevinmjr941 (talk) 10:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're not going to get an authoritative answer from anyone here. They could be wrong or they could be making it up. Only DHS knows the answer. If you're not sure about the authoritativeness of the answer you've already gotten from them, maybe ask someone else from DHS. But don't trust the word of anonymous people on the internet. Also, unfortunately this is the wrong place to ask your question anyway. This is the talk page for the reference desk, where the workings of the talk page are discussed. The reference desk itself can be found here. --Viennese Waltz 10:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. This is my first time asking anything online. My apologies on the wrong place, I'm learning. Lol Kevinmjr941 (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Useless topic headings

If someone posts a question headed "Question", we always change it to something more meaningful, something about the substance of the question, to assist people searching for it, now and in the future.

Now, what about a question headed "Untitled"? That is just as useless as "Question", imo. I've changed such a header on the Mathematics desk, twice now, and User:Deacon Vorbis has twice reverted me, saying the OP didn't want a title and it doesn't need one. This seems to fail the common sense test. What does the community think? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

In either case (and I'm sure other examples could be cited) I think it's a good idea to specify the heading. The only additional thing I'd suggest (for the sake of the OP and others that might have already responded) is to add the original heading with Template:Anchor, right below the section heading. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean "we", pale-face? In fact, there was no section header at all originally. I added one as "Untitled"...since there was no title, and to make sure the archiving bot wouldn't freak out. Searching the archives will work just fine without a section header. This was also a low-quality question that would benefit from not being found anyway. Why try to change what the desk regulars are doing? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Standard practice is to have a meaningful header. If you can't think of one, maybe recruit someone who can? As for the archives, the search mechanism sucks. Or should I say, it sucks "just fine." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I've been a desk regular for over 16 years. I know whereof I speak. As for "a low-quality question that would benefit from not being found anyway" - that is really contrary to our ethos of enlightenment. We never know who may wish to access the question at some future time. Otherwise, why have archives at all? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, there's a disconnect between:

• I added [a section header] as "Untitled"... to make sure the archiving bot wouldn't freak out. and
• Searching the archives will work just fine without a section header.

Can you clarify, User:Deacon Vorbis? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

One way to look at it is that the search mechanism is worthless, with or without headings. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

It is our "ethos of enlightenment" that matters here. Some say "It is not necessary to bring Talk pages to publishing standards". This is the Reference desk. We should have high standards. I think we should have high standards on Talk pages. "Untitled" and "Question" serve little purpose. It is not only archives that we have to be concerned with, but also present participation. It is a task devising an appropriate heading when someone else posed the question. But doing so can be seen as part of our "ethos of enlightenment". A slash, also known as a forward slash, can be used to separate the terms "Untitled" or "Question" from our newly-devised heading, although I would tend not to do that. Bus stop (talk) 01:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Every section should have a meaningful title, and "Untitled" is every bit as bad as "Question". It doesn't take a rocket scientist to come up with something better than "Question" or "Untitled". Worse comes to worst, they can simply restate the first line of the question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, please continue fixing headings to be informative. If the person objects and wants to stick with the useless heading, then fine, don't press the matter. But it's unhelpful for a third person to come along and revert a useful heading to a useless one. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:4FFF (talk) 10:40, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd say we have a consensus. Thanks, all. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:18, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Freeknowledgecreator's questions

It is my position that further questions by Freeknowledgecreator about whether specific foods are fattening or slimming should be boxed up or reverted. It is also my position that bullshit questions like the one about whether human blood is fattening should be reported as vandalism. Thoughts? Matt Deres (talk) 00:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it matters. Seen in the context of the responses I see this as harmless. Bus stop (talk) 01:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Matt Deres, your proposals are an unjustified form of personal aggression. I do reserve the right to ask questions that other may consider "stupid" or may dislike. Do explain where the rule is that questions asked at the reference desk cannot be "stupid" or "bullshit". The concept of "vandalism" does not apply here. Per WP:VANDAL: "On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge." None of the questions I have asked, including the one about whether drinking human blood would be fattening, remotely meet that definition. In effect you are simply trying to get questions you dislike labelled "vandalism", which is an abuse and a distortion of the term. If I had done something like adding a random string of characters - like "UISHRFUGEIUT 46w46w6" - at the Reference desk, that would have been vandalism, but even a distasteful or "stupid" question is nowhere near being vandalism. Like I said, if you see a question you dislike or disapprove of, the best and most civilized response is probably simply to ignore it. By the way, what on Earth is wrong with a question about whether or under what circumstances a given food can be fattening? These sorts of questions are of interest to many people and have considerable practical importance. Would you really ban them because you personally happen to dislike them? Alternatively, why would I be the only user whose questions about such subjects should be removed? Why the sudden urge to discriminate against me personally? Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 08:51, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Ten questions in as many days asking for dietary/medial advice, last about drinking blood? Given the very poor response above, best Freeknowledgecreator be asked to stop such postings and any more simply reverted rather than boxed up. I'll agree with this number and wouldn't call it vandalism.—eric 13:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

EricR, in the first place, not a single question was a request for advice or about my health specifically - they were general questions about the healthiness of various foods. I stated explicitly and very clearly that I was not asking for advice. In the second place, where is the rule about the maximum number of questions one can ask at the reference desk? If you think that such a rule should exist, then make your case, but why pretend that such a rule does exist when it doesn't? You might have a case if the reference desk were being deluged with an excessive number of questions, so many that people there couldn't handle them, but that's not even remotely true. If people who provide answers at the reference desk are content to answer my questions, then who, exactly, are you to tell them that they shouldn't? What gives you, or Matt Deres, the right to police the reference desk? I stand by my earlier response. All I see here is personal aggression directed against me. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Listen, Dracula, every editor has the "right" to "police" the ref desks or anywhere else on Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

No one has the right to remove questions simply because they dislike them - or the person who asks them. The proposal being made was "further questions by Freeknowledgecreator about whether specific foods are fattening or slimming should be boxed up or reverted". No one suggested why either A) questions about whether specific foods are fattening are inappropriate or B) why, alternatively, questions asked by me about such subjects are inappropriate. Matt Deres has not ventured to explain why people other than me should be able to ask such questions. Also, his proposal to remove "bullshit questions" doesn't explain what a "bullshit question" is. Effectively, Matt Deres is proposing that, "Any question Matt Deres dislikes can be automatically removed." No thank you. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 04:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

The proposal is not to remove any questions. It is to remove your questions and that is perfectly within the guidelines. MarnetteD|Talk 04:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

