Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 67

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Reference desk. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 60

←

Archive 65

Happy New Year

Sorry for the late message but happy new year everyone! Nil Einne (talk) 01:16, 1 January 2010 (NZDT; UTC+13)

Aren't you nice - now everyone in the US can rest easy in the assurance that tomorrow will come after all, because its already happened here! Happy new year! Mattopaedia ^{Have a yarn} 13:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

As the delegation from Guam always introduces itself at American national political party conventions, "Guam, where America's day begins!" —— Shakescene (talk) 18:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you have to worry about the message being late, Nil, considering most readers are at least 13 hours behind you! After all, eight-and-a-half hours after your late post, I still have almost nine hours left until the new year... —Akrabbim^talk 20:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It feels odd to be signing my post with a 31 December 2009 date and time. I've already had my NYE party, slept, and am now making my first edits of 2010 at 9:49 a.m. on 1 January. But what the hell: May 2010 be memorable for everybody, and for all sorts of good reasons. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

May? Is it already May in Oz? --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 00:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Australia has always been on the leading edge. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a far more accurate assessment than things like this, so thank you for the positive start to the year, Bugsy. :) -- 00:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I saw that and tried to put a different spin on it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

15 minutes into the new decade here. Hoping for a better one than the one that has ceased to be, that has expired and gone to meet its maker, the ex-decade without a name. Cheers, everyone. --NorwegianBlue^talk... 00:15 01 January 2010.

Just got back in from watching the fireworks. Happy New Year to one and all. Now history can start determining what name the previous decade should definitively be known by... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The No-Name Decade. I wonder if unclaimed decades get buried in a potter's field? Especially if things pretty well went to pot during that decade? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year from sunny UK, folks! Hope 2010 is a good one for you as well as the rest of the 10s! --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 00:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Or the 'twothousandandtens', as the case (or preference) may be... ;) --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It's going to be the teenies surely? And the last one was the noughties. SpinningSpark 02:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

^{[citation needed]} Nil Einne (talk) 08:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy new year everyone! I've just got back from a campanological new year. I don't ring myself, but I go with family that do - a very nice way to see in the new year. --Tango (talk) 01:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I would make a Bugs-style crack about how painful it would be to ring yourself or I've only ever rung my hands, but my immediate preceding edit was to The Ring Two so I'm too creeped out right now and I have to put duct tape over the TV set. Best wishes and let's all resolve to get this encyclopedia finished in the next year! :) Franamax (talk) 01:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, best of luck with that one, Franamax. But, what on earth would we all do if there were nothing else left to do on WP? Actually find a life, perhaps? No, no, that's too horrible to contemplate. ") -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 02:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You mean this isn't real life? Bus stop (talk) 02:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It isn't? AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH... Nimur (talk) 15:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

If we could just get the 'cyclo done we could devote more time to our true mission here, which is endlessly finding fault with each other. ;) Franamax (talk) 02:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

A dear friend once paid me the lovely compliment that, despite my apparently nerd-like ways, I lead a "rich inner life". Nothing truer was ever said. External stuff - phooey! The insides of things - that's where it's at. :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 02:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I think if we somehow got the encyclopedia finished, we'd just start another one from scratch. It's been 2010 for 46 minutes now where I am (and UTC says I've reverted five acts of vandalism already this year), but I hope I'm not too late in wishing everyone the best of years ahead. Matt Deres (talk) 05:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy new year! Comet Tuttle (talk) 08:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a new year, as well as a new decade. Change is to be appreciated. Scroll down and read the entire next section, then read my post on the Main Page talk. Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 02:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Why can't X be a Y word: Proposed response

Given the history of this form of question, I propose each one be given the following stock response, and then not entertained further at all unless they come back with an answer:

First, you must explain to us why you believe it cannot be a <name of language> word. Until you tell us that, we cannot help you.

If the same IP asks the same form of question again, it should be removed on sight. From memory, none of the OPs have ever explained the basis of their assumptions, which makes this at least troll-like. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

For those who aren't a regular at RDL like me, it appears they have a problem with someone with a German "ARCOR-DSL" IP that geolocates to Nordrhein-Westfalen who keeps asking bizzare questions like Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 August 16#Abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz [1]. The same IP is asking other slightly odd questions at Science, Maths, Computing & Humanities albeit perhaps not so strange were it not for the history here. Nil Einne (talk) 11:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, I deleted the latest question as nearly no one who responded appeared to think it was a genuine question (or if they did, didn't think it was a useful question). I did inform everyone who responded. I'm fine with some other method of response but deletion may prevent anyone who isn't aware of the history from responding and is hopefully uncontroversial Nil Einne (talk) 11:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm the one who responded. It's my opinion that this person was playing a game with us, and just kept on asking the same question until we found him/her out. Which I did. If the question had remained, it's just possible this poster would have given up of his/her own accord, having been caught out. Poor Adam Malysz - denied his bit of fame on the WP RD! --TammyMoet (talk) 11:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The "Why can't X be a word in language Y?" questions surely have to stop. They are largely nonsensical and there is unlikely to be any reason why the OP should actually require an answer. IMHO, it is possible to answer all such questions with a single answer...something like: "There is no particular reason why any string of letters couldn't be a word in any language - unless either (a) the alphabet that the language is written in doesn't include some of those letters or (b) the language is formally regulated (as in French with the 'acadamie francaise' ruling on what is or is not a word with the force of law behind them)." - that done, we may reasonably delete any further questions of this form on sight because they are (essentially) duplicates. HOWEVER: The OP's questions on the other RD desks do not seem so terrible...particularly if we assume that this person (posting from Germany) is likely not a native English speaker. So by all means, delete these formulaic questions on sight - but until more evidence of deliberate trolling becomes evident, I don't think we should delete questions of any other nature from this OP. SteveBaker (talk) 13:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, that stock answer is not quite correct, as the user is basically looking for answers about a given language's phonotactics. But in any case, the user is a troll and the RDL questions should just be removed on sight. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Search function

I really liked User:Wavelength's new search boxes. In response to a request above, I've created a subpage for them and done a bit of very minor adjusting to make to colours prettier. While I don't have a great deal of hope that questioners will use any search function very much, it may be useful to respondents. The page is here. Our current RD front page and header templates already suggest doing a search; perhaps we should include a link? Matt Deres (talk) 03:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The two last search boxes require "more sophisticated linkage", as mentioned by User:Shakescene at 15:28, 25 December 2009. The concept might be technically impossible. I suggest linking to a page with just the other ones for now. -- Wavelength (talk) 03:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Plus, there's a basic flaw in this search functionality, which I raised here last year but no-one was interested – perhaps someone will take notice this time? Entering a search string in one of these boxes searches Wikipedia and adds the prefix "prefix:Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives" plus the name of the relevant desk. But at some point in the past the structure of the archives changed, and searches made using these boxes won't pick up entries made before that change. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 11:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I have examined the table of links at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives. Apparently there have been two changes in the structure of the archives: before 2004 they were simply numbered from 1 through 8, in January 2004 they began to be named by year and month, and in August 2005 they were split into several subject categories.

I have also examined the list of links at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AllPages&namespace=4&from=Reference&to=Reference_desk%2FArchives%2FMiscellaneous%2F2007_October_16, of which the first leads to a list of links at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AllPages&namespace=4&from=Reference&to=Reference_desk%2FArchives%2FComputing%2F2007_March_12.

I suggest revising the present search box for "all" reference desk archives by changing the word "Archives" to "Archive" in the prefix. This will add the archives from January 2004 to mid-August 2005, but will still not include "all" archives.

For archives numbered 1 through 8, I suggest an additional search box with its own prefix, "Wikipedia:Reference Desk archive". This will include Wikipedia:Reference Desk archive unanswered, but will exclude Wikipedia:Reference Desk philosophies.

Here are two newly made search boxes, the second of which I have made as a replacement for the present one designated "Search (all) reference desk archives".

-- Wavelength (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) The Search buttons here worked unexpectedly. "Search all reference desk archives" performs well on a single click after the search term is entered. However the other buttons such as "Search computing reference desk archives" etc. merely link to another search engine that returns useless results of a meaningless search for " prefix:Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing" etc. It could be a useful page if the buttons functioned better. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

They worked fine for me. Are you sure you typed anything into the search box? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure that those new search boxes work entirely as I had expected. I am not sure whether the system distinguishes between "Desk" and "desk", or whether it counts punctuation such as "/". Therefore I have made another new search box with the prefix "Wikipedia:Reference". This will include one (or a few) unwanted page(s) such as Wikipedia:Reference Desk philosophies, but that is a minor inconvenience.

-- Wavelength (talk) 23:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Other editors might wish to copy User:Wavelength/About Wikipedia/Reference desk. -- Wavelength (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Why, when I scroll up and down, do those search boxes seem to change size? (They aren't actually different sizes, it's some kind of optical illusion.) --Tango (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Another "Is X black or white?" query

I've just answered the above on the Humanities RefDesk with what I intended to be a subtly discouraging response. If others think this was inappropriate, too bitey or whatever, my apologies and feel free to delete me: I just have an ill-defined uneasy feeling about this recent-ish series of similar questions, although I can't point my finger at definite inappropriateness on the OP's/OPs' part. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 03:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Your answer is good. But this gives me an idea how we can do this easier in future... See #Stock response below. — Sebastian 04:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree -- very good answer. (For those curious, the question -- until it gets archived -- is here, and 87's answer is here.) —Steve Summit (talk) 15:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

@87.81.230.195 IMHO with your good intentions you delivered a speech that implicitly supported the OP's apparent wish for a racist categorising by skin colour. Tiptoing on eggshells around a prejudice never changed one. It is the OP, not Google, that calls someone's wife black or white. Jayron's response that queried what image the OP is talking about was enough. My reply would be simply to snub the question with "Don't ask, don't tell." Cuddlyable3 (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC) Belatedly signed my post correctly.

Neptunerover

User:Neptunerover seems to be using the Refdesk in an attempt to push his theories regarding the Big Bang and gravity. Helpfully, he's summarised them on a subpage. Twice now he's caused rather large (and ultimately purposeless) debates regarding his theories. Is there anything to be done? Vimescarrot (talk) 11:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I am having trouble AGF with this user. The account is fairly new, and has a number of edits in article space. These seem to me to be nearly all pointless minor wording changes. That is behaviour known to be sometimes used by returning disruptive editors who wish to build up a "background" on a new clean account. I intend to treat this user as a troll and have posted an appropriate warning on their user page. SpinningSpark 12:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed some of the comments at the end of the thread (diff). We shouldn't diagnose our questioners as cranks, it looks ugly on the refdesk, and could discourage others from asking good faith questions. --NorwegianBlue^talk 10:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, although that is indented as a reply to me, it was not me who called him a crank. SpinningSpark 11:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, unindenting now. --NorwegianBlue^talk 12:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Does calling the OP a Crank add value to a thread?

