Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 64

Archive 60

←

Archive 62

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

Archive 66

→

Archive 70

Digital broadcasting

Where is the proper place to ask questions about digital broadcasting? --88.77.251.153 (talk) 07:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

If your question is about the technology of digital broadcasting, you could try the Science Reference Desk. If it is about the content of the broadcasting, you could try the Entertainment Reference Desk. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

If it's which country uses which broadcast standard or the reasons it was chosen or analog switchoff dates then that could probably go in the WP:RDH Nil Einne (talk) 13:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Where is the proper place to ask questions about satellite receivers? --88.78.225.225 (talk) 18:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Science. When you're not sure in the future, just try Miscellaneous. --Sean 20:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio on RD/Ent?

I alluded to the possibility of a copyvio in my response to the question in this section; but I wonder if the full text should be left standing? To be honest, I thought at first the question was less than genuine, but the editor's contributions seem OK. --LarryMac | Talk 15:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Your approach looks fine, especially since you were able to answer it. There is no need for the full text at this point. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, somebody else deleted the text, but thank you for the response. --LarryMac | Talk 12:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

RefDesk front page

Why is there no link to the RefDesk Guidelines on the front page to the RefDesks? Can someone with access please put it on there? Some recent posts on the desks have me thinking that some users are unaware of our policies regarding starting debates, soapboxing, etc. Matt Deres (talk) 05:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The main guidelines are pretty plain at the top off each reference desk page. You can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink. Why don't they just do a search with the title of their query for instance? In many cases the first entry will have the answer they seek. Dmcq (talk) 12:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

In that case, why not delete the page? I'm not sure I see the value in writing guidelines and then keeping them secret. Matt Deres (talk) 14:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Because most of the guidelines (the ones not spelled out explicitly in the refdesk header) are for answerers, not askers. That's why they're linked in the "how to answer" section of the header. Algebraist 14:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It's amazing how many of the askers appear to have not even tried to use the search boxes. And then the owners of the ref desks wonder why the askers get sarcastic responses. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

But we're here to answer questions that people have failed to answer for themselves. It's not our job to judge WHY they failed to answer it for themselves. Coping with the undeniable fact that these people are hopeless with search engines - or didn't expect Wikipedia to have an article on that - or found the page but couldn't understand it - is just a part of the job we do here. A much more frequent situation is that the OP did that search, found the page but discovered that he couldn't understand it - it's often our task to simplify, explain, extract the guts of the matter and get it across in easy-to-understand language. Questions that can't be answered with a sufficiently clever search are rare indeed. Whilst it is somewhat annoying that people can't search as well as an experienced reference librarian - but no matter what, it's never OK to be sarcastic to the OP...they are our customers and we're required to be nice to them. SteveBaker (talk) 03:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

So how would you tackle this one? [1] →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to guess...you can read how I actually tackled it. SteveBaker (talk) 20:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It occurs to me that the search box could be used to start a new refdesk section if another click box was added. They could stick in a section name to open up an editor but it also listed out the first couple of responses from a search or an old refdesk query. That way they might never write the query. Dmcq (talk) 16:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I should have patented that with the way these computer patents are misused ;-) Dmcq (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

We have to have our own house in order, too. The front page says: "The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events". But how often are such questions not only not removed, but entertained at some considerable length? -- JackofOz (talk) 21:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs - It is never okay to respond to a good-faith request for help with sarcasm. If you're not certain that a particular request for help was made in good faith, use this. Also, according to WP:DENY, it's not okay to respond to a bad-faith request with sarcasm either. Therefore, we shouldn't be responding to OPs with sarcasm. QED. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I always assume good faith, in that I always assume the editor sincerely believes he's doing the right thing. The editor thinking he's doing the right thing is not the same as him actually doing the right thing. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

That's an irrelevant distinction. Just don't be sarcastic please. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't single me out, please. And assume some good faith yourself. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean to single anyone out. I'm merely responding to the attitude of the guy who said "... And then the owners of the ref desks wonder why the askers get sarcastic responses.". So far, you've not shown that your stance on sarcasm to OPs has changed. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I was commenting on the sarcasm of others. You got a problem with their sarcasm, take it to them. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

No, you were commenting that sarcasm to OPs is acceptable if the OP didn't try a search first. It doesn't matter who's being sarcastic, your comment above is unacceptable. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 07:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say sarcasm was acceptable, I said it was understandable. If you have a problem with another user being sarcastic, talk to them, not to me. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is that people PLAINLY don't often read all of that blurb at the top of the page. Our best way to weed out inappropriate questions is to give people less information - not more. We should probably shorten it to: "Try doing a search before asking your question. No legal or medical advice will be given. No speculation or predictions. K'thnks." and write it in BIGGER FONTS. The guidelines are for persistent offenders and are a way for us to point to the guidelines and say "Look - you really aren't allowed to do this - it's right there in our guidelines." SteveBaker (talk) 03:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

A good suggestion. People are more likely to read a short statement than a long set of instructions. A link can be provided to the full guidelines, so they're easily accessible. Gwinva (talk) 22:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

(EC with Gwinva) That doesn't sound too bad to me. I'd been kicking around the idea of proposing that we simply remove the non-bolded text from the tops of the desks and leave text that essentially amounted to the headers, bolded text, and the search box, re-worded slightly where necessary. Matt Deres (talk) 22:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Medical Advice Removed

I removed this on 12 October 2009. Diff. Nimur (talk) 22:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that's a no-brainer. Good call. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. —Steve Summit (talk) 00:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

strange thing happened

This afternoon I edited the Humanities desk to remove a link from one of my earlier posts (the one that Falconus said might cause problems for people who followed it). Or I thought I did. But although my change is there and I can see it on the page, it's not in the desk's history at all. And when I look at my contributions, it says I edited an archive. But the section I edited (Princess of Serbia on Oct 9) hasn't been archived yet. Am posting here both to explain that I have no idea how this happened but I honestly wasn't trying to do an edit that wouldn't show up in the history. And will the link stay removed when the page eventually does get archived? I don't want to cause a problem accidentally for anyone who follows it. Sorry all, and if there's an explanation for how I can avoid this in future do please let me know. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 00:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the page has been archived. But the most recent few days' worth of archived pages are transcluded back onto the main page, and by the magic of mediawiki, you can edit them so transparently that it's easy not to realize you're editing another page.

The page you edited is actually Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 October 9 and if you view its history, you can see your edit. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining! I'm glad it's ok. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 14:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Non productive remarks at the Reference desk

Resolved

 – Instigator of this thread indef'd

I removed this remark as I felt it unproductive. I believe that this is not the correct page for this type of "answer". Please advise if I am out of place here. Erector Euphonious (talk) 11:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

And I put it back. It's deletion amounts to vandalism, or at least nannyism, or at least jumping to conclusions about someone's motives in asking a question - which is something you and that IP are constantly criticizing me for doing. So you need to follow your own advice. I am not a scientist. I asked what I thought was a fair question. You do not own the ref desk. Don't delete my entries again. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I will let the community decide. FWIW, It is my opinion that this type of help is not what your fellow editors want at the reference desk. Please review the past discussions on this matter most recently here and here. Please stop. Erector Euphonious (talk) 11:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the post by Baseball Bugs was fine. Should maybe have started a new section as it a follow-up question rather than an answer, but apart from that easily fixed thing I see no problem. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a good idea, and I will do that. EE, meanwhile, is the one who needs to stop. He was created a few weeks ago and immediately started hassling me. At that time he fell short of the threshold for indef block for harassment. But it's early yet. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I, personally, am rather tired of this sad attempt to pick on Baseball Bugs every day. I think Baseball Bugs is an ass, but I don't wake up every day and try to find some way to pick on him. This is becoming a classic case of "you become that which you hate." The IP, which I figure is now Erector, is far more an ass that Baseball Bugs has ever been. Deleting another person's entry because you don't find it productive is far far far out of line. Nobody here is in charge of productivity of comments. -- kainaw™ 12:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

'The IP' - are you talking about me, and saying I'm running a sockpuppet? Because this is not true.83.100.251.196 (talk) 12:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The above IP has been established for awhile and takes enough shots at me that I don't think he needs a sock, nor do I think he's EE. I'm pretty sure who EE is, but I will invoke WP:DENY and say nothing more than that. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

All that said, it would be really great if BB could stop treating the RD as a forum, restrict him/herself to factual answers to questions, and generally stop playing the clown. I think we've all had enough of it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Questions lead to other questions, and many editors besides me expand the discussion beyond the original question. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but if you add stuff unrelated to the question/answer (eg like at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Identifying_two_brothers) it annoys people.83.100.251.196 (talk) 12:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it annoys you. Don't pretend to speak for anyone else. And read the article about the photographer. It's very interesting, as it vaguely speaks to your comment. He says that people react differently to photos depending on what they see in the photos. What I saw in the photos was a couple of obviously twin brothers with big ears and a look that suggested they weren't very happy at being photographed. Just because the specific facts of the question have been answered, need not be the end of the discussion, as it can broaden. I find your behavior annoying also. But that's my problem, just as your annoyance with me is your problem. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, then, it annoyed me too, and the two Richards from the looks of things. Here's the rub - you state "it need not be the end of the discussion" - but as many people have tried to point out, this is not a discussion forum. We had long, drawn-out, sometimes painful threads while drawing up the guidelines, but that fact never has changed. We have one mission - "Answer questions (preferably with references to reliable sources)." --LarryMac | Talk 13:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

And answers lead to other questions and other answers, which can give more information to the user than he asked for, and where's the harm in that? As you've seen, these questions sometimes lead others, including me, to ask followup or spinoff questions ourselves. The sub-heading was a good idea, that I'm now employing. And I took away the golfish comment. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Often the questions are open-ended, and frankly they're often posted by drive-bys who never bother to come back and offer guidance or any indication that they've seen the responses. They also ask not-easily-answerable questions. A recent one was, "Is it cheating if I round my GPA from 2.96 up to 3?" Now, how can you answer a question like that with a factual answer? You could try to give opinions, which there was a lot of from various editors. Or you could send him to some article about morals and ethics, which would be the opinions of others. Or, by exploring and debating the question, you can arrive at a reasonable answer, after some days - which is call the company you're interviewing with and ask them about it. That process was a lot better than censoring the question up front. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

This amounts to not liking someone's personality. I like Baseball Bugs personality. I don't like mean-spiritedness, which is another personality trait on display here. Bus stop (talk) 12:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's an example: "Looks like a goldfish with a really bad skin condition. Needs to go see a piscean dermatologist." from [Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Fish_identification]. If you could resist the temptation to make valueless crap jokes like this, it would be appreciated. I don't particularly want to spend the time trawling for all of your dumb comments, but you know and I know and lots of other people know that you are the major "joker" on the RD right now. And as I think I said, it really grates. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It grates on a few individuals, and there are plenty of other jokesters on those pages. And FYI, that's in fact what that fish looked like to me. I could delete that if you think it does not add value. Tell ya what - if you've got a problem with a specific comment or question I raise, don't go running to Mommy here - go straight to my talk page. Anyone can post any reasonable comment or question on my talk page. I won't tell you to go away unless you severely cross the bounds of civility. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

BB, to turn your condescending phrase around, I do not intend to be your mummy and wipe your nose each time it runs. This is an appropriate place to discuss behaviour on the RDs; and, indeed, I've held off for weeks whilst I've watched others criticise you. Please take heed of the message: you are notable for your no-added-value responses. You do, too, contribute value. If you could just get your urge to post slightly more under control, such that you only post when you do add value, we'd appreciate it. That is all. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) It's generally agreed that an occasional joke is not only ok, but also necessary to keep the ref desks from becoming a dry, sterile, stuffy, academic place. I'm as guilty as anyone of being a bit of a jokester, but I hope I've always kept them to a minimum. The problem comes when the same person frequently makes jokes; for them, jokes etc are almost the rule rather than the exception, rather than the other way around. They come across as attention-seeking trivialisers. That may not be their conscious intention, but that's how they appear. Those of us who hold the ref desks in great respect don't like it when someone appears to trivialise them, even if it's someone who also makes very worthwhile contributions when they're in non-joke mode. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