No, it isn't. There is no guideline against me asking questions. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 04:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you have a WP:CIR problem in understanding what Matt has written. Also try reading WP:CONSENSUS. It has been applied numerous times regarding the ref desks. MarnetteD|Talk 04:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I have no difficulty understanding it. It is a totally unreasonable, aggressive proposal directed against me personally, one that is in no sense necessary, and appears motivated by personal dislike or disagreement. At best one could consider it an over-reaction to a single question I understand some might find distasteful. I note again that there is no definition of "bullshit questions" and that all it can mean in practice is, "anything I dislike". No one other than you appears to be proposing that I be banned from asking any questions ("The proposal is...to remove your questions"). Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 05:11, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

For someone who's been here since 2011, you seem remarkably ignorant about how things work at Wikipedia. More specifically, editors can be, and have been, banned from the ref desks, for any number of things, including asking trolling questions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:42, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

So, essentially, you think I should be banned forever from the reference desks, without warning and with no second chances, purely for asking one question that some people found distasteful? Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 05:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

You've been asking nutrition-related questions (except for the one about blood, which is clearly trolling), and you've been directed to sources for answers to nutrition-related questions. Yet you keep asking the same kind of question. That's what could get you banned from the ref desks. Kind of like the user who kept asking about the motives of characters in movies. He was advised to look for a fan forum. But the user kept coming back asking the same kind of question, and was eventually banned. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

So the proposal is what, then? That I be banned from the reference desks for asking questions that are similar to each other? Doesn't that seem like something of an over-reaction? How different does a question have to be from previous questions to be acceptable? Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 06:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

You need to stop asking questions that have already been answered. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the point of your response. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 06:47, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Your failure to understand the obvious is one reason your competency is being questioned. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Your comment is personal abuse. I've written four good articles. That seems competent. If you make obscure comments, and someone doesn't see the point of them, maybe the best response is to explain yourself properly instead of accusing others of being incompetent for failing to see the point of your obscure comments? Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 07:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

How many of them were about vampirism? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

The conversation is over, as far as I'm concerned. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Then box it up. Just don't ask if the box is fattening. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Box it up and ship it out? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Hey, that answers the question in question: Human blood IS fattening. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:42, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I think you all should lighten up. I agree it borders on senseless to contemplate whether human blood is fattening or not. I'm just not into penalizing people for senseless questions. But Freeknowledgecreator should take note of the pretty obvious reactions of several people that it apparently drives them up a wall to have the Reference desks used for senseless questions. Bus stop (talk) 12:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Lighten up? lol I refuse. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

One need not get a joke to laugh at it. Bus stop (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism/censorship