User:Dauto reverted my removal of the comments at the end of the thread, which I deemed to be off-topic, and easily perceived as ridiculing the original poster. I therefore move them here:

I'm curious. Has anybody ever told you you are a crank or are you blissifully unaware of it? Dauto (talk) 15:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

He appears to be accepting the flaws in his hypothesis thanks to Gandalf61's reply. Cranks will vociferously deny that their hypothesis is wrong even when shown evidence is against it. I do find the non-sequitir worrying though (but we aren't allowed to make diagnoses on the ref desk). --Mark PEA (talk) 15:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I know one when I see one. Dauto (talk) 16:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

After viewing User:Neptunerover/Theory_About_Everything, I believe your judgement to be correct. --Mark PEA (talk) 03:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

(I bet his web page has text in too many colors - too much text to a page and lots of <center> tags.) SteveBaker (talk) 02:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I was going to post a concise and convincing response on this matter. But I don't have time today, so I'll try to do that tomorrow. ~A H 1^(TCU) 02:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, if the OP is a troll, we should not be feeding him with comments like these. If the OP is not a troll, we should be more polite. Whatever the motives of the OP may be, comments like these do not belong on the reference desk. If someone were genuinely interested in whether the OP previously had been called a crank, the question should have been asked on the OP's talk page. --NorwegianBlue^talk 21:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with that. I can't think of any circumstance where mocking someone like this would be productive. I found it tempting, but at the end of the day, the more you taunt them, the more they're likely to come back, and why would you want that? Vimescarrot (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I've noticed that the smartest people often have the most trouble ignoring trolls. I read and posted on rec.sport.baseball for years and frankly got fed up - not with the trolling, which most people learn to ignore after a little while on usenet, but with otherwise exceedingly intelligent posters taking the bait again and again and again. To paraphrase Thoreau, it takes two to troll. Matt Deres (talk) 01:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

First let me thank you for implying that I'm smart. I just want to point out that that's the second time that neptunerover has posted that question in a few days. We pointed out why his ideas don't work but he still came back with the same crazy question again. I think a change of strategy is appropriate. He clearly wants to talk about he's non-sense model. I wouldn't give it the light of day anymore and just keep telling him his a crank (which he is). Or at least tell him that his model is a cranky model (to avoid personal attack). He might be put off and leave. Dauto (talk) 02:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with moving those comments here. I've visited Neptunerover's userpage and Theory of Everything article a few times now over the past 24 hours, and with the constant changes he is making (and - as I mentioned earlier - non-sequitir), I kind of feel sorry for the guy. He might be a talented person if he were to apply himself correctly, but at the moment the things he is typing just render him as an eccentric (where as in his head it probably all makes perfect sense). --Mark PEA (talk) 02:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I know you're smart, Dauto, so I felt safe making the implication :). Matt Deres (talk) 03:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Havn't read the thread here, but the use of all these <hr> tags reminds me very much of the old reference desk of years past... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.145 (talk) 17:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually I think that Mark PEA pointing out his Theory of Everything userpage did add value to the Refdesk, in that it illuminates where he's coming from, for the benefit of the answerers; and it also illuminated the low likelihood that the guy is going to do some reading and math in order to move away from the XKCD cartoon linked in the thread. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

About the XKCD thing, that process no longer works, and the reason why is mentioned in my !vote within the MfD for the OP's "Theory of Everything" page. By the way, I was going to post a convincing response, but I have no time today again. But first of all, we are not linguistic psychologists, are we? Therefore we cannot simply assume that the OP is a crank just because his argument does not fit the current scientific theory. Some people are keen to assume, but this does not nessecarily work. However, if the OP is making unsourced additions to articles, then the article should be monitored, and any detailed disruptive additions deleted and moved to the talk page. But I am seeing that the Wikipedia community is struggling after the past year, so if we want to do better than a few things may need to change. I might post my "response" eventually, but just FYI, here is something I posted that offers a parallel discussion to this topic, and remember that with this particular topic (calling someone a crank), I am able to make more directly relavent points, though not today. This comment may seem a little bit tangential, but sometimes the tangent goes around the universe and back to the circle. However, this assumes that the universe is closed, round and non-infinite, not flat or saddle-shaped. But that's yet another tangent. So it often helps to think outside the box, but what if the box is three dimensional, four dimensional, five dimensional...or even eleven-dimensions? Often, making a self-evident argument does not immediately cause someone to be a "crank". Some skeptics even call Wikipedia a crank. So while we need rigorous standards so we don't end up making Wikipedia look bad, there is still a near-infinite number of topics we could write about, though not an infinite number of users. Endless debate when a new theory is introduced sometimes produces not a solution, but this. Assumption causes this, and since we it is more difficult to assume anything about an OP over the Internet, that's probably not nessecary. So while Wikipedia is not a soapbox nor intended for advocacy, sometimes it happens in a way that does not break the rules. Anybody remember the time an OP asked us a question for street directions on the reference desk, and it worked? That's thinking outside the box. By the way, I was also going to ask for a separate reference desk for topics such as psychology, philosophy, paradoxes etc, but I'll make my case for that later. Please take this into consideration. It's a new decade, after all. (Warning: might even be a little too convincing, although this is not the point I was trying to make earlier on the reference desk before the discussion moved here, although it is an analogy.) Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 02:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

My eyes somewhat glossed over and I stopped reading when I reached the part of thinking outside the box. Therefore I don't really know what you're point is but wikipedians as editors by and large shouldn't be thinking outside the box as editors. Personally I have a variety of words for people who come up with wacky theories particular those so full of holes as this one apparently was (I didn't read it myself but I do trust those who did far more then the person who came up with it), but won't mention them because of WP:NPA and WP:Civil although suffice to say, crank seems to me to be one of the friendlier words to use although I obviously agree it's best to avoid it. Regardless, whatever you want to call such people, if they come to wikipedia to push their theories, be they in articles, their user pages or in the RD, they need to be told to stop and if they don't it needs to be enforced. As I hinted at in another post in relation to this, and have said often in other cases, there are plenty of places that would welcome such 'theories', but wikipedia isn't one of them. I find it highly unlikely any reputable theory will be first proposed or successful dissemated primarily via wikipedia and allow people to attempt to do so will just achieve the opposite i.e. make wikipedia be even less likely to be seen as a useful resource. Ultimately wikipedia sides with the WP:RS since that's the way it's designed, so if editors think the WP:RS are "cranks" then they definitely should think of wikipedia as a "crank" as you seemed to mention. In some ways it should be a badge of honour since it shows we're doing our jobs properly and wikipedia is never going to be that welcoming to those sort of people. Nil Einne (talk) 10:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the thrust of Nil's point above (and also admit that I gave up caring about whatever point AH1 was going for about a third of the way in...). Insulting the guy probably did no good, but I agree that the questions devolved into something less than useless and there seems to be evidence that this was part of a set of questionable behaviour/actions, etc. Unlike being a creep (see thread below), using WP as a soapbox is explicitly against policy and should be dealt with. Matt Deres (talk) 01:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem here (and perhaps the reason to apply the 'crank' label) is that this person thinks they are doing science by trotting out some random collection of science-sounding words. Equating gravity to time might be an interesting concept if it had come from the mind of someone who understood the current body of work on cosmology and had done some math or perhaps tied this to the results of some experiment or other. But this person says that he neither understands the existing body or work - nor is able to do any math. He has claimed to have written a book - doubtless some 'vanity press' kind of a thing. That is a sad thing. He clearly wants to make a contribution to science - but simply does not exhibit the skills to do so in any meaningful way. He might as well go around saying that energy should be equated with an octopus or that an elephant should be equated with the cosmic background radiation - without some kind of formal definition of what is meant by that - or why we should come to this conclusion, it's just techospeak babble. It's simply meaningless unless it relates to math or experiment or (perhaps) expands upon some existing, reliable proposition.

That someone has these ideas doesn't make him a crank. But when that someone refuses to understand that what they are doing is meaningless...that edges them much closer towards crank-hood. What makes WP:RDS contributors cease to AGF is that this person is blatantly using Wikipedia to push these crazy ideas - he's violating WP:NOT#ESSAY and WP:NOTSOAPBOX as well as WP:NOTWEBHOST by creating sub-pages of his user account to push these ideas - and now he's abusing the Ref Desk to promote them by asking long non-questions in the hope of stirring up interest in these theories. So, crank or not-crank, troll or not-troll - this person is without doubt behaving inappropriately and should cease doing this or "the wrath of admins" will undoubtedly befall him. His behavior on the WP:MfD that is debating the removal of this material isn't helping much. He had a little support there - but it's vanishing fast as his behavior worsens. SteveBaker (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree that the issue is not whether he is a crank (he probably is, but who cares), but whether this is just a misuse of the RefDesk, Wikipedia, etc. There are no rules against being a crank. You just can't use Wikipedia in crankish ways—promoting and testing out pet theories, etc. It's not the place for it. It wouldn't be so bad if the questions were a bit more sane and he wasn't so insistent on making a muddle of answers. But they are and he is and it's just not a proper use of the RefDesk as a result. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Quibble: The cranks do not actually use what SteveBaker called a "random collection of science-sounding words". In my experience, that is never what the cranks generate. There is always meaning; it's just wrong and they can't back it up, and then usually get frustrated or angry when challenged and they lack the ability to back it up. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

RL stalker

This post has resulted in an indef block. Should we delete it and its replies? Tevildo (talk) 19:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I say yes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Ugh. Firstly, the hamfisted way this has been handled makes me sick. Secondly, nothing that user did deserves a block. "Stalking" is entirely subjective, and the user at no point threatened violence. Simply keeping track of someone and trying to be part of their life isn't illegal anywhere as far as I'm aware. Cross-posting this at an/i. If this block is allowed to stand as it is, I've entirely lost faith in wikipedias administration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.145 (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You want we should wait until it turns violent? The stuff he's talking about is the same pattern as your typical murderous stalker. Read about John Hinkley vs. Jodie Foster and see how that progressed. And his user page (now zapped) was all about "obsessive love". Not only no value to the wikipedia project, but also the police should be notified. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a bullshit argument. The user did NOTHING to deserve a block. Being weird is not a crime. Anyone can turn violent at any point, should we block you because there's an off chance you might turn violent? No, of course not. Innocent until proven guilty. And regardless, blocking them does nothing to prevent violence in the real world, and in fact may very well lead to them becoming violent as they've been denied an outlet when they attempted to reach for help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.145 (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You wouldn't be saying that if you had seen their user page. They were using wikipedia as therapy of some sort. That's not wikipedia's purpose. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter now, they've been unblocked.

You've got to be kidding. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

While I have not seen the userpage, and while I do not condone the behavior of the subject of this discussion, I do not see any disruptive actions, which are what blocks are generally given for. Strange? Sure. Criminal? Unlikely. In either case, that falls outside of our purview. Googlemeister (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The post began with two mental-condition links (1), (2) and a sentence later throws in a sickly self-referential interpretation: "they...intentionally don't log in so they don't have to talk to me." If that didn't make it smell FAKE the voluminous babble that quickly followed (and the colour-crafted user page) confirmed it. It wants attention. WP:DENY it. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Eh, attention seeking maybe, but there's no evidence the persons behavior is being faked. Just because it's odd doesn't mean it's a troll.