At last, a reasoned analysis, and I will work to do better. It occurs to me that with the photo of the two guys, the pedantic answer to the question, "Are they twins?" is "Yes, they are twins," and the flippant answer is, "Ya think?" The article that was eventually cited gives some actual insight. One of the more interesting points is that to some viewers it appears to be intended to counter the idea of white supremacy; but the photographer, as with most artists, doesn't like to comment on his own work, as it's up to the interpretation of the viewer. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The post in question is also a direct link to a YouTube copyvio. I could have sworn there was a rule against that. Certainly since the post was just a joke post anyway. APL (talk) 14:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

What leads us to believe that YouTube's displaying of the Warner Brothers' cartoon is a copyright violation? I'm just asking because I don't know. Bus stop (talk) 14:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, because the video was uploaded by some random guy. Obviously recorded straight off the Cartoon Network. This is obviously not an official distribution method by Warner Brother's picture. And the clip is certainly recent enough to have copyright protection. APL (talk) 15:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

IT WAS NOT A JOKE POST and whether it's a copyright violation or not the question is still a fair question. I've been repeatedly lectured about not second-guessing the motives of drive-by questioners, so I except those lecturers to obey their own rules. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) A fair percentage of questions posed at the reference desks are not, in my opinion, genuine, straightforward requests for help with problems of an intellectual nature that they can't solve themselves. I am referring to questions in which an agenda is in play which takes the form of "stump the reference desk people." It is OK. Humans will be human. But I think it is unrealistic to think that the reference desk responders are not also capable of intellectual jousting. As Baseball Bugs correctly points out, many posts do not involve further input from the question poser. In my opinion this is problematic, though occasionally acceptable. If we are ostensibly solving their problems then they should be trying to keep us on track. In many instances the thread of thought has little alternative than to wander off unguided, due to lack of further clarifying input from the original questioner. We are all volunteers here, participating because we enjoy doing so. When left to our own devices we participate in the way that our individual "inner editors" guide us to participate. Way-out-of-line behavior may need to be curbed. But I don't think there is anything of that sort seen in this tempest in a boat on the high seas. Bus stop (talk) 16:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Can I just add that it would be helpful if people in general could make an effort to include some kind of reference in their answers, rather than just popping up and making a comment or adding to a discussion. Links! That's what we need. Jokes are all very well, in their place, but putting in a link to a Wikipedia page or another website is very important, and it doesn't seem to happen as often as it should. Malcolm XIV (talk) 19:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

When someone asks for something that's more like an opinion, which is often the case, there may not be any links, or they might be hard to find. To what extent do we do the OP's work for him? Like one today that asked whether actresses in movies put their own earrings in or whether the makeup folks do that. Good luck finding a link for that. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(general comment, not aimed at Baseball Bugs): It didn't happen in that case, but often, respondents simply guess, and say they're guessing, or say they don't know the answer to the question. I have rarely seen any value in such posts. If you know from personal experience, you can share your knowledge. But if you don't know, and can't add any value, it's best to stay out of the discussion altogether. Nobody wants to know that you don't know; the ref desks are not places where ego trips are welcome or should be encouraged. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I'm guilty of that too... For me, when I say "I'm guessing" it means "I'm pretty damn sure but I have no absolute proof. Here's my line of reasoning." You make a good point though. In particular, just answering for the sake of posting something to any given thread is not a good idea. We have had some rather prolific participants here who try to answer every single question from a "first-principles" basis and end up not contributing much of value at all. Franamax (talk) 21:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(after e/c) I know that I have many times added related questions to a thread that intrigues me. I'm as much an asker as an answerer here. I do try to indicate clearly when I'm hijacking a thread, so the subsectioning was a good solution. I see two problems here: one is that Bugs obviously has a rep working against him, so needs to be extra-careful for a while (and indeed has been lately); the other is that Bugs pretty much already knew all the answers, so rather than ask people to "comment on the physics", he should have outlined his state of knowledge and asked about what specific aspect of the physics troubled him. Bugs, when a desker removes something and immediately posts the concern here, it's not vandalism, it is a good-faith effort to maintain the decorum of the desks and resolve the problem here in the sausage factory. It all got resolved, so there's no need to take a hostile attitude (though I can understand why you do!).

Malcolm, yes I certainly agree that we should all be trying to add lynx to our replies, however some Q's are better answered with a qualitative response invoking a line of reasoning rather than a specific set of equations. In the case of the OP question, I do feel that a "lets think it through" approach is better than linking to a set of equations which the OP is already familiar with. They just needed some nudges as to how the chain of events would work. Franamax (talk) 21:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Or this one, "Can't you move to a new home with a cat, or is it just a legend?" One could take hours trying to find something about that. Or one could weigh in with personal experience, as several have done, and which strikes me as the most obvious approach to a question of that type. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

But this is a reference desk, not an opinions desk. There are plenty of other places on the internet where people can have cosy little discussions about things based on nothing more than personal experience. We are here to direct people to sources of information. If you think it would take too long to find a reference, maybe it would be better to steer clear of that particular question. Malcolm XIV (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to illustrate - it's not difficult to find reliable resources about moving house with a cat [2] [3] etc, obviously that wasn't quite the original question - but seeing as vets are giving advice on moving house with a cat without saying "it's impossible" - it doesn't take a genius to work out the answer. (One page notes that cats tend to go awol on the day of the move, so it's a good idea to 'bag your cat' beforehand..). Of course quite why they can't google it themselves is mystery.83.100.251.196 (talk) 22:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that - if a whole new question arises from someone elses question it's polite to start a totally new question, rather than subsectioning it, which I'll bet some people would find annoying....83.100.251.196 (talk) 22:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I could do that too. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sock related diversion

Could BB be a sock of LC? Seems to have similar truculence?--WhaleMeltdown (talk) 00:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC) Not at all likely. I'm not sure who "LC" is, but BaseballBugs has a large number of edits dating back to mid 2007. A large portion of these edits are useful edits. APL (talk) 01:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC) I am no one's sock. Nor does "LC" ring a bell (except maybe a cowbell). That reminds of this one, supposedly a true story: Howard Cosell and Bob Uecker were broadcasting a ball game, and the the walking lexicon Cosell used the word "truculent" and then teased Uecker as to whether he knew what it meant. Uecker came right back with, "If you had a truck, and I borrowed it, that would be a truck-you-lent." →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC) LC is <redacted troll food> and if they've progressed to that level, that would be an awesome achievement. Baseball Bugs is well-known across the wiki, or at least at WP:ANI where his contributions have sometimes been addressed in a similar vein as at this venue. :) I rather think he's done it all by himself. Franamax (talk) 01:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC) I missed a space in the uname and the list is by no means comprehensive, but LC is an old friend of ours. Not Bugs-y at all. Franamax (talk) 01:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC) (ec)<redacted troll food, yeah, that one> That one vaguely rings a bell, but I don't know from where. As my page says, or used to say (I haven't looked at it lately), I am "my own" sockpuppet, i.e. sometimes the evil side comes out, but always under this one name: →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC) I've redacted certain user references.[4] Franamax (talk) Yes. Understood. WP:DENY. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC) Well, I was going to correct the spelling, but whatever. WP:DENY applies. A fair sized sock farm there, a number of them posting the same vulgar comment, not exactly subtle. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC) Y'all are being trolled. WhaleMeltdown is one of many, many, many <redacted (LC)> socks. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC) Redacted a uname above in the interest of minimizing search hits in the target environment and funny enough, we were just discussing that and weren't really being trolled at all. But thanks TOAT for the heads-up! :) Franamax (talk) 03:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC) He's the TOAT of the Town. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC) What's with all this fear of a name? Aren't you substantially giving someone the same attention regardless of how you refer to him? You'd think we were being trolled by Voldemort. APL (talk) 12:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC) Fear does not enter into it, or it shouldn't. WP:DENY is about denying trolls the satisfaction of seeing their names mentioned a lot, or of seeing excessive reaction to it. Which we've already violated here, even with the reverting of the name references. The corollary to WP:DENY is RBI (revert-block-ignore). →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC) Just so you know, if I ever become a troll, I plan on getting even more satisfaction from being talked about in awkward euphemisms than being referred to directly. After all, causing awkwardness is part of what trolling is all about. APL (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC) In addition, it seems extremely stupid and confusing from an outside perspective, and hasn't prevented the censored information from being seen as I just went into the history to find out what you were all talking about I'll make a note of that. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC) It's not confusing at all. The link to WP:DENY explains it clearly. I had no clue what was going on. I clicked it and understood within ten seconds. Vimescarrot (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC) You understood that stuff had been censored, but without delving into the page history you could not possibly know what had been removed. Seeing a load of "<info removed>" posts is strange and frankly more than intriguing, and will lead the reader to want to know what was removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.133 (talk) 18:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC) I don't need to know what was removed in order to not find it confusing. Vimescarrot (talk) 19:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC) Umm, see the little blue thingies beside my notes above? They're called "hyperlinks" and when you click on them, you can see the associated diff. There's no particular need to look at the page history, all the infomation needed is linked right from this page. Franamax (talk) 19:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC) Can someone point me to the part of WP:DENY that suggests that talking about someone with an awkward euphemism is somehow better than using their name? I can't find it. To me it seems at best a waste of effort, and at worse to have the opposite effect. ("Teehee, I've got these people so worked up they refuse to even use my name! Haha!") Furthermore, does it specifically allow editing other users' non-disruptive posts? Because in general that is discouraged by policy. APL (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC) Agreed. You-know-who probably enjoys us going to such great lengths to talk about him without using his name. So much for WP:RBI. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Back to the original topic about trying to cut down on the number of unproductive comments here, what I have tried to enforce for my own personal behavior is citing a reference, in the interest of avoiding my own opinion and half-rememberances, and giving the questioner a starting point for an investigation of his/her own. Sometimes I forget and don't include one; but many times I have typed up an answer, looked at the preview, remembered about the reference, failed to find one for my claim, and then after thusly thinking twice, I canceled my post, which I believe has been for the good of the Refdesk. (Insert joke here about how it would be even better for the Refdesk if I would have also clicked Cancel on this post, or on all my posts.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hee-Haw, Inc.