A valiant display of patience and AGF, but in the end we should NFTD. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I recently asked the following question, "Is it true that gay men tend to remember having had unusually close relationships with their mothers and unusually cold and distant relationships with their fathers?" Baseball bugs first replied with an aggressive and dismissive comment ("Before you spout any more of your nonsense about various things, you should do some reading to eddycate yourself, maybe starting with LGBT stereotypes"), and then removed the question, and his response. The removal is an act of outright vandalism and intolerance. Per WP:RD/G: "The reference desk is not censored. No subject per se is off limits." The guideline states that, " Further, we never set out deliberately to offend, and we endeavor to quickly remove needlessly offensive material in questions or responses." Nothing in my question was "needlessly offensive". It was a perfectly calm, simple question, and was not posed in an offensive manner. Rather than attempt to provide a calm response, Baseball bugs removed the question, apparently simply because he found a calm and matter of fact question offensive. This is unacceptable. My question should be reinstated and Basebull bugs should be told to stop editing in a way that conflicts with the reference desk guidelines. Baseball bugs, let me point out that I didn't spout "nonsense" about anything. I simply asked a question, which isn't the same as expressing an opinion about the question subject. If in your opinion, gay men do not "tend to remember having had unusually close relationships with their mothers and unusually cold and distant relationships with their fathers", then you could just have said so, preferably backing up your response with evidence. If your excuse for removing the question was that it is answered at the article LGBT stereotypes, let me point out that it says nothing about this subject. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 08:30, 31 January 2020 (UTC) There's nothing calm or matter-of-fact about your question - it's a reiteration of homophobic stereotyping, which is not allowed here. And it's a hundred times worse than your nonsensical question about whether human blood is fattening. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC) My question was both calm and neutral. It was simply a question about whether gay men tend to remember their relationships with their parents in a certain way. I didn't state that they actually do ("homophobic stereotyping"). Why can't you make that simple distinction? You are 100% entitled to your view that gay men do not tend to remember their relationships with their parents that way, but not to remove a simple question because it offends you. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 08:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC) My response to that question might have been simply "No". Because that's the true answer. But it really was a provocative question, reflecting stereotypes about gay men that most of us thought went out of fashion half a century ago. Perhaps you asked it in genuine, naive innocence, and perhaps you are still developing your social awareness, but it stood out to me as a very odd thing to ask. Before asking a question beginning with "Is it true that...", maybe you need to look at some of the relevant Wikipedia articles and Google a few other pages before leaping in here. HiLo48 (talk) 08:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC) The question was brief, short, and posed in an entirely calm and neutral manner. If some people feel that they have to remove it because it upsets them, then that's really bizarre. HiLo48's comment is a little more reasonable, but I note that it is also quite evidence-free. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 08:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC) Any statement that starts "Is it true that gay men..." is a blanket stereotype of all gay men. You might as well ask "Is it true that Mexican immigrants are criminals?" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:40, 31 January 2020 (UTC) No, once again, it is a question about whether something is the case, not a statement that it is the case. A very simple distinction, I would have thought. Also, I used the word "tend" in the question - I was asking whether there is a tendency for something to be the case. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 08:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC) I have a question for you. What made you ask your question? HiLo48 (talk) 08:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC) That's an interesting to question to ask, firstly because it is not relevant, and secondly, because I obviously do not have to answer it. Generally, it is accepted that people can ask questions at the reference desk without being interrogated about why they are doing so. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 08:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC) Says who? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC) Too often these days, "Is it true that (minority group) [does/is/believes/says] (thing)?" questions are used as a form of JAQing off (particularly by alt-right trolls), especially when it's a stereotype or something politically incorrect. I am absolutely not suggesting that was the case with your question but am trying to help you understand why some people would react poorly to such questions and help you consider using different approaches in the future. For example, in addition to doing the prior research to see if it's a stereotype as everyone already has and will continue to suggest, once you do come here, consider asking "are there any sources on the history of this stereotype?" or more open questions like "are there any sources on relationships between gay men and their parents?" Don't ask "why do people believe this stereotype?" (because they're ignorant, end of discussion) or "where did this stereotype come from?" (because that's a form of JAQing off used to suggest that the stereotype is based in reality). And remember, assume that anything you write will be read in the most stupid and hostile tone possible. Read what others write in the most pleasant tone possible. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC) Thank you for your response, Ian.thomson. I do not entirely agree with it, but it is the most reasonable response I have received so far. I will soon posed a revised version of my question, taking your feedback into account. I do hope that no one censors the reference desk by removing a calm, matter of fact question simply because they are upset by it. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 08:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC) You should post it here first, so it can be discussed without anyone having to resort to edit-warring at the ref desk itself. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC) Try, "What sources are available that address the issue of whether it true that gay men tend to remember having had unusually close relationships with their mothers and unusually cold and distant relationships with their fathers?". Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC) No, you're just restating your original premise, which is based on nothing except stereotyping and bigotry. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC) How about, "Are there any studies about gay men's relationships with their parents, in comparison with straight men's relationships with their parents?" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC) Baseball Bugs, as I have pointed out repeatedly, my question was a question about whether gay men tend to remember their relationships with their parents in a certain way, as opposed to a statement that they actually do remember their relationships with their parents that way. You removed my question based on a blatant falsehood, and you have continued to repeat that falsehood. Your claim that I engaged in "stereotyping and bigotry" is simply false. The question you propose I ask is a censored, and pointless, version of my original question that hides what it is actually about. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC) What IS it about? Gay men being in love with their mothers? HiLo48 (talk) 09:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC) Er, no. The question was, "Is it true that gay men tend to remember having had unusually close relationships with their mothers and unusually cold and distant relationships with their fathers?" It ought to be simple enough to understand what was being asked. It is too bad that a perfectly legitimate question gets removed because of a bizarre over-reaction from someone who considers asking a question like that "a hundred times worse" than asking "whether human blood is fattening". Again, can you say "over-reaction?" Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC) *Begins waving a holy symbol at Freud.* Ian.thomson (talk) 09:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC) (edit conflict) Facepalm You are just restating your question, with a "both sides" validation of a stereotype -- that's the problem. Just because you can't see that doesn't mean the problem is with everyone else. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC) There is no reason I should not restate the question, because it was and is a perfectly legitimate question, bizarre over-reactions to it notwithstanding. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC) A suggestion. You must have noticed that some people see things differently from you. Pause. Rather than repeatedly telling everyone else they're wrong, (they COULD be), go away and have a quiet think about why they may see things differently from you. And about how you might change their minds without simply telling them over and over again that they're wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 09:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC) How can I change your minds? That is unclear, but perhaps I could remind you of what the relevant guidelines actually state: "The reference desk is not censored. No subject per se is off limits." If no one is prepared to stand up to the incredible intolerance and censoriousness that greeted my question, then that is regrettable, but it does not alter the fact that the guidelines have been blatantly violated. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC) Guidelines are not rules. And if someone asks a trolling question, it is subject to deletion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC) I did not ask a trolling question. I asked a question that happened to upset and offend you. I am sorry that it upset you, but there was, nonetheless, nothing wrong with the question itself. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC) Prove it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC) You have had every opportunity to explain why the question was inappropriate, but all you have responded with are false and misleading statements about the question and its nature. You have already proved my point for me, several times over. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC) Several of us have explained, you just don't want to hear it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC) The responses have simply indicated that people dislike the question, and are apparently happy to see the removal of something they personally dislike, even though that violates the guidelines. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:45, 31 January 2020 (UTC) Several of us have explained, you just don't want to hear it. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:46, 31 January 2020 (UTC) There is no point in repeating other people's comments. The issue has become moot, since it is clear enough that no one is actually able to answer my question, and that's really all the response I need. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC) Thanks for confirming that it's a trolling question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseball Bugs (talk • contribs) 09:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC) No, the question was asked in good faith. It might have been true for all I knew that someone would have been able to give a sensible, evidence-based response to my question. Now that it's clear no one can, that's the end of the matter. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC) Nothing of the kind is "true" about all members of a given group. Take your bigoted question to Conservapedia. They'll love you for it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC) The question began, "Is it true that gay men tend to...". Note that word "tend". Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC) Had you said "some" gay men, you might have been OK. But since the question implies all gay men, asking it without putting it in parallel context with straight men, it comes across as stereotyping and bigotry. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC) The question was, "Is it true that gay men tend to remember having had unusually close relationships with their mothers and unusually cold and distant relationships with their fathers?" It obviously does not logically imply all gay men, for anyone able to understand what the word "tend" means. "Is it true that some gay men tend to remember having had unusually close relationships with their mothers and unusually cold and distant relationships with their fathers?" would have been a completely different question, a pointless one that I have no interest in asking. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 17:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC) Your core premise is prejudicial and invalid. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC) Uh, no. The only "premise" was that something might tend to be true of gay men, and that it was worth asking whether or not it actually was. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC) Of all gay men. Prejudicial. Homophobic. Stereotyping. Bigotry. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC) There is no reason why something might not tend to be true of a given group, and it isn't "bigotry" to simply ask neutrally whether it is. Your response is irrational. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC) Stating a stereotype as fact is not neutral. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC) Does anyone want to express a view that doesn't blatantly misrepresent my question as being something that it clearly wasn't? I'm not going to keep up an endless series of exchanges with Baseball bugs. I wonder however whether anyone has anything sensible to say? Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC) Have you read the comments of the others here? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC) The question, "is it true that gay men tend to remember having had unusually close relationships with their mothers and unusually cold and distant relationships with their fathers?" neither states nor implies that all gay men remember their relationships with their parents in a particular way. If Baseball bugs believes it does, then he is misunderstanding how the English language works, and could use a refresher in logic and grammar. I therefore ask, can anyone explain why my perfectly legitimate question should not be restored? Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC) @Freeknowledgecreator: As I already said Too often these days, "Is it true that (minority group) [does/is/believes/says] (thing)?" questions are used as a form of JAQing off (particularly by alt-right trolls), especially when it's a stereotype or something politically incorrect. Another tactic they use is to insist that such questions are completely neutral. Another tactic is to insist that if anyone else is offended then it's their fault. Another tactic is to accuse anyone who doesn't want to play along with the question of censorship. I'm not saying you're an alt-right troll, but you keep using all the same tactics I've seen them use in other articles. Seriously, where has anyone defended the exact phrasing of your question? Where has anyone not noted that the phrasing is loaded? Where has anyone restored it? HiLo48 and I, both completely uninvolved, have pointed out the problems with the phrasing but you ignored it completely and keep using the phrase "perfectly legitimate" despite everyone explaining it isn't. If a new user behaved as you're behaving in an article with discretionary sanctions, they wouldn't be editing in that area for long. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC) You've ignored my accurate point that Baseball bugs removed my question based on a total misunderstanding, whether or not it is a deliberate misunderstanding, of what the question "is it true that gay men tend to remember having had unusually close relationships with their mothers and unusually cold and distant relationships with their fathers?" is actually asking. It is asking whether there is a tendency discernible among the individual members of that group of people called "gay men" to remember having had unusually close relationships with their mothers and unusually cold and distant relationships with their fathers. It obviously doesn't state, suggest, or in any fashion imply, that all gay men remember their relationships with their parents in a particular way; if there were a tendency for gay men to remember having had such relationships with their parents, that would mean only that a significant number of gay men remember having had such relationships with their parents, not that they all do. However, by all means suggest a different phrasing, one not vulnerable to accidental, or deliberate and malicious, misunderstandings, if you wish. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC) I did. You took the first few words of it and then tacked the majority of the problematic phrasing right onto it. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC) The only reason why the phrasing might be thought "problematic" is that someone might either a) innocently misunderstand it due to failure to understand the English language or b) deliberately misunderstand and misrepresent it for whatever unfortunate motive. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC) c) the person asking the question doesn't understand that they're acting like an alt-right troll. I won't go into D for now. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC) I don't believe I should be accused of trolling for pointing out that someone misrepresented my question. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC) Freeknowledgecreator, I don't doubt that you asked your question in complete innocence of its likely impact, but an impact it has had. Please accept that reality, and try to work out why, WITHOUT criticising others. Have a really good read of Loaded question. It describes precisely what your question first looked like to me. Also please have a look at Naivety. I think it describes your position here perfectly. And that's not meant as a personal criticism. The best thing about naivety is that the cure is simple. It just takes time, observation,and being willing to learn. HiLo48 (talk) 22:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC) An alternative question would be, "Is it true that gay men are significantly more likely than straight men to remember having had unusually close relationships with their mothers and unusually cold and distant relationships with their fathers?" Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC) Just as bad. Did you read those articles I linked to in my previous post? HiLo48 (talk) 01:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC) In calling that question unacceptable you are effectively participating in censorship. This discussion reveals an environment of extreme intolerance in this corner of Wikipedia. I don't have to read a Wikipedia article to know what a "loaded question" is, and you shouldn't need to be told that the question I proposed asking is not a loaded question (such as "have you stopped beating your wife yet?"). Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC) I didn't say it WAS a loaded question. In fact, I said pretty much the opposite - I said it was "what your question first looked like to me", which obviously means that I figured out you didn't intend it as one. I have read and accepted your position on that, something you seem unable or unwilling to do in regard to others' comments. The fact that you failed to comprehend my point about a loaded question, along with many that other editors have made here, and won't read the information others point you to good faith, leads me to doubt your competence to edit here, along with YOUR good faith. HiLo48 (talk) 01:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC) If you object to the question, "Is it true that gay men are significantly more likely than straight men to remember having had unusually close relationships with their mothers and unusually cold and distant relationships with their fathers?", then it is up to you to clearly explain why you consider it unacceptable. So far you have made only some vague and/or confused comments about the matter. If you make vague and/or confused comments, then it isn't surprising if other people misunderstand you, and their failure to do so is not a sign of incompetence. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC) There is no evidence that other people in general misunderstood me. Just you. HiLo48 (talk) 01:21, 1 February 2020 (UTC) That response is an irrelevance that doesn't explain why my proposed alternative question should be considered unacceptable. As I said, there is obviously extreme intolerance in this corner of Wikipedia, and de facto acceptance of censorship. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC) Have you read the links I provided yet? HiLo48 (talk) 01:31, 1 February 2020 (UTC) You may be a teacher, as per your user page, but I'm not your poor pupil, and I won't be treated as one. Trying to condescend to me does not make your case. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:34, 1 February 2020 (UTC) I provided those links in good faith to assist you to become a better editor. If you won't read them, you are not acting in good faith. HiLo48 (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC) The original question from User:Freeknowledgecreator is rhetorical so it isn’t a conventional question capable of being answered; it is better described as a little speech presenting the questioner’s view. If I wrote “Is it true that people from Texas are more intelligent than people from California?” the answer is “No” but my question is so much more powerful as a statement of one of my opinions. If a person asks such a question there is a burden on the questioner to supply some substantiation of their opinion; there is no similar burden on the responder to supply substantiation of their objection to the question. Nobody has any evidence to support their rejection of my dumb question about people from various US states, and there would be a burden on me to substantiate the premise of my dumb, rhetorical question. Dolphin (t) 01:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC) This, 100%. If someone fails to understand this, they don't understand how context matters in English and have no room to accuse others (including two teachers) of failing to understand the English language. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC) I like the expression "JAQing off". I also hear the bark of sea lions in FKC's responses above. I don't have any AGF remaining (human blood, give me a break) and if DNFTT doesn't work then I'd support other interventions if needed. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:E118 (talk) 09:38, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Censorship