I don't think it warranted a block, or getting hysterical. It warrants pointing out that what the person is describing would probably be considered scary and offensive by the recipient, and may violate a number of local laws. And that's about it. They may be nuts but that's not really our business. If they described a really horrible crime that was about to occur (or even something that was without doubt against the law), maybe we should think about reporting it (depends on the crime, in my opinion), but they haven't done that. The "stalking" behavior they've described is creepy but I'm not sure it would be considered illegal. RefDesk is not the place for this, in the end. I saw the user page and it didn't have much on it at all. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I also didn't see the subpage (and don't particularly care to), so I can't comment on that content, but I don't think the postings I saw on the actual desks warranted any intervention at all, other than the commonsense advice about how badly they could be interpreted. FWIW, this guy was far from the first person to post a opinion question about unrequited "love" on the RefDesk. Matt Deres (talk) 00:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The user's entire contributions as of a day or two ago, aside from the stalking question, was a pdf uploaded in November, called "Psycological [sic] profile", since deleted as "inappropriate", which had a flowchart about low self-esteem, social ineptitude, obsessive love, delusional disorder, paranoia, depression, addiction, and other cheery stuff. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Has nobody brought up the Medical Disclaimer? The obvious response is to apply the medical disclaimer. Attempting to diagnose this individual, either as a healthy or unhealthy, is performing a psychiatric diagnosis. We do not do this on the reference desk. Direct the OP to the appropriate articles and inform them of our medical disclaimer, and encourage them to seek professional counseling if they need diagnosis. Posting psychiatric symptoms and asking "is this normal" is exactly the same as if they posted photographs of a wounded limb and asked if it was serious. We do not diagnose medical and psychiatric conditions no matter how "obvious" anything may seem to us. I removed this question and applied our RD-med template. Nimur (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Here we go again – the medical advice crew. That question was not a request for medical advice, and any response to it would not have been a medical diagnosis. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 15:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The first line of Psychiatry states: "Psychiatry is the medical specialty devoted to the study and treatment of mental disorders." Do you disagree? The OP asked whether his/her behavior and emotional/mental state was normal and healthy. That is an explicit request for psychiatric diagnosis. Nimur (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

No she didn't, she asked for moral guidance and society's/respondents' views on whether or not her proposed behaviour was morally acceptable. That's a request for opinion, no more and no less. Opinion-based questions are strictly outside the remit of these desks, but they tend to get viewed in a relaxed way. I've asked, and answered, a few myself. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 15:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, I point out the parallel hypothetical example. If she posted a photograph of her injured leg, and then asked for moral and societal opinions on whether the leg were wounded or normal, we would not answer that either. Nimur (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

And who are you to say that, on the evidence of her question, she has a psychiatric disorder? That is somewhat less cut-and-dried matter than an injured leg. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 16:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I have noticed that half the strong viewpoints expressed here refer to the OP as male and half as female, somewhat showing a slight lack of thorough observation and confusion in regards to the situation. As far as those who support the validity of the OP's question-I must ask- where are the answers provided with references? Sometimes I think it is best to simply ignore such questions. After all, what is considered "morally acceptable" is going to vary between an individual's location, religion, status, health, etc. A primitive jungle dweller will probably have a different idea of what is 'morally acceptable' than an educated wealthy business person. but then again, perhaps not :) . At any rate, if this question was asked at a physical library desk, the appropriate response would probably be :" go seek some professional help". 10draftsdeep (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) No it wouldn't. It would be "that's not the sort of question we can really answer for you, but here are some opinions for what they're worth." Again I say: there is no evidence from the question that the questioner is ill, so to suggest that she needs to seek medical advice or counselling is misguided. She said she was female on her userpage, by the way. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 19:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeh, right. "Obsessive love, delusional disorder, paranoia, depression, addiction". But not ill. Nope. By the way, did you follow the flow of that question? Asked if stalking was moral or not. Then twisted the responses to conclude that it was OK, which is what it wanted to hear. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you are being trolled if you ask me. Theresa Knott | token threats 21:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't be the first time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Bugs, it's not valid to jump to the conclusion that the poster is on the verge of violence, or even to believe self-diagnoses of mental illnesses. The question should have been dismissed as outside of the purview of the Refdesk (or maybe tolerated per Richardrj), but not removed on medical-advice grounds. It was not a medical advice question. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

He wanted to know if it was "moral" to stalk someone. Hence more of a legal question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Bugs, when I saw this come up yesterday, my initial thought was that you could best have responded by closing the question up in a {{hidden}} box with a note that we don't comment on "moral views" / open-ended question / unsourceable / ask for an opinion. Then I thought about what would happen if B.Bugs actually ever did that on an RD question, even a clearly inappropriate one and decided that it would be better even to deal with an obsessive potential stalker than the fallout of OMG-Bugs!! Nevertheless, I think it was an inappropriate Q, your first response was correct (at least the bit where you said it was inappropriate, the part where you went on to give an opinion, opening the door for more wanderings, less so), and the whole thing should have been bundled up without substantive response. Franamax (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

My first instinct was to delete it, but I figured that would cause trouble. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah trouble, thy very name is Bugs. ;) What is poking at my mind is putting {{hidden begin}} and {{hidden end}} around the question, setting title=Inappropriate question removed, then writing outside and below the collapse box your signed reason for "removing" the question. It will still be there with the Show button, can still be answered, can have the collapse box removed - but the casual reader just sees a "removal". This would be for edge cases like this one and would require mandatory notification here on talk I'd imagine. Franamax (talk) 02:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes I guess wrong. I asked him to ask himself if stalking was moral, and he said it was. Hence he already had answered the question in his own mind, so I don't see what the point was in bringing it here. You may as well put brackets around it and be done with it. Maybe encrypt it with a subliminally-related password, such as "Silk". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to the people who actually read it and aren’t just picking fault with what I said.

I'm just going to make few points as the person that asked the question:

1) Bugs, I don't see why you judge people so quickly but I wish you'd spend at least a tenth of that time judging yourself and your actions. Also, you pretend to have had an in-depth look at my page, you clearly didn't notice that I'm FEMALE!
2) Many questions are asked on the RefDesks asking about subjective things such as love and morals and the like. An apt example of a question about morals that received real responses is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009_December_28#A_Moral_dillemma

3)None of my actions have been unlawful, and furthermore, even if they were a block for that doesn’t seem correct - Wikipedia is not the police. I'm sure those in gaol could contribute greatly to the project.
4) "You want we should wait until it turns violent?" Bugs talks rubbish and his speculation is not only unfounded but also directly contradicts what I've said.
5) My links to mental conditions are only as much mental conditions as love is. They were giving a background about me so you could properly judge if it were moral.
6) The question wasn't about psychiatric diagnosis at all, it was about morals. Anyone who believes otherwise clearly didn't read what I said properly.

"That question was not a request for medical advice, and any response to it would not have been a medical diagnosis." --Richardrj

7)"OP asked whether his/her behaviour and emotional/mental state was normal and healthy. That is an explicit request for psychiatric diagnosis." No Nimur, I didn't I asked where moral boundaries lie. Did you read what I wrote?
8) "Asked if stalking was moral or not." Bugs lies! I asked about befriending. Nothing about stalking.
9) I'm not mentally ill. Firstly, self diagnosis is never accurate. Secondly, as I stated, everyone has mental condition or another - I even linked to wikipedia which claimed drunkenness was a mental disorder.
10)"He wanted to know if it was "moral" to stalk someone. Hence more of a legal question" Ugh, more of Bugs' rubbish. No, not legal, moral. And no, not stalk, befriend. Stop twisting my words!
11) The .pdf was only deleted because I asked for it to be as it was being manipulated so it could be used against me.

I asked a question about morals on befriending a colleague of an acquaintance and this was misinterpreted as some kind of for request psychological analysis and stuff about stalking. This conversation is now practically pointless, I asked a question in the wrong place, this question was misinterpreted. Simple. Threewords,eightletters... (talk) 03:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The reference desk can't answer your question. This is neither a positive or negative assertion about any psychiatric condition. We are refraining from making any judgement call about the situation because we are unqualified to make such judgements. That is our standard policy whenever we are unsure about these sorts of matters. Nimur (talk) 09:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? It was a request for advice and moral guidance. Why do you have to bring judgements about the questioner's psychiatric condition into it? Such considerations are not relevant. If someone asked for guidance on whether they should download a movie for free, would you immediately play the "no medical diagnosis" card? This is no different. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 09:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Nimur, I'm begging you here, *please* read what was written. If you don't want to, then please stop commenting, and undo your removal of the question! It's nothing about anything psychiatric, it is about what YOU would do in this situation and social protocol. You can't make a judgement call? Well, that's where I am; nor can I, hence I'm asking people. But surely you could give some kind of opinion, and even if you can't, I'm not forcing anyone to answer. So what's the issue?

Standard *theoretical* policy! Search the RefDesks for "unrequited love", "love", "morals", etc., you'll find that many of the questions are, in fact answered, such as the example given above (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009_December_28#A_Moral_dillemma)

Clearly people on here don't know (and can't be bothered to look) what was said, then stop commenting with half a story! Those who have actually looked clearly can see it was merely about guidance, as Richardj has had to point out once again.

Threewords,eightletters... (talk) 13:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the question, see edit summary for details —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.145 (talk) 14:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

And I've deleted it again. It's not an appropriate question for the ref desk in any case, as it's calling for opinions, not facts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

And I've restored it again. We don't just remove questions which ask for opinions, we simply say we can't answer them and direct the OP to yahoo answers or something This is no different. The removal of the question is unwarranted and unnecessary.