I was going to file a WQA complaint against one of the above editors, but then I took a closer look at the photo on my security badge. Maybe he's onto something. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

You need a security badge to get into Wikipedia now? APL (talk) 20:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Footnote: The author of this thread was indeed a sock of the banned User:Pioneercourthouse. He gone, bye-bye. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 05:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Reworking the top of the page

I have combined the two boxes that were at the top of the page and removed some redundant bits. The changes seemed mostly cosmetic and non-controversial, so I was bold and made the change. The diffs are here and here if anyone feels the changes are inappropriate. If there are no objections after a few days, I'll CSD the old header for the guidelines (this). Matt Deres (talk) 02:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks for the cleanup. Nimur (talk) 03:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

User:68.244.107.246

This edit (the resolved tag, the comment on the page and the edit summary) was completely unacceptable. Baseball Bug's question was entirely valid, we do not mark questions as resolved until the OP has made it clear that they are happy with the answers and we never call another contributor to this project an idiot, ever. I will now be looking through this user's previous actions to determine if any further action is required. --Tango (talk) 21:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Bugs first question was completely out of line (for a change). He seems to be mistaking his lack of knowledge for an invitation to bite the questioner. IIRC we spoke somewhere else on this page about his willingness to inject crap into the RDs. Sadly a cure does not seem in sight. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything wrong with the question. It is informal and conversational. No one would be offended by it. Bus stop (talk) 01:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

There may have been better ways to ask the question (but as it was, it wasn't too bad), but the question is entirely valid - without the context, we can't answer the question (two different answers have now been given for two different time periods - there is no way to know which, if either, is correct until the OP comes back). But that is completely irrelevant - the response was unacceptable. --Tango (talk) 21:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

That IP is one of the New Jersey based harassers. The guy just above [5] questions my right to ask the questioner a question. The questioner's question makes certain uncited assumptions. I thought my question was a fair question. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

We do not ask for citations before we answer questions. We answer questions that we have the capacity to answer. We skip question about which we know nothing. We DO NOT BITE. Please, Bugs, stop being so fscking solipsistic. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to know where he got the idea that 5 was mid-day in France. I have as much right to ask a question as the questioner does. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Who says you do? APL (talk) 19:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I have started a SPI on the IP - it seems clear to me that somebody has logged out in order to insult another user. --Tango (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Tagishsimon appears to be based in the UK, whereas the IP geolocates to New Jersey, as with another recent harassing sock or two. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

In fairness, the IP and I both took away the same impression. The difference is that I do not post using IPs; if I have something to say, I say it under my own name. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I am making no judgement regarding who it is, but that kind of comment (including adding a resolved tag) is not someone's first. --Tango (talk) 21:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely not kosher to put a "resolved" tag on a question that someone else asks. That's up to the OP to do, if he chooses to. And in fact there are other questions popping up, as one question can lead to another, for an interesting or unusual topic. As far as the "in the sauce" comment, that implies that I'm a drunkard and/or an alcoholic. I am neither. So he should "not bite the oldies", either. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Adding the tag was wrong, but it is more significant as a clue that it wasn't really the first edit that user had made (although that was clear enough anyway). The sauce comment was unacceptable, but the edit summary was worse, IMO. --Tango (talk) 22:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

No question about it, on the first point. On the second, I seldom file WQA's on my own behalf, as it only encourages them. WP:DENY →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Whatever, drama queen.--Drknkn (talk) 00:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The above user has only been registered since 9/21, so I'll refrain from biting. 0:) →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This started out as a comment about an anon, and turned into an attack on Baseball Bugs. Sometimes a question like "Who says so?" is a rhetorical (and rather rude) way of saying "I deny that what you say is the case". But we can't assume Bugs meant it that way; AGF applies here. On the other hand, Bugs, it's clear that some utterances are more liable to misinterpretation than others, so maybe you'd like to word such a question a little differently in future. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I admit I could have asked the question differently. I could have said, "That's interesting. I was not aware of that. Please elaborate, as I would like to know more about that also." I'll try that approach next time. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I get the feeling that your phrasing here is meant to be sarcastic (I pictured little flowers and cartoon birdies around it, like when Albert Uderzo drew them into Asterix comics to indicate overly flowery prose), but if that's the only other option, then yes, that would be fine. But would it have been so hard request clarification without any tone at all? Like, "I'm not sure what you mean. Can you elaborate?" or similar? I totally disagree with the comments made at your expense, but you leave yourself open for that kind of crap by replying to so many questions whether you have something to add or not. If you'll excuse the pun, stop biting the carrot... Matt Deres (talk) 23:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

My comment above was not intended as sarcasm, merely as discussion points. You've shortened it a bit, and I would be inclined to shorten it further: "Please elaborate." Or maybe "Interesting. Please elaborate." Because it's something I didn't know, nor would I be sure where to look for it. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

How about "It would help us answer your question if we understood where you got this information."? Explaining why you want a certain piece of information generally helps you get it. --Tango (talk) 23:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

How about waiting until someone who does have a clue turns up? And asking only if it becomes abundantly clear that such a person is not going to turn up. As to how you ask, the source of the information is not so important as the context - which in this case might have been decimal time. So "could you provide some more context" would be a neutral way of going forwards. But I stress: if you have not got a clue, you really should pause before launching in; and if you /have/ to, do so in a way which does not bite. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not about having a clue or not. It's about the context affecting the answer. If they are asking about the time when France was on decimal time, then that is most likely the answer. If they are asking about a time when it was common to measure time from sunrise, then that is probably the answer. If they are talking about another time, then there is probably a completely different answer. --Tango (talk) 00:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It's about having enough of a clue to know that a) the question was bitey b) in any event the wrong question, when what was required was context not citation and c) to stay away from questions about which you have no clue. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

a) That's not what you said before - don't claim your previous comments should be interpreted in a different way just because the first interpretation has been shown to be wrong. b) A citation is the best way to get context because then we immediately have all the relevant information and won't have to ask follow-up questions. c) What gives you the impression Bugs doesn't have a clue about the subject? --Tango (talk) 00:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I dunno. I though that when I said "As to how you ask, the source of the information is not so important as the context - which in this case might have been decimal time" I was being fairly clear about the need for context. Asking for context is the bext way to get information about context. Asking for a citation /might/ or might not provide context. As for c:, bugs posts give me that impression. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Apologies. a) related to biteyness. I'm aware that you don't seem to share my opinion of that question, I'm unaware of having been proven wrong. Were I the OP, I'd feel bitten. That, for me, tends to be the test in such cases. Per Jack post, above, BB's question can be taken as "a rhetorical (and rather rude) way of saying "I deny that what you say is the case"". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tagishsimon (talk • contribs) 00:27, 11 October 2009

I really don't care if the question was appropriate or not - the response to it was completely unacceptable. Your comments here and on the SPI seem like you are trying to defend calling other users clueless, drunk idiots - if that is your intention, I strongly suggest you stop trying to do that, if it's not then I strongly suggest you are more careful about what you say. --Tango (talk) 00:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I was once blocked 5 days for calling someone an idiot. I seldom do that anymore (unless it's demonstrably true). In more recent times, civility standards seem to have narrowed significantly. I say again, I understand the way I asked that question could be taken wrong, and I'll try and ask in a more broadly useful way the next time. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

"Demonstrably true"? No possible positive purpose is ever served by calling someone an idiot, even if you've convinced yourself they are, by whatever arbitrary made-up-on-the-spot definition you've chosen. How about something uplifting? -- JackofOz (talk) 04:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you'd like "troll with hundreds of socks" better? →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that would be preferable, assuming you have the evidence. Saying "you are a troll" is actually describing their activity, not the user personally. Who knows what motives they might have that might seem crazy to you and me. From their frame of reference, if their purpose is to disrupt, they usually do so, at least for a while. So they're successful in their own terms, for a while. Calling them names like "idiot" gets nobody anywhere. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Did I mention he's been at this for 3 years now? In fact, I think he just had an anniversary. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

No, you didn't. But at what precise moment in those 3 years did he become, as far as you're concerned, an idiot? Was it coincidentally the very same moment that you got really, really pissed off at him? And was that the extent of your evidence? If that's what led you to form the view that he's an idiot, then think again: he succeeded in his aim to piss you off, and you fell for it. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not now, nor have I ever been, angry at him. And he was vandalizing the same article for 2 years before I ever heard of him. He's irritated a lot of users, most of them admins. I'm not an admin, so he probably figures I'm a safer target. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tagishsimon. Baseball Bugs gives unhelpful comments on the RD and disingenuous reasons here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 07:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

And I say you've got it wrong. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

About "Resolved" tags

As a kind of spin-off to the preceding discussion - I'd like to point out that "Resolved" tags are evil and should be flat out banned on the RD. Respondents cannot reasonably employ the tag because they cannot tell whether the OP is happy with (and understands fully) our answers. OP's can't use it because they can't know whether one of the responses they've been given is about to be corrected by someone who knows better than the previous respondents. Using the "Resolved" tag implies that there is nothing more to be said - but nobody can possibly know whether that is actually true or not.

Ergo, resolved tags should not exist. We should actively remove them whenever they appear.

SteveBaker (talk) 03:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a reasonable idea. If the OP comes by and says "thank you", that's a sort-of resolved tag, although sometimes others will weigh in with additional facts. In any case, it's not "resolved" in the way that an issue on ANI is resolved. And it goes to archive once it's a few days old anyway. No tags needed. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree... -ish. I've used them myself on the computing desk; I had a problem, someone(s) provided the fix(es), I chose one and resolved my situation. Nobody should waste their time coming up with "more complete" answers or a different take on the situation; I've already moved on with my life :). However, that is a distinct kind of question - a request for advice, which we encounter a great deal more of on the computing desk than elsewhere. I agree that most other kinds of questions have further layers to them. Matt Deres (talk) 14:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Even in open-shut cases like those on the Computing desk, a "thanks" from the OP is better than a "resolved." The issue is open for more discussion even if the OP doesn't care anymore - because other people (other than the OP) may read the question in the future (e.g. archives). When the OP gives an acknowledgement of the resolution, it's an indicator that we've done our job, but we don't need a green checkbox for that. Nimur (talk) 14:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

True enough, I guess, and I don't feel strongly enough to debate it either way, but I think the only people who consult our archives are the respondents. Searching the archives is more intimidating (and less likely to be fruitful) than simply searching WP from the main page, or even using Google for that matter, and most OPs don't do that much. And when it comes to computing issues, it seems very unlikely that someone's exact same issue (problem, OS, hardware, etc.) would have come up in the past. Matt Deres (talk) 16:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. If anyone is going to use them, they should be OP's, but even then, I agree that they might not actually be "resolved" at all, since god knows about half of any responses given are confused. ;-) --Mr.98 (talk) 00:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know — I like them a bit — if a subsequent editor has a correction then he/she can always delete the resolved tag. And what about self-resolved questions from the OP! Tempshill (talk) 04:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Data point: a user just objected to the removal of a tag. So perhaps we should have a stronger consensus before going around removing them. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

This came up on the Help Desk a while back. Some rather delusional user was under the impression that if you ask a question on the Help desk, you were required by penalty of death to smack a Resolved tag on your question once it was answered. (Yes, I'm exaggerating, mainly because I found the guy's complaint extremely unfounded to the point of idiocy.) The result of the long-winded debate was that the OP should be the one to put a resolved tag on his or her question if and only if he or she wants to do so. There is no requirement to do so and there is no penalty for doing so. -- kainaw™ 03:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a rather different situation from the help desk though. On the help desk, the answers are usually pretty cut and dried - the OP is well aware when they have the help they need. "How do I change my signature?"..."You do this, this and this"..."OK, that worked, thanks {{resolved}}". Here, there is a fairly significant risk that the OP may inadvertently cut off some important clarification or correction. In almost all cases, the OP is NOT well qualified to say when the discussion is over. Take today, for example. Someone asks on the Science RD about the force impinging on the end of a rope as it's uncoiled. The first answer looked pretty good - it had an equation and everything - but it turns out that a vital part of the question had been overlooked and a subsequent correction was absolutely required. An OP could easily have seen the first answer, complete with nice, simple equation and logical-sounding explanation - and stuck a resolved tag on it. If the resolved tag has any function whatever, it is to dissuade subsequent respondents from spending time on the topic. So either it doesn't succeed in doing that - in which case we don't need it...or it does work - in which case we shouldn't allow it! Even if we allow the OP to cheat him/herself out of a decent answer in this way - we have a duty to people reading the archives - and in that case, the problem is MUCH worse because the resolved tag makes it look like a final and definitive answer had been provided - when nothing could be further from the truth! So I really don't think we should put up with these tags. They run contrary to our goals here. SteveBaker (talk) 13:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Be careful when reverting trolls

We have a troll active who, among other charming habits, likes to edit old versions, meaning that (as the edit page warns you or me if we try it) "any changes made since then are removed". So when well-intentioned editors merely delete the trollage, the loss of the newer material persists.