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.

---

This edit is a blatant act of censorship. I will not edit war on the reference desks, but I want to make it absolutely clear that I in no sense accept that removal of my question. No valid reason for the removal was ever provided. Other editors have had every chance to try to justify it, but have responded only with a torrent of personal abuse, insults, blatant falsehoods, and misrepresentations of what I was asking, as visible above. Given that a handful of editors here appear to be completely willing to accept censorship, in violation of the reference desk's guidelines, which clearly state that "No subject per se is off limits", it may be necessary to seek outside intervention. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Then seek outside intervention, because we seem to be done here. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:25, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the clique of editors who have supported censorship and the suppression of questions that upset them have indeed made their views quite clear. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 21:30, 3 February 2020 (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.

Whistleblower identity

Is it worth including a temporary hatnote along the following lines?

For the avoidance of doubt, Wikipedia will not include the name of the whistleblower until it is the subject of non-trivial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources (RS). Inclusion in RS is a necessary but not sufficient criterion for inclusion. To understand what Wikipedia means by reliable in this context, please review the list of perennially discussed sources. Note that partisan websites - left or right - are not acceptable for contentious claims about living people.

This seems to be a pretty hit button this week. Guy (help!) 14:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

That probably shouldn't be a hatnote in an article, since we usually avoid to include self-referential meta information there. It could go into an edit notice, I suppose. But in any case, I don't see this is the correct talkpage for that; this is the talkpage for discussing the working of the Refdesk. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:59, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah for clarity, did you mean to ask this here? I don't see where a hat note would go on the reference desk or reference desk talk page. As Fut.Perf. said, we could add an edit notice, but I don't see a reason to do so for something which only happened with one editor, especially since I think there's a good chance anyone asking that sort of thing will miss it. Nil Einne (talk) 03:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Nice work on the Science Ref Desk

I usually rant that the science refdesk is a cesspool of unsourced vague answers, irrelevant tangents, and botched estimates; so for once I will point out that the answers to Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#if_the_sun_were_hotter_or_colder_-_finding_calculations/estimates are really good, especially for such a complex topic. Keep up the good work folks! Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:53, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Hostility from Baseball bugs