And the IP deleted it again. Hard telling why he's taken such a personal interest in that user. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd support any user who's being treated unjustly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.145 (talk) 14:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, he wanted opinions. Here's mine: Stalking is NOT legal, it is NOT moral, and it is NOT socially acceptable. Any further questions? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

And regardless of how the user frames the question, the nature of the question combined with the user's original claim to be obsessed and delusional, suggests the possible need for professional help of some kind, either medical or legal or both. And such help is beyond the scope of the ref desk. The OP should consult a doctor and/or a lawyer, not the ref desk. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, stalking is subjective, so it's rather hard to know exactly what it entails in this situation, or whether it is illegal or not. Secondly, the OP never once mentioned stalking, you've invented that part yourself. They said they wanted to befriend someone, and befriending people is not illegal anywhere as far as I know. Thirdly, regardless of the above points, the question is still not asking for any sort of medical advice so does not need to be removed. The OPs state of mind is irrelevant; the question itself is what we're talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.145 (talk) 15:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks 82.44.54.145. Not anything on this stalking lark because that wasn't said by me, those words come from the twisting of mine, but, Bugs, isn't it interesting that your willing to throw your unwanted opinion around about someone's psyche when you don't know much about them, yet you run from a question asking about the general opinion of the moral aspect of befriending someone? I find it so at least. Threewords,eightletters... (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The way you described your activities sounded like stalking. Put yourself in the other one's shoes and think about whether you would appreciate being haunted by someone who thinks they're in love with you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I have put myself in their shoes, and I did state that if that were done to me I'd feel uneasy about it, hence I regret doing it. Befriending one of thier friends isn't stalking, though, so I needed further clarification on whether it was OK; I get the answer loud and clear. It's not being haunted by me as they willingly respond to messages, and have never once asked me not to talk to them - even after I've given my interperatation of my feelings, which linked heavily to Wikipedia and included strong mention of obsessive love and limerence. Since the question on the RefDesk, to ensure my communicating with them is not harassment, I've explicitly asked if they wish me not to be in their life; I'm waiting for a response. I don't just think I'm in love, I am in love. According to Wikipedia's Triangular theory of love, I think it is pretty safe to say it is Consummate love. Anyway, hopefully that's cleared things up, so can we put this all behind us now? Threewords,eightletters... (talk) 21:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

That's one test for whether something is "moral" about some activity. If you switch places, and don't feel good about it, then that's your answer. And if you're still waiting for a response from that person, then you already know what their answer is, and you had best move on and find someone who wants you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, that's what I'll use next time on making such judgements. It occurs to me that if just that were said to me as a response the question, none of this drama would have happened. It's quite funny actually.

I send messages to an account that I can see when they've last logged in and I only sent the question 10-or-so hours ago - it takes me a long time to script something that I feel is worthy sending. They haven't logged in yet, but if the next time they log in they don't respond, I'll get the message.

No one's going to want me and I don't want anyone else. Anyway that's my own issue.

Thanks for the help and I hope our future communications go somewhat more smoothly. Threewords,eightletters... (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Taking a defeatist attitude will not serve your interests well. The world is full of people looking for someone. There are many options. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I could have relationships with others while I wait for the love to be requited, but that shows a lack of devotion, loyalty and sincerity in the love. That, I believe, would work very much to my detriment.

But, judging by your "look at it from their point of view"-esque way of judging whether something is moral, it would be immoral to be in an intimate relationship with someone when you really care for someone else more. Also, I believe relationship is doomed from the start if the person you try to have that relationship with isn't the most important person in your life in that sense.

And then, it gets even more complicated if that someone else reciprocates the love, then what do you do? - what is right and what is wrong? Surely it is immoral to leave someone for someone else, but, on the other hand, it is your life and you should spend it with who you want to spend it with, as they say: all's fair in love and war.

The only way to have a relationship with someone other than the person I love now is to destroy the love, but I don't really want to - it's what defines my life. If it is merely limerence, and it possibly is, then I approximate (from past experiences) that this love should end around Jan 2011. At which point I could have another relationship.

Oh, that all relies upon others wanting me but few others actually will. I'm not particularly good looking, my personality isn't great and (judging from my grades) I'm far from intelligent. Some could say that my views on myself seem like I have an inferiority complex, but I don't, trust me, I genuinely am inferior to most people. Also, that wouldn't explain my narcissistic/superiority complex-esque views of myself too - great at formal writing; perfect driver; pretty darn knowledgeable; etc.

I’m not all that bothered what’s best for me anymore, but thanks for trying. Threewords,eightletters... (talk) 23:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The thing that most people don't understand about Wikipedia is that nobody has a "right" to use this website. Our goal is to let anyone edit the encyclopedia - but if you are more trouble than you're worth - you can (and arguably should) be kicked out. When you look at a borderline blocking case, just ask yourself: "Is this user going to improve the encyclopedia to a greater degree than he/she worsens it over his/her time here?" - if the answer is "no" - then we might as well block them. We don't owe these people a thing. A blocked user can still use the encyclopedia - we don't stop them from reading it - we aren't denying them any rights - we aren't even reducing the value of the encyclopedia to them. All we're saying is that we don't want their "help" in writing it because they are making it worse, not better. SteveBaker (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

"if you are more trouble than you're worth [you] should be kicked out"

Those who are more trouble than their worth do get blocked. But those who have potential to be trouble shouldn't be, everyone has that potential. Most of us don't have the crystal ball to proficy the future actions of others, as you suggest should be done...

"Is this user going to improve the encyclopedia to a greater degree than he/she worsens it over his/her time here?"

If a user has purposely and continually made Wikipedia worse, then they should be blocked for their past actions, as they are. But unless their actions warrant a block, they shouldn't be. Wikipedia is a community, we shouldn't block people when they haven't done wrong, if we do, Wikipedia will never survive.

I don't see where you see an issue; we do block those detrimental to the project.

Threewords,eightletters... (talk) 02:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Totalitarianism

Jayron32 removed the Orwell/socialism/totalitarianism thread on the Humanities desk, and I disagree with the removal. (Note: Not enough to revert, but enough to bring it up here.) I think the poster's last question in the thread, and his new section, were yellow-going-to-red flags, but even if he was trolling, I learned something from the thread — namely Mr.98's statement that in the US, "socialism" has become a buzzword for "totalitarianism", and even though I had myself compared the two terms in the previous paragraph, I hadn't made this connection in this way before. Anyway, based on my history here I clearly am less troll-sensitive (and less troll-aware) than many others here, but can we revisit the threshold for removal of an entire thread (containing lucid comments from answerers) based on trolling? Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

This seems kind of silly. OK, someone asks a fine question (I suspected it was a bit homeworky to be honest), then gets snippy in their responses. IMHO that's a good time to just stop responding. I'm not sure it warrants dropping the whole thread though. It seems a bit like throwing out the baby with the bathwater, especially when a few half-way decent responses had been given. (I had not seen the Orwell quote that Comet Tuttle had posted and got something out of that, myself.) --Mr.98 (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

That was a borderline case, but it seemed that the OP came here with a preconceived idea and wanted to foment an argument. Yes, in the USA among extreme right-wingers, the terms "liberal", "socialist" and "communist" (and by implication, totalitarian) are pretty much all considered the same thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I would say the OP is clearly unwelcome. The snipping on the RD was bad but this vandalism shows the OP clearly has bad intentions. The only other contributions were this other silly or perhaps non- question and another edit which may be vandalism. Whether the first question should have been deleted, I don't know Nil Einne (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Certainly unwelcome, then. I think the proper solution here was to keep the thread, but hat the part of the thread starting with his statement that he knows that socialism leads inevitably to totalitarianism. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

There he goes again

This edit, made a whole six minutes after the original post, shows our friend back to his usual level of RD posting. Pace Dweller, not much of a concerted effort being made there, methinks. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 10:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I must admit, even though many people seem to dislike his joking posts, I share the same sense of humour - I find him quite funny when he jokes. Threewords,eightletters... (talk) 11:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Nothing objectionable at all in that post, in my opinion. The posted question was problematic. It was hardly out-of-the-ordinary problematic. It was merely not straightforward. Again, in merely my opinion. Bus stop (talk) 11:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

BB's recent RD contributions have been almost 100% on topic and "serious". I see no problem here. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It could have been worse. I could have advised the OP that questions about torture belong in the "Entertainment" ref desk. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I'd say, regardless of whether you think it's funny, it's clearly an on-topic joke, responding to a light-hearted question. And I for one didn't think he should never make jokes, but moderate their frequency. I think Bugs has responded admirably to the request I made. And the OP seemed to like it, on this occasion. --Dweller (talk) 11:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

And the OP thanked me for pointing him to the Torture article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Bus Stop, Gandalf61 and Dweller. The large majority of Bugs's contributions on the refdesk after Dweller's request and the discussion above, have been sourced, relevant answers to the OPs' questions. An occasional joke doesn't hurt (and thanks, Bugs, for *not* referring this questioner to the entertainment desk). --NorwegianBlue^talk 20:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Ironically, after having been unexpectedly raked over the coals here again, and noting some devices referenced on the torture page, a voice keeps saying, "NO ONE expects the Spanish Inquisition!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to judge whether or not the joke was funny, but it was a one-off, it did make sense, it was clearly a joke and it was on-topic. If anyone else had made that joke, nobody would have complained. --Tango (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see any problem with this, and it did demonstrate a good point about the OPs question on torture; that mental torture can be equally if not more painful than physical torture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.124 (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yet another irony. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Stock response

Bus stop wrote "Initial responders need simply pose a question to the OP asking for clarification or restatement or reframing of question.", and Jack of Oz proposed a stock response. Just after that, 87.81.230.195 reported Another "Is X black or white?" query, which also could have been simply answered with such a stock response. I therefore propose we use the following generic wording:

Before we can answer your question, please explain to us why you are asking this question.

and mark the topic with {{Stale|Waiting for OP to reply.}}, so that other editors can skip over the question. — Sebastian 04:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a good approach. It's worth a try. I would add that if someone somehow definitively knows the answer to the question the OP is asking, they could rub out the "stock response". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course! I even think it would be appropriate to do so when someone thought it was a cromulent question after all. In either case, the editor would naturally also remove the {{stale}} template and add a new post with either a reply or an interpretation/explanation of the question. — Sebastian 05:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I think a simple "Why do you ask?" would suffice. —Steve Summit (talk) 15:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Normally, it should. But knowing the RD crowd, people will be so eager to post opinions, witticisms and off-topic talk that those four little words will quickly be drowned. — Sebastian 19:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Given that we've discussed this user's posting habits several times before (most recently in September), I think pre-emptive deletion is also a reasonable response to repeated questions of this sort -- though I avoid that once someone else has already answered. — Lomn 21:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Either of "please explain to us why you are asking.." and "why do you ask" seem quite intrusive to me. The object is to discover more about what information the OP is seeking, but the wording says "why do you want to know?", which we don't actually care about. How about "In order to answer your question, we need more information. Can you explain more clearly what problem you are trying to solve?" Franamax (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Or to keep it short, "Please elaborate" or "Please explain further". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

In general, I'm not in favour of tiptoeing around an issue or using a (mild and with a purpose) form of deceit with a questioner. I'm also not in favour of needing to know why a question is being asked - unless of course there's an actual need for clarification. If answering a question about someone's ethnic background makes you (in the generic sense of you, this isn't directed at anyone in particular), then you shouldn't answer the question, just as you shouldn't answer a question if you have no idea what the answer is.