When reverting this troll, make sure that you use the undo button, or some other full-blown rollback tool, so that the removed stuff gets restored. (Or, in at least one case, so that the archiving bot's work gets redone, as in this edit. Unfortunately, this edit didn't get fully reverted -- just piecewise [6] [7] -- which confused the heck out of the bot -- and me -- when it found itself trying to archive October 5 a second time just now). —Steve Summit (talk) 23:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

This is LightCurrent right? Idiot got me banned WHEN I DID NOTHING WRONG because he's on the same ip range as me. I can't even have an account any more because they just get banned as soon as I make one. I'm venting here, sorry, I've already been though this entire situation at wp:an/i and they were as helpful as a moldy loaf of bread. I just think you should know that there is collateral damage here due to him (or, imo the incompetence of the checkusers) --

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.124 (talk • contribs) --NorwegianBlue ^talk 19:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

And the sad thing is, that particular troll's reputation is such that I find myself wondering if you might be him.

However, I should AGF, so...

It's too bad about the collateral damage; it's one of the prices we pay for an open net and a free encyclopedia (almost) anyone can edit. I encourage you to complain to Tivoli. Wikipedia's big enough by now that they may have heard of us, and if no one who subscribes to Tivoli can edit Wikipedia, they might be able to do something about it.

With that said, I'm surprised you're having so much trouble. It's true that LC has gobs of socks, but they only get blocked when he uses them and acts like Light Current. If you're editing noncontroversially, I'm surprised you're attracting such attention. (Can you point me to the AN/I thread you referred to?) —Steve Summit (talk) 20:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Here it is. The above user used to vandalise the refdesks heavily with various socks so the checkusers are understandably paranoid. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

As I've begun to learn from dealing with my own troll nemesis, it doesn't pay to get obsessed with whether a user is a sock of such-and-such. That only feeds the troll. Forget about the socking stuff, and block based on behavior. That's a good way to keep your headaches to a minimum and also to apply WP:DENY to the extent possible. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I wish I had a troll nemesis. You know you've really arrived when you have a troll nemesis. : ) Bus stop (talk) 23:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Zain. And... oh, wonderful, he's not LC, he's a different notorious former troll. —Steve Summit (talk) 23:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Note the "former" in that sentence. Does it serve a purpose to punish someone who wants to contribute constructively for things done over a year ago? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.55.2 (talk • contribs)

There are two issues here, as far as I'm concerned:

1. The observable behavior of a reformed former troll is, in general, indistinguishable from the behavior of a former troll who is claiming to be reformed and is begging to be reinstated so that he can say "ha-ha, suckers, got you again".
2. Many people (myself currently included) would much rather spend their limited Wikipedia time actually contributing to the encyclopedia, rather than wasting time on dubious rehabilitation efforts that, all too often, only end in further tears.

As far as I know, the best (and perhaps the only) way for a notorious former troll to reenter the project is to adopt a brand-new username and a brand-new persona, and start completely from scratch. We'll never know how many former trolls manage to do this, of course. The only ones we know about are the ones who insist on coyly identifying themselves (it seems they can't help it; it's part of the pathology), and once so identified, it's well-nigh impossible for the rest of us not to be gravely suspicious of the real motives.

We're not punishing a person; we're punishing -- by banning -- a persona (which is generally the only thing we really know). If our ban of that persona was permanent, what we meant by that was that it was permanent; we decided that we could never trust this persona again, no matter how sincere-sounding their claims to be reformed. (We wouldn't have permanently banned a persona unless they'd reneged on such promises multiple times already.) We did not mean, "We're banning this persona permanently, unless they come back a year later and make really sincere-sounding claims, when there's nobody around to remember how much those claims can be trusted" (which, last time, was "not at all").

Let me turn your question on its head: From the point of view of an ordinary Wikipedian, what purpose is it likely to serve to spend time trying to rehabilitate a troll who, last we knew, did nothing but unrepentantly waste people's time? —Steve Summit (talk) 15:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not asking to be rehabilitated or for anyone to spend any time on me at all. I think the fact that I've not done ANY vandalism or trolling since last September, now over a year ago, and that with ever edit since then I have been helpful at the Ref Desks is proof I want to contribute constructively. All I wanted was to have an account to answer questions at the Ref Desk. I did exactly what you suggested Steve Summit, I created a new account (after several months of anon editing here) and within a month it was blocked due to light current. Anyway, I wasn't expecting this much discussion to come of angry comment I posted yesterday. There's nothing anyone here can do, the Checkusers don't believe me and they'll just block any new account I make to edit constructively with, so any more discussion on this is pointless. As I said above, I was just venting.

The advice I was given by a wise admin was to assume that there is, in fact, only one troll out there who causes all this trouble. You can't stop the socks, because the troll has figured out how to IP-hop; so you just whack them as they turn up and be done with it. That's the "RBI" principle. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that we could solve two major issues here. First of all, trolls are a real pain in the you-know-where and as such they need to be removed. Second, the US, Russia, China, the UK and France have stockpiles of nuclear weapons that they have all signed treaties to remove. (Let's not mention India, Pakistan and Israel) So here's an idea: why don't we nuke trolls?! We could get a pretty good fix on their approximate location via their IP addresses, and what's a bit of collateral damage when we can take out a troll? ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 23:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

← There goes one now. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Problem with nukes in general is that they take out a lot of things other than the intended military target. What we want here are precision strikes on trolls, if possible. Because if in the process of minimizing trolling we actually cut into the lifeblood of the Ref Desk, then the trolls have won, and all that. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The best "precision strike" is a bounty. If everyone with interest donated money to a bounty account, we'd be able to pay someone who "ensured that the troll would never use Wikipedia again." We won't be promoting anything illegal. If the bounty hunter did an illegal action, it would be the bounty hunter's fault. We'd just be paying a reward for the end result, one which would be limited to a single person. -- kainaw™ 12:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Er, I'm not sure a court of law would necessarily uphold your fine distinctions. The question of "what did you think was going to happen?" can easily lead into culpability when one gives people money and a broad directive to "take care of" someone. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

But your honour. When we said "take care of him" we meant look after him, maybe take him to a bar and buy him a few beers. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 14:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

"Will no one rid me of this turbulent troll?" —— Shakescene (talk) 19:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

And the whole point of plausible deniability is that it must be plausible. Even implausible deniability (e.g., "Israel has never claimed nuclear capability") has a few formal uses, but it's far less valuable. Now that he's free to host his own radio show, as well as serving as Wednesday night political analyst for Channel 6 News (WLNE-TV, Providence-New Bedford-Fall River), you might ask Buddy Cianci. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Not again

Just for future reference, everybody: when an anonymous IP in the range 71.100.xxx starts posting questions about the Middle East or Zionism, do not answer it: [8]

This character has a long history of Ref Desk abuse, and has been banned many times. Remember these? [9] [10] [11] [12] Malcolm XIV (talk) 08:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment on content, not on the contributor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.55.2 (talk) 09:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Unless I've suddenly gone (more) insane and I'm seeing things, he did provide multiple links to content and did not personally attack the contributor in any way. -- kainaw™ 12:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Right, we should never talk about trolls or vandals. Tempshill (talk) 05:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack if you provide evidence. WP:NPA says that what is disallowed is: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." - with sufficient evidence, it's considered acceptable to comment on the behavior of the individual. SteveBaker (talk) 14:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I think people misunderstood what I mean by comment on content, not on the contributor. 71.100.xxx is a massive range, if you ignore or even remove every question from that rage just because it's from that rage there is a huge risk of collateral damage. I'm simply saying caution should be taken here, review each question and decide accordingly rather than outright on any (even good) edits from that range.

Who suggested removing every question from the range? The suggestion was to remove questions on a specific topic from the range. -- kainaw™ 13:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Non-disruptive questions should not be removed. Disruptive questions (those that violate our clearly-stated policy and guideline pages) should be removed. That's basically the rule already. If we know that a question is a re-post/rewording of the same question that already got removed (for example, if it's posted by the same user), then we can remove it. Twice. Or maybe three times. At the core though, it doesn't really matter who asks the questions - only whether they are disruptive. Nimur (talk) 13:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Medical advice limits?

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#Masturbation and a teen. I think the discussion is getting close to the line - if it isn't, please accept my apologies for mentioning it. Tevildo (talk) 20:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we often end up walking the line when answering this question (it gets asked all the time). I think we're probably ok - while it is a medical question it is such a common one (here and everywhere else) that there is really no risk. We're absolutely certain of the answer - you don't need a medical degree to know that masturbation is perfectly safe. --Tango (talk) 20:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd be very cautious about offering any sort of advice about things that 'everyone knows' is safe. I've seen precisely that type of reasoning used to give (sometimes subtly) dangerous advice on these desks before, and it's the reason why the medical advice guidelines don't offer a loophole for answering 'obvious' questions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The main reason that the loophole does not exist is because you must physically examine a person before assuming that the "obvious" medical answer is valid. For example, if I were ask if orange juice would help me keep from getting a cold, you could give the "obvious" answer that many people think orange juice will keep you from getting a cold. Did you stop to think about if it would stop *ME* from getting a cold? I am severely allergic to oranges and would likely die if I attempted to drink an entire glass of orange juice. So, you shouldn't answer that question. You should only answer if I were to ask if oranges are known to help people (in general) prevent a cold. I hope you can see how this relates to "will masturbation harm *ME*?" as opposed to "is masturbation harmful in general?" -- kainaw™ 13:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree - with a slight clarification to Kainaw's first sentence: The main reason that the loophole does not exist is because you a trained and licensed professional must physically examine a person before assuming that the "obvious" medical answer is valid. Nimur (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It might not be "safe" if his mum catches him at it! In general, I have to wonder about this "no medical advice" rule, as I've seen many times where editors will say "we don't give medical advice", and then proceed to direct the questioner to pages that could well be written by editors lacking M.D.'s and could, if taken to the extreme situation, result in a suit against wikipedia - which is the whole point, presumably, of the "no medical or legal advice" rule. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 14:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) There is a very thick, bold, indisputable line between we have an article about ___, and we have read your specific question and we think ____. The first is general information; the second is giving medical diagnosis. All of our articles fall under the general WP:MEDICAL disclaimer. In general, medical advice questions should fall into two categories - those which are removed entirely and replaced with a template; and those which specifically do not request diagnosis, but need help finding the article or external references about a topic. I think this is known as "Kainaw's criterion", embodied here. Nimur (talk) 15:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure the courts would buy into that reasoning, if it came to that. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 15:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not just about the legal aspects (although they are a concern) - there is a moral issue too. If we were to tell someone with chest pain that it's probably just indigestion (which is actually a true statement - it's by far the most PROBABLE cause) - then someone who is suffering a heart attack might avoid seeking treatment and die as a direct result of a stupid, unthinking response. Even if you say that - you don't know that the pain is really a heart attack when it could be anything from a broken rib to lung cancer. Even a trained medical expert can't diagnose accurately from a couple of sentences of random observations made by the patient.

But even if you could get beyond that - the problem is that the OP can't tell who here knows what they are talking about - and who are the idiots. Hence, even if you have medical qualifications (making it legal for you to answer medical questions) - on the RD, we require that you refrain from doing so.