wikt:more heat than light from the start, and the evolution is not encouraging. If you want action, go to WP:ANI; if you want catharsis, write something without posting it; the refdesk talk page provides neither. TigraanClick here to contact me 13:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, the reference desk is not a place to butt heads. Please stop responding to my questions if you cannot be polite or assume good faith. Please don't pretend that you have to respond to anything or everything I say. You don't. You can just ignore me. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC) You've learned nothing from the various criticisms that you've received from several users. You should stick to what you seem to do well, which is editing articles. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC) The criticism concerned questions that had absolutely nothing to do with the questions I have asked recently. No one has banned me from the reference desks, and I have no intention of going away simply because you choose to behave with gross, unjustified rudeness instead of doing the civilized thing and ignoring me. I'm not interested in asking other people to like me; I can reasonably ask they not turn every question I ask into an opportunity to abuse me. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Liking or not liking someone here is not a relevant issue. This is not Facebook. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Of course it is not relevant. But if you choose to behave in a persistently obnoxious, rude, hostile manner to try to drive me away from the reference desks, instead of doing the civilized thing and simply ignoring me and not responding as I've asked you to do repeatedly, then that is a problem. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Are you aware that people have been topic banned from the ref desks? Your questions are indistinguishable from trolling and if you cannot see that there is also a competence problem. Unfortunately the community is reluctant to sanction even blatant silliness here on the basis that everyone at the ref desks is volunteering so if they don't want to see trolling or silliness they should stop reading them. I would favor sanctions because you are are either trolling or are unable to see that your questions appear to be trolling. That detracts from the good job that the ref desks generally do and is irritating. Johnuniq (talk) 09:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC) No, my questions are not "indistinguishable from trolling". If they really were, they would have been removed. "Is it possible for a person to become addicted to sugar?" is not a troll question. You are making an absolutely, utterly, 100% unjustified accusation. All I am seeing here is personalized hostility. The content of my recent questions, which revealingly you haven't even discussed, appears to have nothing to do with it. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC) I just skimmed the archive. They show you are wasting people's time and energy even more than I thought. Clearly you enjoy posing here and possibly it serves some social purpose but it is highly irritating and you should find another hobby. Johnuniq (talk) 09:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Another accusation unsupported by even a shred of evidence. If you claim that "Is it possible for a person to become addicted to sugar?" and "Is there a connection between obesity and failure to drink enough water?" are troll questions, then it is up to you to support that. You haven't done that, unsurprisingly, because those are both legitimate questions. "Wasting people's time" is of course an empty accusation, given that absolutely no one is forced to respond. If people do choose to respond, that's their choice. I note the complete absence of any criticism of Baseball Bugs for his completely needless rudeness, aggression, and failure to assume good faith. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Freeknowledgecreator - I'm with Johnuniq here. Your questions seem very odd to me. I can't quite put my finger on exactly what it is about them that makes me feel that way, but they certainly don't fit the general pattern of what we see on the Ref Desks. And they seem quite repetitive. Can you see that? HiLo48 (talk) 09:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC) So far as I know, the reference desk neither has a rule against "odd questions", nor a definition of "odd questions". Nor is an "odd question" the same thing as "trolling". Your comments are pointless. If you cannot put your finger "my finger on exactly what it is about them that makes me feel that way", then that simply suggests that your response is subjective and has nothing to do with any relevant policy or guideline. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC) That was a very aggressive response. I asked you a polite question. Want to try to answer it? The reason I ask is that several editors have shown concern about your questions. Even if you think their reasons are poor reasons, can you understand why several editors are responding in a similar way? HiLo48 (talk) 09:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC) As I said, the reference desk does not have a rule against "odd questions", making it pointless to complain that my questions are, in your opinion, "odd". Accusing me of responding in an "aggressive" way doesn't constitute a meaningful response. Meanwhile, Baseball Bugs has done this and this, which has the effect, among other things, of concealing his rude and uncivil responses. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Boxing up side comments is standard procedure. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Sure. But maybe you could consider leaving it up to someone else to decide whether to box up and conceal your displays of gross, totally unjustified, totally unnecessary rudeness? You boxed up the answers to the questions as well. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Then you could unbox the parts that you consider relevant to your questions. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC) "Is it possible for a person to become addicted to sugar?" A more pertinent question might be "Is it possible for a person to become addicted to the Reference Desks?" Martinevans123 (talk) 10:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC) My suspicion is that it is the number and frequency of questions I've asked, rather than their actual contents, that has offended people (no one has tried to explain how a question about the addictive potential of sugar, for example, is offensive). I've tried to keep the frequency of questions relatively low. I'm not aware of any actual policy about how often one can ask questions; the aggression and rudeness directed against me seems to reflect the absence of defined rules about the matter. Apparently, an unofficial rule is that if you ask what some consider too frequent questions, people try to drive you away with utter rudeness. Hence the pile-on directed against me. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC) I find your questions quite intriguing. But I can understand that others might see them as misguided. Yes, it might be wise for BBugs to try and ignore you more. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Yes, indeed it would. Thank you for a sensible response. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC) ".. keep the frequency of questions relatively low..." One a month, perhaps? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC) It would be nice if, instead of wasting their time discussing me, people could instead discuss how frequently Wikipedia users should ask questions, as that is apparently the real underlying issue. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC) "I've tried to keep the frequency of questions relatively low." In that quest, you have failed. HiLo48 (talk) 10:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC) If you consider too frequent questions from one user a problem, then be my guest and propose rules to govern the matter. Other editors might be interested, and such a discussion would be a great deal better than directing abuse and insults toward me. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:29, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Have you heard of a Straw man argument? It means arguing against something that the other person in a discussion hasn't actually said. I'm afraid you do it a lot. Having raised the issue of frequency of posting yourself, your are now asking ME if I think it's a problem. All your comments about things not being against the rules are also straw man arguments. I see it a lot on social media, especially on controversial topics such as climate change or renewable energy. It's a very annoying practice, and won't win you any friends. It makes rational discussion almost impossible. HiLo48 (talk) 10:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC) My comments about my questions not being against the rules are correct; apparently that is the real problem. Insofar as my comments are not against the rules and are not troll questions, despite false and insulting assertions to the contrary, no one has any business complaining about them. The real lesson of this discussion appears to be that reference desk regulars with enough friends can get away with any kind of rudeness and abuse directed against anyone they dislike, all our policies about civility and assuming good faith not withstanding. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC) A perfect demonstration of straw man argument, deflection, and a failure to assume good faith. You appear to have ignored everything I wrote in my previous post. 21:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Yes, because it wasn't worth responding to. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC) That comment has clearly crossed the line of failing to assume good faith. Administrators, where are you? HiLo48 (talk) 04:35, 14 February 2020 (UTC) After the real trolls and vandals gave up, the regulars started turning on each other. 80.235.152.112 (talk) 11:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Nah. I turn on other regulars regardless. Some of these trolls are such lightweights. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC) @Freeknowledgecreator Apology I acknowledge that my words "Important: Consult a qualified doctor if you..." can sound like criticism that you are asking for medical advice. I beg you accept my assurance that I do not mean to imply that. The "you" in the sentence is cautioning the general readership. The ambiguity in my caution is my clumsiness alone, for which I sincerely apologise. Legitimacy of your questions Any question that has received answer(s) that are on-topic and provide on-topic reference has IMO contributed positively to the working of the Ref. desks. Complaints posted about "too many" "too odd" or "trolling" questioning have little merit thereafter. They are unhelpful and appear as a public disgrace on the Ref. desk main pages, especially when they spill over from one question to another. Proposal: The confrontational exchanges between yourself and BaseballBugs have become toxic. Boxing these exchanges only brings readers' attention to them and it looks like neither of you "takes the hint" that your ongoing spat is disruptive. Instead you both fight to get in the last word. I propose that all dialog on 12/13 February between Freeknowledgecreator and BaseballBugs on the Science Ref. desk be no longer boxed but instead deleted as unfit material. Please express support or opposition to this action so we reach consensus about it. DroneB (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Support as proposer. DroneB (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC) General comment: I have been finding Bug's snarky reply to every question very unhelpful for many years. Also I never see the point or value in any of the questions from Freeknowledgecreator, so I just ignore them altogether. As far as I can see, they both make a lot of noise and provide very little actually interesting subjects or information. Them going at each other's throat is another way that they regularly soil the refdesk pages, and frankly often makes me want to not take part on the desk. --Lgriot (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC) I actually got complimented today for providing useful information.[22] The complainant here should feel free to post the most recent compliment he's gotten from another user. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Lgriot - "I have been finding Bug's snarky reply to EVERY question very unhelpful for many years." I have highlighted one word in that comment to show stupid and unhelpful IT is. HiLo48 (talk) 04:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC) Oddly enough, the most recent compliment I have received from another user came from you yourself Baseball Bugs; you commented above that I am good at editing articles ("You should stick to what you seem to do well, which is editing articles"). Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 12:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC) This is pointless. Baseball Bugs is trying to drive me off the reference desks with rudeness and abuse. If other people are going to let him get away with behaving in this fashion, which involves obvious violations of the rules about civility and assuming good faith, then of course I'm not going to participate here. The comment from Lgriot above is helpful insofar as it indicates that others are willing to acknowledge that his needless rudeness is a problem. DroneB is correct, of course, that I should not let Baseball Bugs provoke me, but it is equally true that Baseball Bugs should not be trying to provoke me to begin with. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC) I am not trying to get you banned. As for being "provoked", no one can be provoked unless they're willing to be. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC) That comment is an effective admission that you are, in fact, trying to provoke me. Little more need be said. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 02:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC) Freeknowledgecreator—why are you asking a sequence of related questions? Is this a quiz of some sort? Do I know about caffein? Do I know about sugar? Is there a connection between obesity and failure to drink enough water? I think your questions are funny sometimes. These are all questions that make me think about farting. Bus stop (talk) 23:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Support plus... - Nearly all of FKC's questions have been requests for medical advice and could have been zapped on-sight. The late user Medeis would have done so without hesitation. I'm less inclined to delete stuff. But if you want the stuff deleted, I'm all for it. Especially the junk about consuming human blood, and the user's confusing opinions about what coffee is. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC) @Baseball Bugs Thank you for your vote of support for the deletion I propose. Please be clear that only dialog on 12/13 February between Freeknowledgecreator and yourself will be deleted. DroneB (talk) 12:35, 14 February 2020 (UTC) Which is why I said "support plus". Zap the dialogue between us, but also zap all of his questions as being requests for medical advice, which are not allowed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC) None of my questions have been requests for medical advice, and it is blatantly untrue to claim otherwise. I have never asked questions that amount to, "I suffer from such and such a condition, what should I do about it?" My questions have always been general inquiries about medical matters only. I can see that this does not really matter to Baseball Bugs, however. Baseball Bugs is trying deliberately to get rid of me, based on personal dislike and hostility. Baseball Bugs, you need not bother. I am not going to participate in the reference desks if people permit you to behave in this fashion. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC) Freeknowledgecreator: As the saying goes, two wrongs do not make a right. Baseball Bugs can indeed be a bully and a boor. His actions towards you were, in all probability, improper. But. Your actions have been equally improper. Your questions are highly suspicious, and your observable behavior is indistinguishable from that of a troll. Moreover, you have reacted to every reasonable, well-intentioned criticism of your actions not with anything like "Oh, sorry, I see your point, I'll try to do better", but rather, "Screw that, there's nothing wrong with what I'm doing." But you're wrong. In the end, though (as you should have figured out by now), It is beyond pointless to be discussing any of this here any further. This is the third big, explosive thread you've started on this talk page in about as many weeks. Lots of immediate sound and fury, but nothing in the way of resolution (on either side). So you need to stop bringing your complaints up here, where it's clear that no one else cares or is sympathetic, and find a better venue. One possibility, of course, is the Administrator's Noticeboard for Incidents. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC) Oooh, poor Bugs. At least he's not from South Sudan, eh? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC) Steve Summit, you suggest no sense whatever in which my questions have been "highly suspicious". Like several other users here, you are simply making baseless accusations. Insofar as your accusations are unsupported by evidence or logic, I of course have no reason to care what you think. As I have said several times, I will not participate in areas of Wikipedia where people, such as you, abuse me in an irrational fashion. As for "no one else cares or is sympathetic", some users, including Martinevans123, Lgriot, DroneB, have in fact pointed out the inappropriateness of Baseball Bugs' behavior, so you're wrong there. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC) You seem to have a permanent chip on your shoulder about this (which is part of the problem), so I don't expect to convince you, but to clarify: I was not trying to accuse you of being a troll. I was saying -- as others have said -- that your actions are indistinguishable from those of a troll. If you continue to act like a troll, many people here are going to, quite logically, continue to treat you as one. I'm sorry if that sounds like an accusation (or like abuse), but really, it's a simple fact. —Steve Summit (talk) 14:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC) More unsupported accusations. Someone should close this discussion. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 17:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC) What's stopping you? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC) So my impression of the questions is one that a couple other frequent guests to the ref desks have triggered - they read kind of like google search entries. That is, it's not apparent in reading these questions whether the OP has even tried to look for information on the subject. It's possible he doesn't know how to, but no one could know that. As with other users whose questions give off this vibe, it always wears on the regulars eventually. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC) It's possible he doesn't know how to, but no one could know that - I don't buy that. He's highly articulate, his English is immaculate, he's found out how to find this Ref Desk, and he knows how to mount an argument. Is it possible that such a person has never heard of Google, or having heard of it, has no idea how to use it? I say no. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 08:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC) So that was 1 part "certainly he knows how to paste the exact same question into google, but maybe he doesn't know how to identify high quality sources, which makes it rather concerning he would trust randos on the internet but then again people don't always make sense", and 99 parts reflexively equivocating for agf purposes. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC) I am well aware of Google. There is no rule that people have to look for answers on Google before coming to the reference desks. Please find something better to do with your time than accusing me of violating non-existent rules. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC) Resolved  – The proposal was not opposed so I have marked the deletions by consensus at WP:RD/S. DroneB (talk) 00:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC) Thanks. That was a perfectly sensible thing for you to have done. There is no point in continuing this overall discussion any longer, however, insofar as the main result is apparently that people are willing to let Baseball Bugs get away with any kind of rudeness and abuse of others he wishes. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC) Peachy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC) I think I'm going to have to defend Freeknowledgecreator. Yes, his questions do come across as a bit odd, and he probably should be doing a Goggle or Wikipedia search first, but that doesn't mean they are inherently illegitimate, or that he is trolling. (The reference desk front page states "Before asking a question, please try the search boxes at right to search Wikipedia as a whole or the reference desk archives. See also the reference desk guidelines". If you think someone is not doing this when they should, I think its probably better to point this out to them, rather than trying to shut them down and accuse them of trolling). I haven't seen him asking for medical advice. As per the medical advice guidelines asking general questions about health or medicine etc is fine, and can be answered by pointing someone to the appropriate Wikipedia article (or any other source). They only become illegitimate if they are asking for a diagnosis or other advice. (And even then, its answers giving such advice that must be removed, not necessarily the original question). Baseball Bugs can often be amusing, and often makes useful contributions. However, I also think he can be (and in this case has been) needlessly pedantic and confrontational. AS a general rule, if someone asks an ambiguous or poorly worded question, I try (not always successfuly) to give an initial answer that explains why it is ambiguous, and give an indication of how clarifying it could lead to different final answers. Or alternatively I don't answer at all, because I have other things to do. I think following either of those approaches here would have avoided a lot of needless aggro (especially on e.g. the coffee question, which could probably have been most usefully and efficiently answered with something like "pure coffee contains so few calories that it would probably be physically impossible to drink enough to noticable affect your weight, but many people drink coffee with so much sugar and cream in it that a single cup a make up a substantial portion of your recommended daily calories"). Iapetus (talk)22:41, 15 February 2020‎ (UTC) The OP's ambiguous definition of "coffee" was kind of funny, but when he asked about drinking human blood and claiming it was a "general knowledge" question, that was too much. "I'll take General Knowledge for 100, Alex." "This reddish fluid commonly consumed by Dracula and many other Internet users is surprisingly fattening." "What is human blood, Alex?" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC) I'm not sure who I'm replying to (Freeknowledgecreator seems to attract odd editing behaviour), but I cannot defend him. He seem to have learnt absolutely nothing from this discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC) I think an examination of "trolling" is in order. Trolling in this case would be a question that is designed for a purpose other than its ostensible purpose. To give a hypothetic example suppose a question were designed to induce nausea, even though it was an entirely legitimate and sensible question that has probably been explored in other venues many times before—such as the effects of eating feces. The question could be an entirely acceptable question—but if asked one way, it is entirely acceptable—if asked another way it likely would be considered trolling. I'm not saying anyone is trolling but what I am saying is that it is the responsibility of the person asking the question to take every effort to avoid the appearance of trolling. Bus stop (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC) Thank you for your hypothetical example of a troll question. For the record, I have no interest in asking questions about eating feces. The main purpose of this discussion, at this stage, appears to be to allow people to make accusations against me without evidence. I suggest it should be ended. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC) Yes, I should have said that. You did not pose any questions pertaining to the eating of excrement. But I nevertheless have an interest in a definition for trolling. I think it is an under-examined topic for a phenomenon often invoked. We talk about trolling quite a bit. I would define trolling as carefully designed input that skirts the line between legitimacy and illegitimacy. Trolling is designed to be undefinable. I don't absolve anyone of the burden of needing to present a convincing argument that something constitutes trolling. A person cannot simply accuse another person of trolling without also presenting an articulate argument that the speech is indeed trolling. There were Salem witch trials in which people were accused of witchcraft in colonial Massachusetts between February 1692 and May 1693. We don't want to do that again. In the interest of open-mindedness anyone accusing someone else of trolling should have the burden of presenting an accompanying convincing argument. Bus stop (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC) Alright, that comes quite close to Godwin's law. Anyway, I think there's a difference between lazy or opinion-seeking querents ("let's see what these people here think about this topic ..."), experimental querents ("let's see what happens when I post this question..."), and trolls ("let's have some popcorn and watch them freak out ...") Neither are the kind of querents the reference desk has in mind, but not all of them are trolls. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC) If a question asked is primarily seeking a response, regardless of the value of that response vis-à-vis the question asked, that is trolling, in my opinion. Bus stop (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC) When you say "seeking a response", I presume you mean as in "provoking a reaction", rather than just "getting a reply"? Iapetus (talk) 11:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Medical advice question