I have a degree in anthropology; I've had it beaten into my head more than most that the idea of race is very much a social one and based only upon the flimsiest of genetic pretexts. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You can claim race has no scientific meaning (I'd agree), but there's no point claiming Barack Obama isn't black... because he is. If someone asks us if George Washington was white, why not just be honest and say "yes"? What would be the point of getting in their face about why they're asking? The answer is obvious, so say it. If the answer isn't obvious, then say so and explain why. A racist or unconscious racist isn't going to get educated by refusing to answer, but maybe they'll get an understanding of the realities involved if we say "x would be considered white by these standards, but Asian by those standards, which is why it's important to realize that classing people by race is just a social construct easily open to multiple interpretations." Matt Deres (talk) 02:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, even if race does not have much of any genetic meaning, it does still have that social meaning. It's a very real social meaning and one that has refused to be dismissed even in the face of knowing it has no genetic meaning. I think that the urge to say, "it has no genetic meaning!" is a nice knee-jerk approach that most of us who went to college in the last, oh, twenty years or so have been trained to say in response, but in many cases it is a non sequitur, since when people ask about someone's race they are often not intending us to give a genetic answer. I think explaining race in terms of who would think it is more useful than just saying "it's meaningless!" because it's not meaningless. It has loads of meaning—it just isn't something determined by straightforward one-drop-rule genetics. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually I agree with Matt Deres, FWIW. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

How about please see our article on xyz, if it is notable that will provide a citation listing their color. Dmcq (talk) 10:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

71.100 is back

71.100, a well known problematic RD contributor is back. I'm not sure whether he/she's a troll but ultimately the history shows major problems from this user and the recent contribs to RD/C aren't much better so I suggest they either be ignored or their questions deleted. I noticed this yesterday but sadly didn't do anything about it and even made a few responses, my bad. Nil Einne (talk) 12:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it a range, or is it a specific IP? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Range. You can see that [2] where they changed IP from the previous one. Nil Einne (talk) 13:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I see. It looks like the first three numbers are the same, the fourth one changes, so it might be a candidate for a range block. Its latest contrib at the Computer desk is this: [3] Is that a problematic entry? I can't really tell. But if a range of IP's is causing trouble, I would think you could take it to WP:ANI and report what's going on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry it took so long but while I'm not an admin it's unlikely a range block is feasible. If you do a whois, you'll see the range is part of a netblock belong to Verizon that is from 71.96.0.0 - 71.127.255.255 so theoretically the editor could fall into that entire range. In reality, Verizon may distribute the netblock in such a way that the editor could only have a smaller subset. But the editor has definitely been under different parts of the 71.100 range before e.g. 71.100.0 and I see he/she's now at 71.100.160. In any case, even blocking the entire 71.100.4.x range for a total of 256 (well probably 254) addresses is likely to be seen as too much collateral damage for one user even given that the long term disruption, while annoying is not continous. And once we expand it to an entire netblock of 71.100 i.e. 65,536 addresses it'll be seen as even worse. This is similar with a number of other well known problematic users e.g. the one mentioned below or the one who harasses you I believe is similar. BTW, the latest entry was a continuation of a long running series of complaints relating to some bad experience this user alleged had with a product bought off Ebay where the user often attacked anyone who said something they didn't like or didn't read the entire series of complaints and started to came off as more of a rant then a genuine questions, which seems to be common trend with this user. Nil Einne (talk) 04:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleted joke

I've deleted this bit of puerility. I hope that's within-process. Tevildo (talk) 23:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, sadly another well known problematic user Nil Einne (talk) 00:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

And wouldn't you know what the SMBC was today... —Akrabbim^talk 04:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I recall Carl Sagan used to pronounce that planet's name with the emphasis on the first syllable, which is technically correct. That made it sound like "urine-us", which was presumed to be an improvement over the more common pronunciation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Please notify the contributor what you have done and on what basis when objectionable material is removed. Edison (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a UK-based IP with a grand total of 3 contributions, on the 3rd, 6th and 9th, of which the first two appear to be legit, so it's probably a dynamic IP. But this really highlights another issue. There's been plenty of discussion here about, "Yeh, we should zap inappropriate entries", but when someone actually does, even when it's obviously a junior-high level joke like this one, someone else says, "No, no, no!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

uw-v1 template added to the talk page. Tevildo (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

They should have stuck with "The Georgian Star", I think - none of this would have happened. :) Tevildo (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Anything from 79.75.x and 79.67.x is a Tiscali DSL IP and can be deleted safely from the Reference Desks. It's a well-known banned user and sockpuppeteer. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

After checking it's actually vandalism or whatever of course; this isn't a license to just blindly revert everything without assuming good faith, as said above that's a huge range of dynamic ips shared by loads of people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.124 (talk) 11:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It's been checked. In the last year, there has never been a contribution from those ranges (to the Ref Desks) that wasn't from the banned user in question. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't preclude the possibility of constructive edits coming from that range in the future. I'm just saying, before blindly reverting everything at least check to see if it's constructive or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.124 (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

One should always check what an edit was before reverting. There's always a chance they might make a useful contribution, even if it's by accident. Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn sometimes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Not always, Bugs. Consider a volunteer at a real library reference desk. Suppose that half the time, they offer good, useful, constructive advice to library patrons, and half the time they respond with profanity and hurl excrement. Moreover, the volunteer in this case is an adult, and fully aware of what is, and is not, acceptable behaviour in society. In such a case, we ask that person to leave. It's no longer our desire to search through their shit looking for kernels of value, and such edits can and should be reverted on sight. See Wikipedia:Banning policy for more. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Trouble is, you can't ban IP's. And I'm not talking about searching anything. I'm saying if an IP posts a reasonable question, you normally would not delete it. And I don't intend to memorize which subnets are considered to be vandals so as to blindly revert them as soon as you see it's from that subnet - I would still see what they wrote in that particular instance. Maybe a warning could be posted on the page somehow? "Watch out for the following IP range", or whatever? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Bugs, you can't "ban" ips. TenOfAllTrades example of the volunteer at a real library reference desk doesn't work because we have no way of determining whether the person on the other side of the ip is the banned user or an innocent user trying to help out. Given this is a large range of ips we're dealing with, there is always the possibility that someone unrelated might try and edit constructively in the future. Of course, pay special attention to edits coming from that range, but do not just revert everything without checking if it's constructive or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.124 (talk) 14:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

To both of you — I'm not saying I expect everyone to know these IPs at a glance, though it would be unsurprising if many Ref Desk regulars did recognize them after years of experience. I just caution that you shouldn't be surprised if posts from these IPs are deleted on sight. We've accumulated sufficient experience (as I said, years) with this editor to know that he's almost certainly the only one from this IP range who edits the Ref Desk. (I have checked the 79.75 range's contributions; his style and interests are...distinctive.) His posts wouldn't be deleted if he didn't have such a long and (unfortunately) consistent history of trolling, stalking, vandalism (to the Desk, to user pages, and to article space), and harrassment. I'll even go out on a limb and say that if we mistakenly lose one or two posts a year from 'innocent' users of the same ISP, that's acceptable collateral damage. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that, regardless of the source, we should at least look at what the post is before zapping it. It might well be a case of "it's that guy again" most of the time, but it's still worth a look. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Werewolf question

Some newly-registered user posted a question asking whether werewolves are real or not, then proceeded to mock the answers he got. Any reason not to delete the section? Or should we cut some slack to a supposed newbie? Especially as his first act was to ask to be "adopted". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I would support deleting it. Even if we AGF it still is inappropriate and the newbie can be told this in a polite way. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Strongly oppose deletion. "Are werewolves real or fake?" is a perfectly legitimate question, if a little sad that it needs to be asked. The initial answer ("fake", plus a link) is perfectly legitimate. The only controversial bit is that a lot of stuff got added after that, and I note with some irony that Bugs generated a great deal of it. — Lomn 21:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The OP started it with his mocking response to the reasonable answer that you pointed out, and when I asked if the question was a joke, the response affirmed it was, so after that it didn't matter. However, as someone pointed out, that's the "Miscellaneous" ref desk, so trying to say that a question there is "inappropriate" is harder to justify. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey ‘Bugs’. If you haven't already, read the OP's talk page. It explains all. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

And judging by the answers which followed, the moral of this story is, don't feed the trolls unless you want a clusterf*ck of stupidity on the RefDesk. I joined in too, so I take part of the blame. --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 13:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:RD/M

An anon user has been changing WP:RD/M from redirection to the Misc desk to the Math desk. It has been a redirect to the Misc desk for as long as I can remember and it stayed that way from 2007 until recently. Can we please establish a consensus on this issue and stop the edit war between IPs. --antilived^{T | C | G} 10:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Establish consensus? I'm pretty sure we have a consensus, and have had for years. If someone wants to redesign the refdesk redirects, they should be discussing it here, not acting unilaterally. Revert any changes, and warn and block if necessary. Algebraist 11:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. —Steve Summit (talk) 00:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Medical advice on RD/Misc

I removed this dubious request for medical advice. Diff. Nimur (talk) 13:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

"wot is the largst most painfulest boil?" Probably sitting in a kettle full of water that's on high heat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy Monday everybody. Hopefully everyone's lo_ad^ed u_p on _co_ff^ee and ready to tackle another week of RD miscellany. Nimur (talk) ~~14:14 UTC~~ 6:14 AM PST, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Bring that coffee to a boil. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nimur & Bugs. 'Boil Dude' also deleted a lot of text from the same page. Including Nimurs' reply about 'Private Ryan' if I recall correctly. IP's from England, they must be snowed in and have nothing better to do. :-) (Is it 'uncivil' of me to suggest that?:) ) AFAIK it's all been restored by Saddhiyama, except for this diff of Nimurs'. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Good catch. I wonder if it's vandalism or just a screwup. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

No, us Brits don't screw up, so it must be vandalism. --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 17:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

We're the exception that proves Hanlon's razor, are we? --Tango (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

"The exception that proves the rules" is an archaic phrase from the days when "prove" meant "test". The phrase is actually "the exception that tests the rule" when translated from Old. So yes, we test the razor and prove...nothing, since it's a razor and not a rule. Vimescarrot (talk) 19:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Which could be the reason that test prints of photos are called "proofs". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not sure that's the case. We have (of course) an article: Exception that proves the rule. --Tango (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

So when the Brits lost the 13 Colonies, it wasn't a screwup, it was vandalism? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

"Losing one colony, Mr 'Tiger', may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose 13 looks like carelessness"

--220.101.28.25 (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

No, we just didn't have enough convicts to fill the place. Europe did. :) --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 16:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Michael Quinion doesn't agree with you, Vimescarrot. --ColinFine (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Go tell the QI elves that. Vimescarrot (talk) 06:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

IP questions on several RD's

An IP user 209.129.85.4 (talk) has posted several questions on several desks that range from "doh - read the article" questions to the totally incoherent (see [4]). Looking at the talk page, that IP has been blocked several times before, most recently in September. I don't think the current behaviour is disruptive, but the questions are so incoherent that I'm wondering. --ColinFine (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Just for a twist, try answering in Latin and see what Opie says. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, the question I linked to wasn't completely incoherent: somebody has replied, and the reply supplied a missing piece of the question that makes it make sense. So perhaps the problem is just that the IP has difficulty expressing themselves. --ColinFine (talk) 08:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I also don't think the questions are incoherent; they just seem very narrow so that only people with some previous knowledge of the subject area will understand what they're asking. Also, since the ip is a school there are likely many people on it - not all of those questions may have been from the same person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.124 (talk) 11:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The IP may not have been blocked since September, but the user (User:Freewayguy) was blocked as recently as last week. Officially he's banned from all WM projects, but unofficially we've left him the Ref Desk to discourage having to clean up after him in the encyclopedia proper. If someone disagrees with this approach, you're more than welcome to take up the discussion somewhere, but I've decided that my involvement to this point means that such a discussion shouldn't be mine. — Lomn 13:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

If he's banned, why is he not blocked? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

His account is blocked, but IPs available to him rotate fairly frequently. This 209. address appears fairly stable, but he's usually editing from 69.something (I figure home vs school, and I note that the 209. has reasonable and intelligible contribs scattered throughout, which lends credence to "school"). I've made clear to him that admins are free to remove his remaining editing privileges at any time (given that he is, in fact, banned), but given my level of involvement, I'm not going to be the one to do it. On the other hand, I'm not going to stand in anybody's way, either. — Lomn 15:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

What does OP mean?