What I strongly disagree with is any specifically prescribed set of words that are or are not OK. If someone writes "If, purely hypothetically', someone were to have a headache, general malaise, a temperature of 102 and is shivering - might they have H1N1 flu?" - then we still shouldn't answer it. Even though the question is phrased as a hypothetical, we are still being asked to diagnose a condition from a set of symptoms - and that's not allowed. How can we tell whether the OP is truly asking a hypothetical - or whether they read the medical disclaimer and decided to write "hypothetically" in an attempt to evade that requirement. Geez - you don't have to be here long to know that kids very often write "THIS IS NOT A HOMEWORK QUESTION" right after something that patently obviously is! Our OP's sometimes work quite hard to try to sneak medical requests under the wire. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck - it's certainly a member of the Anatidae family even if it's not an actual duck! On the other hand, if the OP asked "What are the symptoms of H1N1 Flu?" - without describing their own symptoms or asking us to suggest a cure - then we can point them at the H1N1 article, list the symptoms, etc - and let them make their own decision about what to do with that information. But you really have to do this on a case-by-case basis...there isn't a hard and fast rule - sometimes you have to do this by instinct alone.

This specific case isn't even borderline - I don't think it rises to the level where we should ban it. At this point, we can dispense with "Kainaw's criterion" and use the lesser "Baker's Razor" which says "If you don't think the question should be answered - then don't answer it.". SteveBaker (talk) 17:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

On this specific example ("Will masturbation stunt my growth?"), I accept that "No, it won't" comes under "common general knowledge" (although, how about "Will smoking give me cancer?"), but I still feel that "No, it won't - in fact, it's good for you and you should do it as much as you want to" _does_ cross the line. The statement may be true, but it still sounds like _advice_ to me. Tevildo (talk) 17:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Minor, but important, nit - the question wasn't "Will masturbation stunt my growth?" (which would be a clear medical advice violation), it was "Will masturbation stunt a 17-year old boy's growth?" That is, read literally, the question wasn't asking for individualized medical advice, but generalized medical information. Read practically, we all know that the questioner isn't interested in the general case, but had a specific 17-year old boy in mind when writing it. It's one of the borderline cases under Kainaw's criterion. It's probably acceptable to answer if you can do so without giving the impression that you're suggesting any particular course of action for a particular case - which includes not giving advice hidden, even inadvertently, behind the same nudge-nudge-wink-wink general-implies-specific tone the original question was written in. However, if you can't refrain from such advice, or aren't sure you could effectively do so, it's best to take Steve's advice and just not answer the question. -- 128.104.112.179 (talk) 19:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

"Will it stunt your growth?" has nothing to do with medical advice, it's an old-wives-tale, so to speak. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 20:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Without wishing to take a particular position on any specific case, may I observe that almost any everyday activity, ordinarily having no medical implications, might be hazardous to someone with some unusual medical condition who might not mention it when leaving a query about the activity. I wish I could say there's an obvious and simple way to decide where the lines should be drawn, but if there was we wouldn't keep having these discussions. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 18:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

And there's a big difference between saying, "driving a car can be hazardous to your health for these reasons" and saying "your car is going to explode tomorrow." The latter is more analogous to medical advice. The former is information that is generalized. People are not always CORRECT in giving information on the former, but it's not medical advice. Whether the risk of possibly incorrect information that can incur personal harm if acted out without care should be removed is an entirely different question. I don't consider that a medical advice question. (It's no different than someone writing that putting a fork in the power outlet is a good idea. That's not giving medical advice, it's giving very incorrect and possibly dangerous information.) --Mr.98 (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The OP in this case, IF he was referring to himself (we shouldn’t assume), was at least smart enough to generalize the question. The respondents answered this general question. That’s not medical advice at all. That’s medical related information. No further analysis is necessary, accept perhaps in extreme cases where common sense suggests that ANY answer could harm someone. --S.dedalus (talk) 21:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Medical Advice Removed 2

I removed this question because it is explicity asking for medical procedural information. Nimur (talk) 15:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Good call. Additionally, a certified EMT should already know the answer to that question, and even if not, they would know a reliable resource to ask instead of this desk. 10draftsdeep (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I find that really scary. . . --S.dedalus (talk) 19:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I do not consider that question to be a request for medical advice. However I am surprised that an EMT would ask this question here with the expectation of a reliable answer. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Would it be "medical advice" if they hadn't said, "I'm an EMT"? The question seems generalizable, the only "advice" aspect is that it is assumed that the guy would put it into practice. As I've said before, I do find it kind of silly that in the end, our "advice" policy, 90% of the time, comes down to requesting people to phrase their questions slightly differently. If it is just a grammatical distinction (and one that someone who hasn't been on the RD before couldn't be expected to know), then we are probably doing it wrong. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That is the entire point of Kainaw's criterion. It isn't the question that is the problem. It is the answers. We cannot give a diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment plan. If the question specifically asks for those, we just wipe the question. If it doesn't, we wipe the answers from people who feel that it is appropriate to give medical advice. Seen from this way, grammar isn't an issue. -- kainaw™ 20:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a good question that's of general interest (most of us, whatever our medical qualifications or ignorance, do from time to time take our own blood pressure or someone else's, if the equipment's user-friendly enough). But as an EMT, the enquirer needs to check with better authorities than us, either technical (for his or her kind of equipment) or medical (for diagnostic accuracy). But I consider this kind of borderline and related to general conditions rather than some specific case or cluster of cases. I think it might be seen as borderline-permissible because someone who has had to answer this question for himself or herself might well come across this board and share the results he or she has found. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The answer is, "Yes, it does affect it." You don't have to be a doctor to know that. But an EMT should certainly know that. I hope I never have him working on me if I'm a rescuee someday. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I know it affects it as well. It also affects it if the cuff is not at the same height as your heart. I didn't answer because the next response would be "How do you know?" I can only say, "I know." -- kainaw™ 01:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

What an unfortunate question — I agree, it is an interesting question and it wouldn't be a medical advice question, but the preface about being an EMT shoves it into medical advice land. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Medical Advice 3

Somebody is asking if anyone else has certain issues with bones and the potential that their children have the disease. The only advice we can give is "See a doctor." Falconus^{p t c} 11:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, appropriate removal. -- Scray (talk) 12:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

To me, some questions in that particular post seemed rather like a plea for information. Would it have been inappropriate to refer them to the articles?

• "Is there a higher incidence of diabetes with these?" -- This question can be answered factually, without any medical advice.
• "Does anyone else have arthritis or bone spur growth?" -- Also a question of facts, not advice.
• "If I have children, is there special information I should know in case they exhibit symptoms? What are some really good ideas for daily life with it?" -- yeah, ok, that's getting towards advice.

If I were answering this question I'd reply that the best source of information is the person's physician, but I don't think it would be out of line to direct them to our articles on the subject. --- Medical geneticist (talk) 18:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Sections restored on RD/Language

The contribs listed here completely removed two sections for RD/L. I think I restored what was missing. I chose not to include the contribs that caused the problems, one was nothing relevant, the other may have been viable, but I made a judgment call. It wouldn't hurt for another pair of eyes to check my work . . . --LarryMac | Talk 17:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks as though they were both genuine errors in using the editor rather than deliberate vandalism. (One piece of text was restored to the wrong section - I've moved it back to where it should be). Is there a template message for "You appear to have made a mistake in editing - see the appropriate help page?" Tevildo (talk) 21:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

About removing medical questions

I was just wondering - why are people completely removing the questions that people ask? Their questions do not provide medical advice (hopefully), so we should just not answer them, and tell them that they can't. Completely removing their question I think is rude and unhelpful. If someone unfamiliar with the refdesks asks a question and comes back later to find no trace of it, they don't learn anything and leave with a negative experience with Wikipedia, and at the very least they should learn to go to a medical professional.

I think we should leave the questions, use falconus' little blurb to tell them we can't answer, and then ruthlessly remove any bad responses to the question. So, do people agree with this or are there things I haven't thought of? —Akrabbim^talk 12:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with discussing this again, but here's the guideline recommending removal of such questions. Asking such questions is prohibited, so removing a prohibited question seems reasonable. It also prevents the inappropriate answers that invariably follow. --Scray (talk) 12:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I should have known that it was explicitly laid out in the guidelines. I read it and it makes sense, thanks. —Akrabbim^talk 13:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, that doesn't seem to be in category guidelines. Not that I'm too worried but perhaps best to shove it though the stuff in WP:POLICY. Dmcq (talk) 21:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It still represents the consensus of the editors here though, even though it hasn't been put through the official channels, right? —Akrabbim^talk 22:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

There are always a few users who are willing to argue against the guidelines until everyone else gives up. However, most users agree with the guidelines. They are just tired of arguing about it. -- kainaw™ 01:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

And presumably we didn't come here to become minor functionaries in a giant bureaucracy... ;-) --Mr.98 (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

If that's how you feel, you're welcome to complete Form 74Q, Petition for Withdrawal, making sure to complete Supplement C. Take it to your local Wikinotary, and submit it to the Central Office for Editorial Oversight, and be on your way. -- Coneslayer (talk) 14:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the 'prevents inappropriate answes that follow' is a key point. Long history has shown that leaving the question there and saying we won't answer this doesn't work because people always do answer. There have been other proposals, e.g. archiving the question in a box but removing the question is the most effective Nil Einne (talk) 23:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Languajes

All threads in the languaje Reference desk are likely to be about a specific languaje. Users may only be ableto answer question about certain languajes, not all of them, so it would be useful to Quickly set apart the threads where each one can help. Languaje-specific reference desks would be excesive, and thread sorting may not be technically possible, but what about making it part of the title? If we request title to be of the format (languaje) - (title) (for example: "Spanish - What does 'factura' mean?"), users would find it easier to check where to answer. MBelgrano (talk) 15:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me in theory, but you can't really expect the users to comply. A more reasonable approach might to be to suggest to answerers that they change the heading as necessary ("What does 'factura' mean?" -> "What does 'factura' mean? (Spanish)". But even then... a quick look at the headings makes it seem to me that those who have on language involved generally do indicate the language they mean ("English punctuation here", "Welsh pronunciation", "Hebrew transliteration", etc.) when it is a question that obviously involves one language (and not a more general question). I'm not sure if new guidelines or anything need to be developed, since they will be ultimately of limited impact (because users don't read explanatory text). --Mr.98 (talk) 20:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

How to create an userbox

I want to know how I can create a userbox? --Extra999 ^{Any problems ??} 00:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Userboxes. In the future this kind of question should go on the Computing reference desk or to Wikipedia:Help Desk, as this page is for discussing the reference desks themselves. --Sean 13:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Controversial statements

I’m not having a go at Baseball Bugs for the sake of it, but it just so happens it was his post that sparked off a mini-diversion that concerns me. He made the statement "For example, the Pope sitting there saying nothing while the Jews were being rounded up". We’re not supposed to get into off-topic debates, so I bit my tongue. 86.144.144.110 was unable to hold his tongue, and there was a bit of back and forth. It wasn’t a major contretemps, but the issue is: If an editor makes a controversial statement that in the real world would attract an instant reaction, if we just let it sit there without rejoinder, our silence appears to indicate consent; but if we say something contrary, we’re getting into a debate, which is against the rules. How best to deal with such cases? -- JackofOz (talk) 07:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I am no longer watching that page. My comments were inspired by something else, I don't recall what, but at that point I had had enough and took it off my watchlist. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that silence appears to indicate consent. The best thing is get the thread back on track (that is try to answer the question, with references) and perhaps to indent the irrelevant and ill-informed opinions from the peanut gallery. 95.57.1.181 (talk) 11:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Including the drive-bys. And I agree, if you don't like something, speak up. Just don't single out particular editors when others are also fanning the flames. For example, instead of biting your tongue, you could have said, "That comment was off-topic." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I do wish you would shut up about so-called "drive-bys". Wikipedia is not an exclusive club, nor – as you are doubtless aware – a chatroom. Anyone is entitled to post on the Ref Desk, and you are supposed to assume good faith and not bite. Malcolm XIV (talk) 01:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Nor is it your exclusive club. And when an IP takes verbal shots at someone, they forfeit any "good faith". So shut up yourself, and go hassle someone else. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