I'm starting this discussion in case there are concerns. Someone asked about the LD50 of something they'd ingested. I provided this answer [23] where I directed the OP to a poison control centre. I know there are some who object to directing the OP to any specific resource, but I felt in was the best option. Especially since one of the common concerns especially with those living in the US (the IP geolocates to the US), is that the cost for consulting someone can be quite high depending on your health insurance or lack of it. But this is a resource free at the point of use. We could get into semantic debates about whether people should tie up such resources with questions over eating Playdough, but the number of people who are going to follow this advice is likely to be tiny, maybe no one. And ultimately whatever it is, I feel if someone has concerns, and isn't able to address those concerns without asking on the reference desk where we explicitly tell them not to, it is better that they use an appropriate resource. If the OP is simply trolling us, it's a moot point. Nil Einne (talk) 04:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Remember that just because the ip address locates to the US doesn't mean that the person using it lives in the US. MarnetteD|Talk 05:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I guess my concern is more that directing someone to a poison-control center is likely to provoke more anxiety than is really justified by the consumption of a little Play-Doh. It seems to me that the common-sense response would be something like, look, you're not really supposed to eat it, so it doesn't undergo the quality control or limitation on additives that apply to food; that said, there's nothing in the known ingredients that's really very harmful, so ask a doctor if you like, but in the mean time don't give yourself a heart attack. I concede I don't have a proposal for generalizing this observation. --Trovatore (talk) 20:48, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