This question appears quite frequently on the Ref. Desk which shows that plenty of people who come here don't know the chatroom jargon. It also took me some time to figure out what it might refer to. I'm thinking that we should add some general guideline for RD respondents to either avoid or explain jargon and chatroom talk. Wikipedia:Explain jargon should apply to RD as much as to the rest of Wikipedia. How about adding a new bullet point to Wikipedia:Reference desk/header/howtoanswer:

Use jargon and acronyms judiciously. Explain technical terms and avoid Internet slang.

What do you guys think? — Kpalion^(talk) 09:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I've always disliked OP for the reasons of its relative obscurity. I'd hazard a guess that only a minority of people reading the boards know what it means. I'd be as happy to discourage its use. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not obscure in the slightest; it's a very well known and frequently used term across the entire internet. We shouldn't stop using it, but I agree we should make it easier for people to learn what it means (mainly by fixing the article OP to be more informative, as I imagine most people will look there when they're unsure) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.124 (talk) 12:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not obscure... to you. The abreviation may be well known in some English-language chatrooms and forums, but that's far from being the "entire Internet". And we occasionally may get questions from people who don't use Internet a lot, but instead spend most of their lives in the so-called real world, where nobody know what "OP" means. — Kpalion^(talk) 12:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

While that's true, this is the internet, not the real world. Perhaps we should start publishing the reference desks in books and running a phone service for people unfamiliar with the internet? What I'm trying to say here is, of course we should have a page somewhere to explain what "OP" means, but we shouldn't stop using the term just because some people might not know what it means —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.124 (talk) 14:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

This was discussed quite some time ago; I found a reference here, but the original discussion mentioned must be in the RD/Talk archive, not the RD/Guidelines/Talk archives, and searching the latter brought up enough traumatic memories for one day. From a quick glance at the guidelines, it looks like the "avoid Netspeak" clause never made it to the final version. In any event I like Kpalion's suggestion. --LarryMac | Talk 14:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's perfectly fine to use the abbreviation 'OP'. There was a day when I didn't know what it meant, as there was for all of us, but somehow we managed to get over it. I'm sure other people can, too. Besides, this is, after all, an encyclopaedia - a place people come when there is something they don't understand. If they can't ask us what 'OP' means, what CAN they ask us? My vote says it stays. --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 17:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

A general drive towards more formal language is okay; the language formalism used on the reference desk is already legions above the median level of internet discourse. But it would be silly for us to dictate the choice of words and abbreviations that are used - especially when in this case the jargon is so relevant and specifically applicable. "OP" unambiguously identifies a particular member of the discussion. This is useful terminology for a variety of purposes. Nimur (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

How many standard deviations are in a legion? Anyway, I was thinking a template that linked OP to a definition might be handy... unfortunately it looks like {{OP}} is taken. -- Coneslayer (talk) 17:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, if the question comes up so frequently, then it really isn't all that well-known. "OP" is not "unambiguous" if people don't know what it means; it's not even ambiguous, it's just completely unknown. It can clearly be seen in many of the questions we get that some people are not jacked-in cyberspace veterans and some people are native English speakers; expecting those people to know all the acronyms is unrealistic.

If a person does participate in chat rooms, web forums, or whatever replacement for Usenet has been created this week, then the various idiosyncracies of such places can be learned. (I participate in one where we commonly use "HMGJJ" to indicate the same as "OMG" but I'd never expect anybody who hasn't been in that group for at least a month to pick that up and just "get over it"). But the desks aren't a cozy social circle, many of our questioners may visit once or twice and never come back. They don't have a chance to learn the language, the in-jokes and such. This is why "suitly emphazi" died a quick and needed death.

As I recall from the Guidelines Wars, one of the driving forces behind avoiding such jargon was to emphasize the "this is not a chat room" clause. The "regulars" have enough trouble with that, if a new visitor who is familiar with that type of discourse sees it being used here, it's hard then to scold him and say "no no, this r serious thread!"

We're supposed to be providing information, not needlessly confusing people. Eschew Obfuscation. --LarryMac | Talk 17:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

What I hear is the argument: "I don't know what OP means. Therefore, most people don't know what OP means. Therefore, nobody can ever use OP." It isn't a convincing argument to me. -- kainaw ™ 18:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Then I suggest you read again. --LarryMac | Talk 18:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The simple, though repetitive, solution is when they ask, we tell them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know what OP meant for a long time, because it's only used in some chat threads (no doubt descended from Usenet and AOL). I very rarely saw it in years on various Yahoo! Groups or http://www.Politics1.com . No one's fingers will break off if we use some more transparent term like [original] enquirer/inquirer; you won't even have to hit the [Shift] key, so what's the problem?

The purpose of the Reference Desk is, after all, to help people, and those who ask here (and answer) come from all backgrounds and degrees of Internet proficiency. This is not an Internet chat room. —— Shakescene (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, I think I had to ask at one point with "OP" stands for. When I hear "OP" I think of that kid on the Andy Griffith Show. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

However, "OP" never occurs in the actual answers to questions, it only occurs when discussing what the original enquirer meant by their question (i.e. in the long tail) - so OP doesn't impede understanding of the substantive answer. And what about BenRG's answers using words like "metric expansion of space"? What the heck does that mean? Oh yeah - I can look it up or ask what it means... So yes, we should have an explanation somewhere, perhaps up in the RD header (oops, "reference desk") or in an article and I would say "prefer the term not be used without explanation". But I'll still likely use it. Franamax (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

OP can mean a pretty broad range of things (it's not always clear that "OP" refers to the Ref Desk itself, rather than the question's content); the uninitiated might assume it referred to a Roman Catholic priestly order. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

That's true. When I use it I mean "oafish palooka" but don't tell anyone. :) Franamax (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I see there's an OP page in which this is the first definition given. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a recent change, BTW. Earlier today that definition was buried much lower. -- Coneslayer (talk) 19:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I was looking at the earlier version. I oppose that edit, since when did the requirements of (a tiny subset of) Wikipedia become the priority for encyclopedic definitions? Franamax (talk) 19:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not an encyclopedic definition it's a disambiguation page. And many disambiguation pages that share names with Wikipedia terms have far more prominent links on them, for example edit, article, sandbox etc

Point taken. However your examples have italicized (template) notes at the top, whereas the edit in question just moves existing text to a more prominent place, which I find to be undue weight in context. A hatnote would be fine - but we would have to sell that to the rest of en:wiki. What wording would you propose? Franamax (talk) 01:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Why not solve this with a bot that automatically replaces all instances of OP with "the person or semi-intelligent animal or seemingly intelligent robot that posed the original question, assuming it was actually a question and a statement," -- kainaw ™ 20:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Because that would lead to considerable confusion when talking about members of the Ordo Praedicatorum. This has already been said upstairs. I think we should just leave things the way they are. If someone asks what OP means, someone is bound to answer. If they don't ask, we can assume that either 1) they know; 2) they don't know but will find out; 3) they don't know and don't care; and we should not assume that not knowing what OP means completely destroys any possibility of them ever knowing the answer to the question they originally came her to post. Some people may be like that, but we needn't lose faith in the entirety of humanity just because of a mere few. --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 20:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah - I hadn't heard of the term "OP" either (until I asked here). It would be nice to come up with a less cryptic term - but I can't think of one. Typing "Original poster" every time is a pain and we need something respectful. But what are the alternatives? "Questioner"? "Supplicant"?! Oh - I have an idea: Let's ask the Wikipedia language reference desk! SteveBaker (talk) 04:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I like the Opie parallel: A reader comes to the ref desk all childlike, wide-eyed and innocent, curious about the world. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Steve, you seem to be assuming that a term is necessary. I don't think one is. Here's an example from RD/Misc - "I think what the OP is worried about is ..." Umm, hello, "the OP" is in the "same room" so to speak. It seems quite condescending to speak of someone in the third person like that. How about "JohnJacobSchmidt, are you asking if ..."? Involve the person in the discussion, don't treat him like someone who's come before a tribunal and who may not speak until the judges have discussed his fate. Another example - "In response to the OP, Craig Ferguson recently got a tattoo ..." In that case, the initial clause could be dropped completely - "Craig Ferguson recently got a tattoo..." Boom. Perhaps "Hey 292.51.22.1 (can I call you 292?), the other editors seem to have gone off on a tangent, but Craig Ferguson recently got a tattoo...". Again, involve the person in the discussion; maybe he'll stick around and help build an encyclopedia. --LarryMac | Talk 12:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Frequently the OP is an IP address. The IP OP as I call it. What should we call him? The IP? Call him by all of his nodes? Or just the first node? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you even read my second example? --LarryMac | Talk 13:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Take a wild guess. :) Calling them by their IP address seems rather silly, especially as it could be a different body the next time. But if you want to do that, go ahead. And considering how poor their English can be, maybe you don't want them to stick around. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The other thing is typing out an IP can take time (copying and pasting may be faster but still takes time). The reason why people may address the OP could be because they are were earlier discussing something else not addressed to the OP, because of confusing identing in the thread or something of that sort. In some cases, you may not even remember the OP's name or IP (which is understandable) but remember the question and may not want to bother with going back to find it Nil Einne (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The IP OP is an Origami Practitioner of the Internationally Prestigious variety. Bus stop (talk) 13:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

If you're talking about Origami, you surely meant Prestidigitational (?)—— Shakescene (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't call him Shirley. Unless his last name is Povich.