"Nor is it your exclusive club" — what the hell does that even mean? I'm asking you to assume good faith, which is one of the central tenets of this project. It's a pretty straightforward request. Please try to abide by it. Malcolm XIV (talk) 01:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I will not kiss up to drive-bys who take verbal shots at me. The one above was fine until he made the snide comment about "peanut gallery" (meaning, presumably, anyone besides himself). When he said that, he forfeited his "good faith" assumption. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Especially when what you call a "newbie" makes his very first (ha!) edit by coming straight here and taking shots at other users.[13] That's not a newbie, and it does not deserve any good faith. If you had bothered to check his so-called contributions, you would have seen that. So, to quote you again, with what I could have said to the IP myself except I was being more polite than you are: "Shut up." Go get a clue before you cop that tone with me again. Ya dig? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You are right out of line. Apologise, please. Malcolm XIV (talk) 08:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, when I see your apology for telling me to "shut up" first... and for indicating it's just fine for an IP address to throw insults out, but that somehow I'm supposed to treat such comments as "good faith". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a clear semantic difference between saying "I do wish that x would shut up about y" – a statement of personal opinion – and directly telling someone to shut up, particularly when the latter is accompanied by the remark "Get a clue before you cop that tone with me again. Ya dig?" Perhaps you should go off and read our policies about civility and not making personal attacks as well as the aforementioned WP:AGF. Malcolm XIV (talk) 19:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should do likewise, before you tell someone to "shut up" again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and WP:LASTWORD while you're at it. Malcolm XIV (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Once you GET IT RIGHT, you can have the last word. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Problem with that is, it could be interpreted as "That comment was off-topic (but I agree with it)", or "I disagree with that comment, but I can't put forward an opposite opinion because that would be getting into a debate". It's up to the reader how they see it. But what readers are in no doubt about is the original statement, which anyone who's read up on the topic might consider somewhat inflammatory, but with which nobody on the WP Ref Desk has been seen to actually disagree. I mean, on a thread about 1970s German politics, if some nutcase piped up and and said "What Hitler did to the Jews deserved a Nobel Prize; there should be more Hitlers in the world", and the only response was "That comment was off-topic", do you see that we could be seen to be agreeing with him by not disagreeing with him?-- JackofOz (talk) 20:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The OP was something about atheists invoking God's name, or some such. So Stalin was an example. Then someone said something about the USSR not being officially atheistic, which would come as a surprise to most Americans. Then I saw something in the Stalin article about how he used the church as a political tool. Then I remembered that Pius character who was a tool of the fascists. So it was a bit off-topic, to be sure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

JackofOz, Ignore All Rules should apply here. If in your judgement it was a time to speak up, then perhaps doing so would have been justified. If done in a nice way, it could have led to a slight aside (an "off-topic debate"), but could have been counterbalanced by its overall constructiveness. Bus stop (talk) 01:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll go you one better. Recently I said something to someone that was over the line, and I was asked to change it. Which I did. When users go running to "Mommy" here, instead of asking me directly, they show at least as much disrespect that they claim I show to the drive-bys. The difference is, I don't go running to "Mommy" about the drive-bys and their wise-guy comments, I just answer in the tone they addressed me in. Much simpler that way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Drive-bys, drive-bys, drive-bys. How is that constructive? Someone editing without a username, even if they're not always editing from the same internet connection at the same IP, is no less a contributor to the encyclopedia than anyone else: better to judge the comments as you would judge them had they come from behind an internet identity you recognised. Calling them by names, or using snide language such as 'running to "Mommy"' isn't going to help build consensus, which is what Jack was trying to do by asking the community a question about how to deal with a particular class of problems. Consensus was how this encyclopedia was, and still mostly is, built. 80.41.80.71 (talk) 02:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

And this is also your second edit, yet you knew to come straight here. So you're not a newbie either, and Malcolm's assessment of the situation was totally off the mark. Now, tell me how referring to other editors as the "peanut gallery" constitutes being "constructive" or being a "contributor"? This business of hopping from one IP to another enables you to take shots at anyone you feel like, without fear of reproach. And when someone stands up to you, you whine about "assuming good faith". Demonstrate some, and you'll get some back. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's the thing - when I go through my watch list every day, it is littered with vandalistic edits, most of them from IP addresses. Maybe you all don't have a watch list. Or maybe you don't care about vandalism - maybe you figure it's up to someone else to fix it. But I do what I can. And you wonder why I have so little regard for IP-hopping drive-bys. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I am registered user:Sluzzelin, a reference desk regular, and I made that first "drive-by" comment in this thread. I am currently traveling and do not wish to log in on this computer for various reasons I do not need to explain. My editing is well within policy, there is no violation or abusive behavior, and you could focus on the contribution and not on the contributor, Bugs, or you could go change the policy allowing unregistered IP addresses to edit here. I am sorry if you feel every comment, even if it was made in general and not directed at you, is a criticism of your persona. I think the notion of persona is overrated on Wikipedia. ---92.46.131.66 (talk) 08:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You should take the advice you're giving me and apply it to yourself. The "peanut gallery" comment insulted every user that you think is "irrelevant and ill-informed", and it forfeited any right you had to assumption of "good faith", no matter which guise you were operating under. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I had no idea the word "peanut gallery" was so offensive, moreover it was not directed at you specifically, or any other user, but at off-topic opining sans-reference in general. I wasn ot even thinking of you. I also took care to write "the irrelevant and ill-informed opinions", not users, so I did take the advice I am giving you and did focus on contributions rather than contributors. I apologize for offending you. If you care to remain offended, I cannot change that, but rest assured that it was not my intention to insult you. That is my final comment on the matter. See you in December. ---89.218.108.17 (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC) (user:Sluzzelin, not signed in)

What you say about unregistered IPs may be true in general, Bugsy, but you simply cannot assume it true of any one particular editor, just because they're unregistered, without surrendering our AGF policy. I made it clear at the start of my question that this was not a personal comment directed at you as such. I would have asked the same question no matter who made the statement in question. It's an issue of policy, not of personalities. The only one personalising this thread is you, I'm afraid. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't make that assumption. But when they start firing off personal attacks, then they forfeit their right to AGF. Your comment was fine. It was the IP's insulting comments, its attempt to "put me in my place", that I didn't feel like cowtowing to - nor to the one who somehow thought that IP was a newbie, and who continues to insist that I don't have the right to defend myself. Although I would probably be better off taking this page off my watchlist also, so as not to be tempted to keep responding to bad-faith complaints from other "peanuts". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Two wrong doesn’t make a right. Imagine a “drive-bys” (maybe with a bad history) found Bugs' Pope and Jew comment offensive and asked Bugs to apologize – are you (Bugs) just going to tell them to shut up (because you are a coward/troll hiding behind an IP)? Malcolm’s point is valid. Bugs, your may have bad experiences with IPs in the past, but please AGF (AGF !=kissing up), and stop biting, making snappy remarks etc. I think content is much more important than the person, and a good point is a good point, even if it’s made by a bad person (not the case with Malcolm!). Look, Bugs, you did a lot of solid, good contributions here, but you also posted a lot of unhelpful, pointless replies (the recent “ugly fish” comment sprang to mind). Whatever happened to your promise to better yourself and think more thoroughly before you act in your last RfA? Seriously, bugs, are you sure all the replies in this thread is showing your very best? You are sure you used your considerable intelligent and judged wisely when you make those comments? Why do you think you are being “targeted” so much lately regarding your actions in the reference desks?

As for how to deal with these kinds of cases, I think a “this comment is unhelpful, and maybe offensive to some people” in the thread, and then go to that user’s talk page asking them to stop, with reasoning? Royor (talk) 10:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

"I just answer in the tone they addressed me in." - at the risk of putting words in Jack's mouth, I think this gets toward the point he was asking about. Is such a treatment the best one? If someone (registered/IP/whatever) makes a remark on the RefDesk that's off-base or inappropriate or potential troll-bait (even if unintentional), what is the best approach to deal with it? Do we just ignore it? Do we silently remove/hide it? Do we have an exchange of blows, filling the page with off-topic back-and-forth, where short words on one end excuses short words on the other? What's the best course of action which promotes the goals of Wikipedia and the RefDesk, and minimizes ultimately pointless internecine squabbles? (To be clear, while Bug's comment was probably unnecessary to his answer, he doesn't need to be pilloried for it. But given that there's probably someone (registered/IP/whatever) who may "take the bait" at such off-handed borderline comments, some unofficial policy to deal with them and their resulting fall-out may be advantageous, to limit future back-and-forth shitstorms.) -- 128.104.112.149 (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty much exactly what I had in mind when I asked my question. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Jack, I agree. It's quite difficult to restrain myself from responding to such silly comments especially when they're off-topic. Personally, I think we should remove them like we do with any other trollish commentary - it's no real loss since the comment didn't really help to answer the question. Any discussions about whether or not the comments were actually off-topic should take place on a talk page somewhere.

Bus stop, I don't see how WP:IAR applies here. If you want to use IAR to avoid dealing with a rule, you first need to explain how that rule prevents you from improving/maintaining the refdesk. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand the point Baseball Bugs made. It was that Stalin endorsed religion in order to "keep his job". BB alleges that another example of this happening was a pope saying nothing while jews were arrested. That is clearly BB's conclusion about this notable controversy. BB's post is within the general theme of religion in the OP's post though it relates more to BB's own interjected question about the certainty of Stalin's atheism. BB had earlier introduced Stalin's expression "God willing" in a correctly on-topic response to the OP. Asking a question and then answering it is not per se a serious offence. In hindsight it would have been better if BB had linked to the article on the controversy than state only BB's own conclusion. JackofOz asks how BB's post could have been dealt with. If one thinks a response is called for then pointing to the link about the controversy should suffice. One might disagree that it reveals anything about Stalin.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that I went off in a different direction. That's how my brain works - one idea leads to another. It drives my wife crazy, too. Call it a gift, or a curse, whatever. If someone had said something then and there, and/or if the IP had not made the insulting comments near the top of this thread, maybe this would have flowed differently. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The immediately preceding comment reads a lot like "It's out of my control." It isn't, you know. Quite the contrary. Blaming the way your brain works (which doen't mean your typing fingers have to follow) or someone else's words ("he started it!") is not, I think, helpful, here or elsewhere. We are, each of us, completely responsible for what we write. Sluzzelin has stepped up to her comments. Peanut gallery applies to more than one person. There are references to more than one off-topic opinion. Making something personal that appeared to be carefully set out by JackofOz as a general query about a type of problem is limiting to the discussion and could itself be considered off-topic. Bielle (talk) 17:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It's the IP who turned it personal. It was a baiting comment, and I took the bait. So slap me, but slap him too. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Whenever anybody on this page – not just me, any editor – asks you to moderate your behaviour, to think before you post and treat other editors with respect, you just come back with another belligerent remark. This constant antagonistic tone is not productive. Maybe it would be better for all concerned if you took a little Wiki-break and did what you suggested above: take this page off your watchlist. Malcolm XIV (talk) 21:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Or maybe you could just stop beating up on ME when SOMEONE ELSE levels an insult my direction. The guy is not a newbie, which was obvious to anyone with a clue about such things. He's an IP-hopper, firing drive-by insults without fear of reproach. So, YOU stop it. YOU, go take a wiki-break. YOU, lose the constant antagonistic tone. YOU, stop badgering me. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Please calm down. He is not "an IP-hopper, firing drive-by insults without fear of reproach", he is User:Sluzzelin, as he himself said above, posting from an IP address because he is travelling. Moreover, he has not done anything wrong. Malcolm XIV (talk) 22:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong. He fired the first shot. You got a problem, go talk to him about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have time to read the whole long thread here, but for what it's worth, your actions here, Bugs, look just like those of the belligerent, argumentative, drama-magnet editors which annoy the heck out of me and which I most definitely do not have time for. (For what it's worth.) —Steve Summit (talk) 23:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It's the drive-by IP who caused this "drama". You got a problem, go to talk to him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed the comments here as I'm confident they are from a user with a history of harassing BB. See below for more. Nil Einne (talk) 09:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Your very first edit, and you came right here. What an amazing coincidence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• IMO, it is evidently too much of a coincidence to have the first time edit of an IP editor occurring right here, unless they have a vested interest in the proceeding discussions. Which, can be termed as a trollish behaviour that warrants denying of recognitions if they make any comment but that of constructive or positive light. And if the IP continues to hound anyone about it, the behaviour is termed as harassment, which has consequences if allowed to be carried on. In this case, Bugs has the option of taking it to WP:ANI or WP:AIV, depending on how serious he deems it to be. So my advice here is... stop pushing his button, everyone has their limit of tolerance, and if you push your luck then it's only fitting to say that you deserve it when they fight back. All IP editors, take note of this and get over it. And BTW, Ignore all rules is only applicable for the improvements of article pages, do not mis-use it or wrongly construe the real purpose and change it to your twisted logic just to test the regular editors. You will face the consequences if you rub someone the wrong way. That is all, out. --Dave1185 ^talk 02:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