It's non-toxic, so there's little to no risk to kids from eating it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I think we should follow the official guidelines (unless those are out-dated). So, don't generally remove the question, just answers that give a diagnosis or other medical advice. Instead, post a link to the official guidelines. Also, general medical questions can be asked (and answered) as long as they are not presented as (a request for) advice or diagnosis (and questions that fall foul of that rule can potentially be reworded to the general case). Iapetus (talk) 22:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

No. Requests for medical advice are subject to removal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: You have written “Requests for medical advice are subject to removal.” What, or who, are you quoting? (I think this might be a secret rule you wrote yourself, and hence my challenge.) Dolphin (t) 00:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

It ain't my rule, and it's no secret. It's been around for a long time. Read Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:47, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I have read it; very carefully. Nowhere does it say requests for medical advice are subject to removal. However, it DOES say “Although removal of questions is discouraged, if this is done, please follow the procedure below” and then what follows are two items of procedure giving significant detail.

Notice how I actually quoted the words I want you to observe. Notice how you made no attempt to quote any words from the source? This is a clear warning to me and many others that you are possibly attempting to obscure the fact that you know you are on shaky ground. If you genuinely believe your view that “medical questions are subject to removal” please quote the actual words you claim justify your view. Thanks. Dolphin (t) 01:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I know what it says. Medical questions are not required to be removed, but they can be removed. Medeis was constantly getting in trouble for aggressive removals of requests for medical advice - not because of it being against the rules, but rather because there was debate over whether they really were requests for medical advice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

It is good that now we both know what the Guidelines say. Removal of questions is discouraged. If a question is to be removed there is a couple of procedures to be followed so the Ref Desk community is kept informed, and the originator of the medical question is treated in a polite and helpful manner. If the question was not asked in good faith it should be dealt with in accordance with guidelines appropriate to disruption, vandalism, trolling etc. Simply erasing a question, on the grounds that it looks like a medical question, without observing the 2 procedures specified in the Guidelines, is unacceptable to the Ref Desk community. Dolphin (t) 08:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Which is why Medeis got yelled at so much, and why I seldom take such action - often, an admin will step in and box up a blatant request for medical advice. In the case of Drac, he appears to be asking things that just pop into his head, and which could be interpreted as requests for some kind of professional advice, even if not for himself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Iapetus: May be I'm nitpicking (and obviously I'm late to the discussion), but could you, please, check your entry for parentheses balance? The first one, which starts at the word 'unless', seems not closed. --CiaPan (talk) 10:13, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Done (closed after out-dated). Iapetus (talk) 10:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd just note that it's also helpful to tell OPs something like, "check the product label to see if there is any relevant information" in addition to telling them to ask a doctor or poison control center if they are concerned, rather than internet randos. In this case, assuming he bought the American version, there's the word "Non-toxic" on the back, though I wouldn't tell him that, just leave it for him to find. Other products might actually tell him exactly who to call. Someguy1221 (talk) 12:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon news

Just letting people know of this news about an editor who is active here User talk:Guy Macon#message from guy's wife Nil Einne (talk) 12:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Antisemitic purported Talmud quotes, take two

I tried to ask about these purported quotations from the Talmud on WP:RDH yesterday, but my question was removed without comment, warning, or any mention here. I've cropped the original image to remove an offensive image at the top. I still want to ask because I've found some corroboration from a few of them randomly selected, so I want to get some kind of an idea from someone familiar with Talmud studies as to how accurate these representations are. I am not trying to provoke anyone, this is simply so that I can respond to them when I see them again. I am asking here so that they won't be part of the RDH archives in case that is a sensitive issue. Thank you for your consideration. 107.242.121.3 (talk) 06:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't want my user ID associated with this thread either. I'm no Talmud scholar but I can say with confidence from googling around a handful of them that they are just distant paraphrasing of completely different statement intents taken out of context just enough to seem superficially plausible and as inflammatory as possible. They are in no way accurate, or made in good faith, or representative of the intent of the text from which they've been twisted. Just a lot of sad work in the long history of antisemitic libels. 2601:647:5E80:1850:5063:4177:E12B:2156 (talk) 00:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

See refutations of specific ones at: [24] Rmhermen (talk) 01:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I needed. Thank you. 107.242.121.8 (talk) 06:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

What is the Hebrew word for "garbage"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

אשפה EllenCT (talk) 02:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Problem with viewing posted discussion topic

Hi RD. There's a mystery. Might be related to editing with mobile equipment, but if so there's been a change in settings since yesterday after 15h UTC. Here's a discussion of the mystery:

•[Subject: ]What happened to discussion on "Change video ' frame'..." [ Killing of George Floyd talk]

• Hi. An ongoing discussion on Floyd's killing page's image that appears similar to lynching postcards has been removed from talk. It was positioned directly after "Re-added [dragging]...". Consensus was building. My last post was 15h+ 09 June, less than 24 hrs ago. Don't know my way around archives, but can it be restored? Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 09:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

•​The discussion is still there. – Thjarkur (talk) 09:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

•Well, not on my equipment. The discussion topics show as: °Photograph used in this topic °Re-added sequence on Floyd's body dragged °White police officers washing the feat of black BLM activists, apologising and asking for forgivness

The topic was in-between 2nd and 3rd topic. What's with that? Has its viewability changed? Pasdecomplot (talk) 09:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

•​I looked through the history but I couldn't see anything as having been removed, your discussion is still there [2]. Try looking at the page on a desktop computer, sections are collapsed on mobile devices. – Thjarkur (talk) 10:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

•If it's collapsed, that was a change that happened after 15h yesterday. Haven't had this issue since joining. Pasdecomplot (talk) 10:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

•Can I ask someone to uncollapse topics? Pasdecomplot (talk) 10:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

So, RD, any suggestions about resolving this recent mystery? A huge thanks! Pasdecomplot (talk) 10:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

This is party related to a mobile view bug where section links to sub-subheading aren't automatically expanded. I think Pasdecomplot's thread may have been turned into a sub-thread, causing it to be difficult to find in mobile view. – Thjarkur (talk) 11:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Use of Resolved template

I just noticed this interesting thread on the Teahouse talk page which I think might be relevant to the refdesks. I often find myself wondering whether the use of the resolved template at the refdesks is actually helpful?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Sometimes an OP will post the template when the question has been answered to his satisfaction, but it's only used sporadically. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:31, 26 June 2020 (UTC)