Is there any instance where referring to the questioner rather than the OP would not work? Really, it is to most bogus cant to suggest that there is any need whatsoever for this stupid and rarely understood initialism, given that the english language provides perfectly adaquate and comprehensible alternatives. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It takes longer to type. And since many of them come from IP's, calling them by their IP address seems weird. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I just use the person's name or IP and it works fine. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Between "takes a long time to write" (a word of ten characters, ffs) and an ill-understood initialism, you choose obscurity. I guess if it makes you feel in the know, that's fine. Never mind the alienation. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I use abbreviations because this is an area for discussion. I write for my audience. Since the audience here are people who frequent Internet-message boards, I feel free to use such abbreviations. Whenever writing in a formal tone (such as in an entry), I avoid abbreviations. The OP is not being addressed directly when we use the abbreviation. It saves me a lot of time, just like it saves me time to use terms such as "IIRC," "YMMV," and "BTW." Taken individually, they only save a few seconds. But taken together, they save significant amounts of time.--Drknkn (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

OP stands for "original poster." I don't know why any one didn't just say that up front in this thread.--Drknkn (talk)

Because the OP wasn't asking what OP means, he/she obviously knew what it means and was asking if we should be using it on the Desks or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.91.83 (talk) 17:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

71.100 is back (again)

Following up #71.100 is back, he's back again today as 71.100.14.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), again with the same behaviour. A search of the RD archives notes the same range has been disrupting the RD since at least 2008. I agree that a rangeblock is to heavy handed, but the IP appears to be stable for a day or two at a stretch. So I propose we actively start blocking this individual as he appears. Comments? -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 19:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The previous checkuser on now-indeffed Julie Dancer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indicates that this is her - Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Julie Dancer. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 19:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mention who this was was per WP:DENY but I understand it's sometimes necessary to discuss who we're talking about so now that it's came up see Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 65#GM Crops heads up for more info on the history of this IP (and [5] if you still have any doubts about who this is). This user has a very long history of problematic editing and soapboxing on the RD and elsewhere on wikipedia (and has had lots of accounts) since early 2007 or so, hence why I recommended deleting or ignoring their posts above. Ignoring doesn't seem to be going very well, as it almost never does so deleting would be best, combined with blocking the IP on sight would be fine with me. In fact, I noticed one of their posts before it received any responses and was very tempted to delete but ended up chickening out afraid it would generate needless drama which this IP may or may not like. Nil Einne (talk) 11:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Too much cryptic bs; is this LightCurrent or someone else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.91.83 (talk) 13:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone else. As said, they've been known by various names which you can find from the above links, e.g. Taxa, Biggerbannana and ~~I think~~ Barringa. They've had various problems on the RD and given the various identities we've no real name except for 71.100. LC uses a Tiscali (UK) IP, this user a Verizon Florida IP. I've now found out (admitedly it doesn't surprise me, I wax expecting Barringa wasn't the oldest identity) the user has an even older identity, as Pce3@ij.net who signed as IMHO from 2006 (and was using a different ISP then). Nil Einne (talk) 14:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah ok, thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.91.83 (talk) 15:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

In the mean time, I archived in situ the latest round from 71.100. I left the third question apparently from someone else. While some may feel this gives too much attention to a banned user, I'm reluctant to delete it since I know some people disagree with deleting questions and answers when others have responded and it's better then leaving it there for more responses Nil Einne (talk) 15:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll Be Bold and delete the ones on the science desk...they are junk - and so are the replies. SteveBaker (talk) 04:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

And I'll be bold and remove the childish responses he left about having the questions removed. -- kainaw ™ 05:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with it. I should add it was also spammy since the 'meaningless, undirected babble' was his own work [6] Nil Einne (talk) 09:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Post Deleted on Misc Desk

I've deleted a post from an IP OP on the Misc Desk, as the post was not relevant to the thread it was posted on, and I didn't make a new section for it because it was a request for opinion (about what would happen if Steven Gerrard left Liverpool FC.) It can be reverted if anyone so wishes. --KageTora - (影虎) (A word...?) 16:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The only factual answer you can give to a question like that is, "What would happen? He would no longer be on the roster. That's what would happen." His stats could be cited. Anything beyond that information is guesswork. Does wikipedia have a forum page? And I don't mean the IIRC or whatever it's called. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

IIRC is short for If I Recall Correctly. IRC is Internet Relay Chat. Took me a while to remember either of those, though... Vimescarrot (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

And IICR ('If I Can Remember') is sometimes used instead of IIRC for those who can't remember nor recall what it stands for. :) --KageTora - (影虎) (A word...?) 03:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

diff links would be nice so we know what you're talking about.

Yes. :) So, besides the infamous IRC, does wikipedia have a forum or chat page? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Not that I've ever seen. Vimescarrot (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, the bit at the bottom of this is what I am talking about. --KageTora - (影虎) (A word...?) 17:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not at all relevant to the question above it, but sometimes newbies fail to create a new heading, and then someone will politely add it for them. In this case, however, the question is not appropriate for the ref desk anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: Perhaps we should answer requests for opinion with suggestions for websites where that opinion can be found? For opinion about Steven Gerrard we could have sent the OP to the Liverpool FC fanclub forum at http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php - that's better than deleting what seems to the OP like a reasonable question. Deleting posts should be a matter of last resort in seeking to avoid disruption. Giving the OP something useful with a factual response - even if it's not exactly what they wanted - would be a friendlier, less intimidating, thing to do IMHO. SteveBaker (talk) 04:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Many times the answerers will respond with non-wiki websites. However, you're proposing a more uniform approach. The question is, how far should we go in looking stuff up for the OP? I typically ask the OP if they've checked Google, or whatever, as there's no point in re-inventing the wheel. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably 99% of our questioners could find their answers with a Google or Wikipedia search. The fact that they DO ask here is a reflection of the undeniable fact that most people don't know how to do good search. In the real world, reference desk librarians are there to use their expertise with book indices and bibliographies to find information for people who can't do that for themselves for whatever reason. We're fill the same position for Wikipedia. Rather than upsetting people by telling them off - why not spend that extra 10 seconds to do the search yourself and post a link? We're supposed to be nice to people - and the nicest way to respond to a question that we can't answer is to point them someplace where they can get the debate they crave. SteveBaker (talk) 04:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

But what if the guy's so irritating that you can't help telling him off? Isn't irritation to one person irritation to all? --Neptunerover (talk) 10:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it isn't. – Clockwork Soul 00:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

NeptuneRover: Please read WP:AGF. SteveBaker (talk) 06:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the "can't help it" part, no one forces us to say or do anything here; we freely choose to do it (or not). That doesn't mean we always choose wisely. 0:) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, my above post was meant to be taken as sarcasm, which can be difficult to portray in writing (at least for me, it seems). It was a play of devil's advocate to show the absurdity of one person feeling justified in defending everyone against their personally perceived irritation. --Neptunerover (talk) 06:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't recommend telling them off, unless they're obvious trolls, and then just clobber the thread. But if the question appears sincere, no matter how misguided, we can help guide. If I have a clue of what to search for, I might go to google and enter some key words... and report back on how I did the google search, for the possible edification of the OP, or for that matter anyone else who might wonder how I found it. Sometimes, though, the question is too vague to know where to start. That's when you have to ask the OP some semi-probing questions to try to get more information; or ask him if he's tried this-or-that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps so - but that's not what we're talking about. This is about requests for opinion - and I'm saying that while we can't/shouldn't simply come back with our own opinions, we can still be of help if we can post a link to someplace where they can legitimately express and receive opinions on the topic they are interested in...a forum or something. SteveBaker (talk) 06:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Removed mockery

I removed this response on the science desk; I found it unacceptable, content-free mockery of an honest question. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your removal. That post had no useful, encyclopedic contribution. Nimur (talk) 00:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I concur. The whole point of people asking questions is because they don't know or understand something. Mocking someone for that ignorance is, well, ignorant. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 00:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Here, here. Mockery has no place in attempts to help people. Ignorance is no more a sign of stupidity than education is a sign of intelligence. --Neptunerover (talk) 06:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with the removal. Though I would say that his tone was arrogant not ignorant - god, how I hate that slang usage! Matt Deres (talk) 01:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if the tone was not appropriate. But it was not content-free. If the OP has an understanding of velocity there is an easy bridge to the understanding of energy. If not, then explanation has to start at lower basics. 95.115.138.227 (talk) 08:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Then you should have said that. Explain it properly. Incidentally - I disagree that velocity provides an easy bridge to understanding energy because when there is no energy transfer going on, constant velocity is still present. It's acceleration or deceleration that is the signature of energy having been converted from one form to another. But because we live here on earth where it's essentially impossible to get away from friction and air resistance - it's REALLY easy to come away with the idea that it takes energy to maintain a constant velocity...because that's what seems to happen when you drive a car or ride a bike. And even if you get the idea that energy is involved with acceleration - it's all to easy to assume that the energy is "consumed" - when in truth, it's conserved - although it is converted to another form. So for an already confused kid - invoking velocity in that way really only makes matters worse. SteveBaker (talk) 06:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

NEED_YOUR_GREAT_RESPONSE

How do we handle this "NEED_YOUR_GREAT_RESPONSE" from the Computing reference desk. A handicapped gent from West Bengal seeking a data entry job. Suggestions/Comment please?--220.101.28.25 (talk) 05:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Nimur referred the OP (with links) to a few organisations in India that might help him, so I suppose thats all good! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 06:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Nimur's response was excellent and thorough. Comet Tuttle (talk) 07:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Did someone change the thread heading? Your link is not working. Changing the title will make it more difficult for the OP to find their question... Matt Deres (talk) 13:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It was changed to "Looking for a data entry job". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Somebody has renamed the section and re-formatted the OP's text. This isn't really standard-practice - it can make it hard for the OP to find his question. Nimur (talk) 04:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I liked Nimur's answer - without being referred to the company by someone who knows, a large fraction of work-from-home, no-skill-required data entry jobs are scams of one sort or another. I don't think we should have changed the title - but fixing the formatting is generally considered OK. SteveBaker (talk) 06:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

209 IP

On the Misc desk, I've made a subtle edit to remove what I consider to be racial trolling, or perhaps just offensively irrelevant comment and a reasonable response to it. I'm thinking about hacking out more such comments from this IP, but wanted to run it past you lot. --Dweller (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

diff links would be nice so we know what you're talking about.