And is it a coincidence that your apparent first visit to the RD area brought you "right here"? By the "standard" being suggested, your contribution should be worth no more than that of a dreaded IP. I can't believe it has to be spelled out, but ... IP addresses are not always fixed. Some people might use a laptop at various public WiFi locations. Some people might be editing via a service like AOL which can change a user's IP with every transmission. Some people choose not to sign up for user names, and that is their right. Treating somebody as somehow less worthy because of how they choose to edit is clearly not assuming good faith. Dropping in to a thread to defend your buddy with vague threats (you will face the consequences") is perhaps harassment in its own way.

I've been a registered user and a contributor to the RDs for several years, so if I point to the relevant guidelines, will that make it better? How about just distilling them to a couple simple sentences? Answer questions with references. If you don't have an answer, don't post anything. --LarryMac | Talk 12:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It appears to me that Dave1185 is making a reference to the IPs attempt to create consensus by throwing in opinions from several different IP addresses - making it appear that one person is actually 5, 10, or 20 different people. Then, LarryMac states that it is bad faith to assume that a person is acting in bad faith just because the person is using an IP. Those are, in my opinion, two very different things. It isn't the lack of an account that is causing a problem. It is the apparent case in which a single person has demonstrated that he or she has it in for Baseball Bugs and, every time there is a comment to make, this person chimes in using multiple IP addresses, claiming to be a new person each time. I find this abuse of the anonymous IP allowance just as annoying as Baseball Bugs' comments. I agree that the IP should be called on it every time that he/she chimes in, pretending to be a new person. -- kainaw™ 17:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

There is considerable confusion here, made worse by what appears to be a generally negative attitude expressed towards IPs. First Sluzzelin, a long-time contributor and familiar persona on the Ref Desks has acknowledged that she is currently travelling and thus, for security reasons, is not signing in. She has identifed herself as three of the IPs, with no intent to mislead anyone. Her IPs are: 95.57.1.181, 92.46.131.66 and 89.218.108.17. There are three other IPs in the thread: 80.41.80.71 (geolocates to London, England via Tiscali UK), 128.104.112.149 (geolocates to Madison, Wisconsin via the University of Madison-Wisconsin) and 68.244.37.17 (geolocates to Southbridge, MA, via Sprint). The chances of these three, or even any two of them, being the same person, is quite low, I would think. That the comments made in this thread by them are not their first experiences on WP is a reasonable conclusion, but it is not, in itself, necessarily cause for any concern. All of this has been yanked off the topic of Jack's original question by assumptions of bad faith and by the personalizing of a general enquiry. Bielle (talk) 19:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

By looking at the current reference desks I also found User:128.104.112.179 who has contributed a fair amount to the RD as Special:Contributions/128.104.112.179 shows. I don't know for sure if they are the same people but given it's in the 128.104.112 range (obviously geolocates etc the same) it seems rather likely. Similarly from the archived talk pages I found User:80.41.126.158 who similar has contributed to the RD a fair amount Special:Contributions/80.41.126.158. Again it's in a the same 80.41 range and geolocates etc the same. User:68.244.107.246 is mentioned on this very page. While geolocating to Newark, New Jersey it is a Sprint IP and geolocation is often not perfect and it is in the 68.244 range. This user evidentally has a history of harassing BB Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/68.244.107.246 (note the checkuser said it was a /13 range which this definitely fits in) so I think can safely be ignored and in fact I felt it was appropriate to just remove the comments. But I don't see any reason to assume bad faith of the other two IPs. It's not necessary to have an account or a static IP for your opinion to matter. Nil Einne (talk) 08:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

You and a short list of others here are onto the problem, which in general is that IP's typically won't tell you who they "really" are, especially if they're trying to create false consensus. A recent example at ANI [14] was blatantly obvious and has been blocked,[15]; some are easily identifiable, like the Jersey Boys that you mentioned; but some are more subtle. And some have figured out how to IP-hop across continents, as with a long-time abuser whom I would not care to dignify by name due to WP:DENY. I have seen this over and over and over again, and it's the reason that I have an inherent suspicion of the motives of IP users, particularly when they turn up on obscure pages with their "first" edits. A few IP editors contribute usefully. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It's fine to be suspicious of anonymous IP users. Any experienced Wikipedia editor is -- quietly -- suspicious of anonymous IP users. And for that reason, the "false consensus" you're worried about is really, in my opinion, not a problem. If 37 IP editors crop up saying the same thing, they create about the same impression as if one person had said that thing -- i.e., an easily ignorable minority non-consensus, if that's what the (repeated) statement seems to be worth. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

need to find location on a 1966 lincoln continental

can someone please tell me where i can find the vin on a 1966 lincoln continental?Vls59dpt (talk) 22:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You should ask your question at WP:RD/M, not here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.201 (talk) 23:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added your question here: click the blue link to see your question. You'll need to check back there for answers. I'd add a link on your talk page, but you don't have one yet. 86.139.237.128 (talk) 23:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I will add it to his talk page, since I can create it. —Akrabbim^talk 18:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

IPs can create talk pages, it's only user, article and wikipedia namespace pages we can't make. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.221 (talk) 14:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

That did strike me as odd. 86 seemed to imply that he would have posted on the talk page had there been one created already... —Akrabbim^talk 00:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. I'd missed that we can create talk pages even if we can't create others: I seem to remember being unable to create a talk page in the past. 86.142.224.71 (talk) 01:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Question removed

I have removed this question posted by Biggerbannana (talk · contribs) because I think it is ref. desk. trolling by a sock account of Light current (talk · contribs) (also see the other questions posted by Biggerbannana recently). I have filed a checkuser request to confirm this. If any of the regulars think that the question is legitimate and the user is not a sock account, feel free to revert my removal. Abecedare (talk) 14:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't know if it was Light current, but it was pretty obviously a troll account of some sort. First two edits were to bluelink his user and talk pages. Eight questions to RD/S in six days, including three today. He's covered crackpot physics, medical conspiracy, and orgasms, and is now pushing into sexism and rape, along with looking for a scientific basis for eugenics. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I concur, and support your block. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 14:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's hard to keep all the ref. desks. trolls and sockpuppeteers in line. Agree with the block too (I just wasn't bold enough to do that). Abecedare (talk) 14:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I confronted him on the RD already about his apparent misuse of the RD. -- kainaw™ 15:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Whether it's from a sock or not, it's a useless question. It starts with an assumption and asks for a conclusion that's based on that assumption. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Evidentally not a sock of LC, but I concur with the block Nil Einne (talk) 00:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, too. Was wondering when it would happen. --98.217.71.237 (talk) 01:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Lasers and the eye

I am concerned about this response to this question. Multiple responses had already stated that this was a request for medical advice. Some of the replies skated very close to provision of medical advice, but this particular response (my first link) crossed the line in my opinion. I have removed the question and prior responses, because this was clearly a request for medical advice. In responding to a request for medical advice, making an assessment of risk of injury due to any mechanism represents medical advice, even if one's conclusion is that the person should seek medical attention for proper diagnosis. -- Scray (talk) 14:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The basic problem with these kinds of questions is that someone is trying to get a layman's advice in hopes that he won't have to see a doctor: There is no harm answering "Is it possible...?" with "Yes, it's possible. Go to a doctor." The potential harm is answering "No, it's not possible." and by implication "You don't need to go to a doctor." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The overriding principle is to do no harm. Allow someone to speculate that a mouse caused persistent change in vision, when that is essentially impossible, is in my opinion more harmful than the alternative. Many people avoid seeking medical attention, even when they ought to, because they believe their symptoms are caused by something simple and transient that they can explain away. My answer said in essence: No, it's not what you think; now go see a doctor. I certainly won't apologize for giving that advice. If someone came and said: "Hey Wikipedia, my toes are swollen and black, do you think it is because I ate too many Oreos?" Then I would just as happily tell them it isn't caused by the Oreos and to seek medical attention, because allowing people to believe in obviously false causes is often a deterrent to getting necessary help. Dragons flight (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I find this statement (from your reply) particularly dogmatic and easily misconstrued: "Further, it should be impossible to damage the eye with a visible laser and not immediately realize that one had looked at a laser. The experience would be immediately blinding and potentially painful." There is such a thing as delayed laser induced thermal injury to the retina, and readers might not understand a laser's properties. This is an example of why we should not answer questions that ask for medical advice. -- Scray (talk) 22:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Delayed thermal damage from a laser (not usually associated with continuous lasers, and certainly not mouse lasers) would still be associated associated with a blindingly bright flash at the time of exposure even if the full damage took 24-48 hours to manifest. I disagree with your assessment that it was a bad or inaccurate answer to the question being posed.

More importantly, I think your being overly dogmatic and potentially harmful rather than helpful. I think we both agree he should seek medical advice, but your approach doesn't even actively encourage him to do that. You've simply left a banner saying that medical advice can not be found here rather than encouraging him to seek attention as I and most of the other comments you removed did. If someone were to say: "My toe just fell off, what should I do?" The correct response is: "Call emergency services immediately.", and it most certainly is not: "... the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment recommendations. For such advice, please see a qualified professional. ...". That's a hyperbolic example, but I believe the same principle applies. When someone presents a potentially serious medical condition, I believe is irresponsible and inappropriate to remove it without making a more direct attempt to encourage the asker to seek treatment. Dragons flight (talk) 22:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the part where respondents suggested seeking professional advice. The problem is making a determination, via the internet, that a specific cause (in this case, a mouse laser) could NOT have caused injury. That's crossing the line, quite clearly, in my opinion. -- Scray (talk) 23:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The question was a clear request for medical advice. The exact form of words the OP used is neither here nor there - it's 100% obvious that (s)he was seeking a diagnosis of a vision condition - and we're not allowed to do that. SteveBaker (talk) 17:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

If a responder even hints that there is no problem, then the questioner will decide not to go to the doctor. And what if the responder is wrong? There's a lot more potential harm in not going to the doctor, than in making assumptions about lasers and such. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Medical Advice Removed - Topical Decongestant

I removed this question as it is a request for medical advice. Diff. Nimur (talk) 00:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Crap opinion questions & the no opinions rule

Mr. 98 asked, of a comment of mine now in Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 October 13#Who are the ten most famous people in the world?, asked "why is it that so many ref desk regulars answer 'we don't answer this' when they just don't know the answer? It's incredibly irritating."

Well, 98, it's because a) the OPs question included the plea "in the absence of that, your justified opinions are of use" indicating they were knowingly asking for opinion b) because in the absence of a representative survey of everyone in the world, there is an insufficiency of data to answer the question, leaving us only with opinion c) because experience tells us that discussion on questions like this tends to be crap - as it was in this case and d) because as a result of that experience we agreed a rule, stated clearly at the top of the page along the lines of "The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions ... Do not start a debate"

I'm sorry if you find it irritating. You can well guess that I find your rejection of consensus and meta-debate in board-space equally or more irritating.

The general observation here is that if we are going to accept questions such as this for the board, we should discuss whether the rule has consensus or not; if not, withdraw it; if so, remind our more enthusiastic answerers that a modicum of circumspection is in order; and in any event agree that weary criticism of fellow answerers on-board is not ever acceptable. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I find it irritating people a lot of people use the "nobody can answer that, go away" to questions that you could probably set reasonable terms to and get an answer. If it is something that involves just defining the parameters better, we can do that, and we can come up potentially with decent answers. I know for a fact that individual nations often do "name recognition" polls to figure out where people stand in the public mind—there's no reason, a priori, to assume that this hasn't been done for a number of major regions of the world in small samples, and extrapolated from there. Has it been done? I don't know. Can it be done? Yes. Is it answerable? Yes.

Even the hypothetical science fiction questions ("what if science worked this way and not that way?") are typically answerable within bounds. You can say, "well, assuming X and Y were the same, then Z would occur," and so forth. Perfectly good answers, if you want to give them.

What bothers me the most is the "we don't do this, go away." We answer hypotheticals all the time. We answer speculative questions all the time. We answer things that require interpretation all the time. We talk about counterfactuals all the time. They are often fun for the questioner, fun for the answerer, and can get at larger questions. Academics regularly engage such questions on a regular basis for such a reason. We also have no guidelines implying that such questions are a priori disallowed (unlike medical and legal questions). I am not sure where the idea that a "consensus" position on this has developed.

When people jump in with nothing to say other than the equivalent of "go away," it helps nobody. Nobody pays attention to it, unless it really does violate a major rule, and it's not actually correct, either.

There is no more tedious a Wiki-task than trying to come up with guidelines. (One of the many reasons I no longer edit much.) Why don't we all just agree to use our judgment, since there are only a few dozen of us on here anyway, and our task is pretty straightforward. As I've advocated before—if a question bugs you, or seems ill-put, or is getting off tangent... 99% of the time, if you just scroll down a little further, you'll find you're at another question, and can move on with life. The more we try to come up with elaborate, bureaucratic solutions to what is really a problem with the answerer ("I am irritated, question must be expelled"), the more miserable the place will be. We all know what we don't want this place to be — i.e., Yahoo! Answers, or some similarly pointless, expertise-less cesspool. I think we can use our judgment as to how to implement that. I don't find telling people that their questions are inappropriate to be generally furthering that task. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

This is the sort of question a Real Life Reference Librarian gets asked every day, and they provide the questioner with a computerized search finding a recent opinion poll which lists the results. Similar questions asked and answered every day by real reference librarians include "What are the best schools for journalism in the US?" They provide various surveys in answer. The questioner is not asking for the Reference Librarian's opinion, and the various Reference Librarians do not (generally) get into an argument with each other about whose opinion is correct. Many such questions can be answered based on surveys. War Games by military staffs have looked at questions of whether some alternative strategy would have changed the outcome of a battle or a war. Cite the reference. It does not have to be the original research opinions of the reference desk volunteers. We should not limit ourselves to questions with simple answers :"What is the boiling point of water?" "Who was the 12th President of the U.S?" "Where is Tanzania?" with the simple correct factual responses or the slightly bitey answer "This is an encyclopedia. Have you read our articles on Water, U.S. Presidents and Tanzania?" Edison (talk) 21:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The Communism Rant

If that's not forum behavior, I don't know what is. How was that allowed to go on for as long as it did? Your rantings have also rendered the Humanities desk temporarily unviewable from mainland China. :-P Gotta fire up the ol proxy to see the responses to my moonshine question, yah punks. 61.189.63.142 (talk) 09:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Lots of unnecessary arguing, and no answer to the OPs question

Your country's repressiveness is your problem, not wikipedia's. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC) More like my country of residence, but that's beside the point old-timer. I thought yall were tightening up the rules and getting back to basics and all that, not an internet forum, etc?61.189.63.142 (talk) 10:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC) You're a drive-by, and besides which, what are you talking about? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict, seems I'm typing too slowly) I'm not a drive-by, I'm a regular visitor, I just happen to be under a different IP at the moment due to some workings or another at my local ISP. The moonshine question at the bottom of the Humanities desk is mine, and a glance at the editing history for that IP will reveal a long list of good behavior. What I am talking about is the rather lengthy argument that erupted out of the Humanities question regarding Communism, and wondering why none of the RefDesk elders stepped in to get things back on track // remind the participants that the RefDesk is not a forum. The sudden denial of my ability to view that page in its entirety by the Great Firewall was what clued me in to the argument in the first place. Luckily, proxies remain effective. Any more questions? 61.189.63.142 (talk) 11:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC) If you had indicated that you were a regular visitor, I might not have called you a drive-by. It is unfair to pretend you're a newbie. Also, it is unfair to blame wikipedia editors for China's repressive government. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC) It's fairly clear that he's referring to the old The Reference Desk is not a discussion forum guideline, which is all-too-frequently ignored. See also this for another example of how the guidelines go out of the window when people want a good chat. Oh, and I've cautioned you before about assuming good faith, so leave it out with the "drive-by" comments, please. Malcolm XIV (talk) 11:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC) And it has been explained to you, by myself and others, why my characterization of an IP with like 3 edits as a "drive-by" is fully justified. So don't bring that complaint up again. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC) The fact that you have had trouble with IPs in the past is not sufficient justification to dismiss out of hand the comments of anyone posting from an IP address. I really should not have to state this again, but there are plenty of reasons why an IP address might show no previous edits without that being a reason for suspicion. To quote LarryMac's post from further up this page, IP addresses are not always fixed. Some people might use a laptop at various public WiFi locations. Some people might be editing via a service like AOL which can change a user's IP with every transmission. Some people choose not to sign up for user names, and that is their right. Treating somebody as somehow less worthy because of how they choose to edit is clearly not assuming good faith. Read Wikipedia:IPs are human too, in case this is in any way ambiguous. Talk pages are not special secret areas that IPs are unlikely to stumble upon. It is perfectly plausible that someone reading Wikipedia for some time will not have had cause to post beforehand; it should never be necessary for somebody to have to prove their credentials in order for their opinions to be given respect. Posting from an IP address – whether or not it is for the first time – is not a crime. Assuming that somebody who posts from an IP address is only out to disrupt things, on the other hand, is. Characterising somebody as a "drive-by" in order to dismiss their opinions is a personal attack. Comments such as Your country's repressiveness is your problem do nothing to help the situation. I am not prepared to have another one of these arguments with you. The principle of assuming good faith is paramount. The rules are quite clear; please abide by them. Malcolm XIV (talk) 12:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC) The guy shows up from nowhere, gives no indication of where he's coming from, and starts making vague complaints about something without even specifying what or where he's talking about, and also complains that somehow wikipedia editors are to blame for China's repressive government. Yet you don't question the IP, you question me for daring to question him. That's rich. However, I am pleased to learn, from your comment above, that I will not be hearing from you again. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Don't assume you won't be hearing from me again. In fact, the only thing you should assume is good faith. Malcolm XIV (talk) 12:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Where is the "good faith" in the behavior of that IP address? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Pretty much don't agree that I did/said any of that, especially and also complains that somehow wikipedia editors are to blame for China's repressive government, but the nice thing is all of our own words are right here on the page for everyone to draw their own conclusions from. 61.189.63.142 (talk) 12:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC) "If that's not forum behavior, I don't know what is. How was that allowed to go on for as long as it did?" - WHAT ARTICLE ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? "Your rantings have also rendered the Humanities desk temporarily unviewable from mainland China." - WHY IS WIKIPEDIA RESPONSIBLE FOR THE BEHAVIOR OF THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT? ":-P Gotta fire up the ol proxy to see the responses to my moonshine question, yah punks." - HOW IS THAT A "GOOD FAITH" comment??? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Bugs, you need to seriously chill out. He showed knowledge of the guidelines, and pointed out concisely why our answers didn't follow them. He then stated what affects those responses gave on many reader, however unjustified. There was no animosity (at least not from him). You didn't notice the smiley face in the quote you gave? How is it not good faith? The tone was obviously lighthearted and you immediately jumped on him because he didn't identify himself with a name. He was not blaming anyone - he was just asking why the guidelines were not followed. —Akrabbimtalk 15:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC) I'll say what I said last time: It's the IP that's at fault. Go talk to him. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC) That's really not good enough. Akrabbim's criticisms are aimed directly at you, and seeking to deflect them by saying "he started it" is irrelevant. Why behold you the mote that is in your brother's eye, but consider not the beam that is in your own eye? Malcolm XIV (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC) His criticsms are misdirected, and you should work on your own eye before you go lecturing me about mine. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC) The IP is clearly not at fault for anything here. They asked a valid question. And their meaning would have been obvious to anyone who looked at the thread at RD/H. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 18:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC) The IP clearly is at fault. They did not specify which ref desk page, they had 2 or 3 edits and did not indicate they were an established user, and they made a personal attack right out of the gate. You got a problem with any of this, talk to the IP. The IP is at fault. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Please stop this You got a problem with any of this, talk to the IP attitude. It's tantamount to saying "Talk to the hand" and is not constructive. We have made it clear over and over again that the IP has done nothing wrong. Malcolm XIV (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC) All you've made clear is that you aren't paying attention to what's going on. It has already been explained to you, here and in the previous section, by myself and others, that the IP's are at fault in these situations. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Sorry IP, the refdesk has its ups and downs, we're definitely seeing quite a few low quality responses at the moment.—eric 16:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC) @61: We try not to be like an internet forum but sometimes we end up being just like one. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 18:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Especially when an IP comes here with vague comments and personal attacks, and somehow that's supposed to be just fine. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Please note that I have posted a Wikiquette alert about Bugs' behaviour here. Malcolm XIV (talk) 19:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC) And I have posted a list of the IP's bad-faith behavior, which I had earlier noted here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Guys, drop the issue and move on with your respective lives. Nimur (talk) 20:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

To answer your question, I don't think the discussion following the question was entirely off topic and unnecessary. It was kind of a loaded question, the OP was significantly uninformed, and much was needed to clarify various inaccurate assumptions of his. This was also complicated by the fact that the actual status of the PRC as a communist state is an inherently debatable topic, and there is no clear consensus on how exactly it should be classified.

However, I do believe that it probably went much longer than it should have, but it's hard to answer such a loaded question with few words. —Akrabbim^talk 00:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it did get a bit forum-y and rant-y between at least two users, who seemed to treat it as a personal debate. I don't think the initial answers were terribly bad, though. I'm not really sure what one ought to do in such a situation—if a question is not necessarily a problem, but could lead to a debate, and then, part-way-in, does lead to a debate, where does one make the intervention, if one should? (Obviously the PRC question is a non-sequitur here, as we can't monitor our answers to be in conformity with the Great Firewall.) --Mr.98 (talk) 01:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm a RD newbie and I responded in the thread. Anyone have any comment and/or advice for something similar in the future? Royor (talk) 11:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Just scroll right past and find a question that you can answer with appropriate references. --LarryMac | Talk 19:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with censoring any part of Wikipedia to suit the public relations preferences of any government, or their dislike of referenced criticism, so they will not in turn block all or part of Wikipedia. Edison (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)