Presumably, this diff [7]. Nothing good would have come from leaving it there, but no doubt people disagree as to the appropriateness of editing another's words in this way. Personally, I think the OP was almost certainly trolling, and the question was just an excuse for the comment which Dweller removed. They were probably hoping people would end up in a lengthy discussion of race, with some people claiming others were being over-sensitive, etc. 86.178.230.208 (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I am usually more clueless than most people here about being trolled. That said, the OP did post 4 questions involving race in a row; this last one was less explicitly about race than the others; I (naively, perhaps) don't think this is troll behavior. I think we should answer questions about race, including the offensive ones, and we should hedge and lecture as appropriate. Maybe the best response in this case would have been "don't remove his offtopic aside about race, but also don't rise to the bait and get drawn into a trollthread". Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Dweller, I understand your distaste for this user's obsession with miscegenation - and I share it - but you're not supposed to alter someone's signed posts on the RefDesk and I think you know that. And of all the things to decide to censor, the word "white" seems like a truly bizarre place to start. I know I don't have to tell you that WP isn't censored either. Then on top of all that you altered Comet Tuttle's post, where he/she was trying to simply set the poster straight. Will you now censor my post due to my use of the forbidden "w" word? Frankly, I'm shocked and disappointed - and even more shocked that nobody else has called you on it. If you really thought the thread was unacceptable, you should have removed it completely and discussed the situation here, which has been policy for quite some time. Matt Deres (talk) 01:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems like an overreaction. However, keep in mind that wikipedia articles are not censored for content, but discussion pages operate under somewhat different rules. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't really want to get into this mess again and I'm guessing SB is going to leave a strongly worded response but I feel I have no choice. IMHO removing the white bit was acceptable if Dweller made it clearer he did it, which he apparently didn't. E.g. a simple, 'I've removed the speculation on subject's racial identity, please don't speculate on such details per WP:BLP signed' perhaps with a <removed per WP:BLP then a sig> where the wording occured and informing the people who's posts you've modified. Removing the posts would also have been okay but if people feel the post have merit removing the speculation would often still be preferred. It's a potential WP:BLP vio and while occuring in the RD isn't so bad, it should still be avoided. Speaking as a regular at WP:BLP/N and also few other articles with such problems, removing the problematic bits is sometimes the best option because it avoids people yelling when their posts are removed, and reinserting the same problematic posts without removing the unacceptable content. Note that this should only be done if the content is clearly bad enough to require immediete removal. I should add that I've never done it here from memory, I'm referring to experience in other talk pages. (In fact I haven't done it much at all more referring to what I've seen and discussed and tend to be me of the 'screw it, if they can't be bothered to obey simple rules, I'm not going to help them' kind of person and just remove the post). P.S. Looking into this some more, I doubt this is a particular controversial claim, so I personally don't think it really needed to be removed, but I will generally support any removal of speculation on LPs as a matter of principle if it comes down to it. One of the obvious points is that it shouldn't be necessary for me to find out if speculation on LP has any merit or may be controversial, people should simply avoid it on wikipedia. P.P.S. I recognise Dweller hasn't explained why he/she removed the comments. If it was simply because he/she found them offensive then I agree it was probably best to leave as is. P.P.P.S. Wikipedia:TALK:Editing comments#Editing comments is of relevance Nil Einne (talk) 02:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah - I do strongly disagree. Aside from fixing egregious formatting problems that either make the question hard to read - or screws up the page layout - then I don't think there is ever a case for editing someone elses' post. It's not just my opinion - it's quite clearly set out in our guidelines: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Guidelines#Don't edit others' questions or answers. If the post is so horrible that it's either contrary to our guidelines or worth 'being bold' about - then remove it and refer the poster here to discuss it. All or nothing - no removal or changing of words, paragraphs, punctuation - not even links. Either remove the whole thing and be prepared to justify your actions - or do nothing. It's grossly unfair to change someones' words and make it look like they said something other than they really did say. If they said something unbearably nasty - why should you make them look good by cleaning it up? That might cause respondants to spend a lot of time answering what appears to be a nice, friendly OP - when in fact they are the kind of evil bastard who you wouldn't help if they paid you to. So no! Don't clean up their questions - either delete them or leave them alone. But worst of all, this could become a slippery slope - how long would it be before people would start fixing wording - making it look like people said something completely different than what they actually said? The only safe rule is an absolute one...we don't edit the content of other people's posts...period. Don't even add links or correct spelling, etc. In an online community, all we have as individuals is our words - those at least should be sacrosanct. I made a stand about this in the past and will do so again if necessary. Editing other people's posts is quite utterly unacceptable to me - and that's what the WP:RD guidelines quite clearly say. SteveBaker (talk) 06:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

There are acceptable exceptions, such as vicious personal attacks or potential BLP violations or other gross rule-breaking. However, in those cases, it's best to make clear what's being done. Like what you could do if someone called you a [personal attack redacted]. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

No, not even then. Remove the whole damn thing and be done with it. The rules for BLP are a little different because we're talking about signed statements of opinion (rather than encyclopedia articles), but even so, the options are to either leave it or remove it completely. There's no gain to anyone for bowdlerizing the text and plenty of reasons not to do it. Matt Deres (talk) 23:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to take it up with other users, including admins, who sometimes do things as I have illustrated above, typically on BLP issues, personal attacks, and too much personal information. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not interested in "other users" elsewhere in Wikipedia - I'm concerned about people who violate the guidelines for the reference desk. They quite clearly state that you must not edit other people's posts (except, rarely, to fix formatting problems). If there is a vicious personal attack then delete the entire post and be prepared to justify doing so - or leave it alone. Why? Consider the scope for misinformation! You say something very mild indeed about me - I delete the mild words and stick in a [personal attack redacted] tag and everyone will assume you did something terrible! Anyway - we don't have to argue about this - it's a clearly stated, unambiguous refdesk guideline - and it would take a clear consensus of the group to change that. Trust me - you won't get a consensus, so that's not gonna happen. Please stick to the guidelines - thank you. SteveBaker (talk) 03:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm just saying that if you see someone do that, you could speak to them about it. My attitude in general is, let it stand, no matter what it is (unless it's a gross violation of wikipedia policy). Someone took an unexplained vicious shot at me the other day, and someone else removed it shortly before the attacker was blocked. I was tempted to put it back, to let everyone see the poster for what he is, as I would on my own talk page, but I decided not to. But what's your view on that kind of situation? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Geography pop quiz

One example.

This is one of a dozen or so pop quiz geography questions we've been given along the same vein over the past few months. Does anyone know where the OP is getting these questions from? Vimescarrot (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The only way to find out is for everyone to refuse to answer the question until the user explains where they are coming from. -- kainaw ™ 18:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Does it matter? If the questions are within guidelines and not overwhelming the desks, what's the problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.91.83 (talk) 19:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Jarry1250 identified the source of the questions in the last posting in this thread. Deor (talk) 19:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough. I never said it was a problem, IP, I just asked where it was coming from. Cheers! Vimescarrot (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

If the OP wins the hundred bucks, maybe he should split it with whoever gives him the right answer. Or donate it to wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

How about if we just give our answers at the quiz site? Then we can decide whether to split the money with the OP. Franamax (talk) 10:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant! A capital (as in "money") idea! :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This reminds me of a circumstance that occurred to me quite some time ago. Key 103 has (or had, at least) a competition where, at a certain time of every day, a person is asked three questions. They return the next day if they get it right, leave without prizes if they get it wrong, and can choose to leave after any victorious Q&A session with a selection of prizes which increases based on how long they can go. Once one player leaves, another is plucked from the void to fill their shoes. The individual or group with the highest running total at the end of the year gets twelve tickets to go to some Christmas party thing. Would I (or anyone, in fact - I don't listen to the station any more) be allowed to ask the Ref Desk for help with these questions? Players are given the duration of one song to find out the answers themselves - group discussions and internet use are allowed. I wasn't sure if I should put this under a new heading, the subject matter is much the same... Vimescarrot (talk) 21:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems a perfectly proper use of the desks to me. Editors can decide whether or not to engage, as they can with all questions. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem in the past is that the questioner doesn't explain where the questions come from. Since they are purposely vague questions, there are many possible answers. If the editor would come clean and explain where the questions come from, we could examine the quiz and see if we could find the correct answer for the quiz, not just an answer that meets the requirements stated. It is a matter of getting context so a proper answer may be given. -- kainaw ™ 01:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, and if people asked clearer questions in general, we could give them more specific clearer answers. I don't think there's technically anything wrong with the OPs using the information in some unstated way, including commercial ventures or profit. If they wish to submit our answers verbatim, that is also fine as long as they follow the rules of our license. It's worthwhile to point out that Wikipedia content, including our responses on the Desks, are all licensed under GFDL and/or Creative Commons license. If the user wants to submit our answers verbatim, they must be sure that this is in compliance with the (very real, and enforceable) terms of the GFDL. Nimur (talk) 01:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

That's true, but it's irrelevant to the contest questions that started this thread. Their answers are simple facts such as place names, and therefore not subject to copyright; hence the GFDL does not apply. --Anonymous, 06:03 UTC, January 27, 2010.

Also they can comply with either the GFDL or the CC. Nil Einne (talk) 09:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Epic stuff. Since I'd have no use for twelve party tickets, I'd share them out among Ref Deskers, should this ever happen. Vimescarrot (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Persecution/Chinese ramble

Wow, I just skimmed through this extremely long rambling story on the humanities desk and am wondering how we should handle it. There really doesn't seem to be a coherent question here... Any thoughts? [8] 10draftsdeep (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I've just removed it and posted a "thanks no thanks" explanation. It's not Ref Desk appropriate in any way. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with that. Vimescarrot (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Concur. (!) --220.101.28.25 (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

She must have us confused with Dr. Phil. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, if she feels oppressed by her government, living situation, society, whatever, I certainly empathize and wish her better. But this isn't the right place for such posts, alas. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't even bother to ask for questions like this. Once you see things that could be real names mentioned and accusations made, please remove with a passion. Although a regular at WP:BLP/N and strong supporter of WP:BLP I normally let things fly in the RD which wouldn't be acceptable elsewhere. But this sort of stuff most definitely crosses the line. Of course while I didn't read the whole thing, it sounded suspicious to me and reading the last two paragraphs doubly so, in other words, it may not even be a genuine request (and the names therefore made up), but that's just as good a reason to delete it. Nil Einne (talk) 08:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Question removal: 19 Kids and Counting

I've removed this q. Comes close enough to a personal attack and is far enough away from being anything like well posed. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeh, except there is a possible reasonable response, which could be, "Read the article on 19 Kids and Counting and see what it has to say, if anything, about their future plans." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, it's kind of borderline, but AFAIK, WP:BLP applies to the ref desk, too. Although it's missing from the guidelines. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

religion & spirituality reference desk

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

I've just had a brief conversation with a couple of other editors about why there isn't a separate reference desk for religious and spiritual matters. currently religion is lumped in under humanities, which seems a bit odd. is there any support for setting up a separate desk for these issues? --Ludwigs2 19:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

This was discussed (and smacked down) some months ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

out of curiosity, why was it smacked down? (and yes, I am vying to be the patron saint of lost causes...) --Ludwigs2 20:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

"Smacked down" is hardly fair. It was fairly discussed, actual data was found and presented, we sought consensus and the result was a clear "No". That's hardly a 'smack down'. Anyway - don't take it on faith - you can actually research it properly by looking back through the archives and reading the debate for yourself. SteveBaker (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't remember that one specifically, but most new RefDesk proposals fizzle when their proponents cannot show that there is demonstrable harm in keeping it in the old desk, or that the new desk would get sufficient traffic. Being "a bit odd" isn't very convincing - why shouldn't religion questions be answered at Humanities? (That's where questions on other philosophy systems and non-governmental organizations go.) I'll also point you to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives - take a look at a representative month and estimate how many questions the new desk is likely to have. (There isn't a hard number, but 1-2 per day certainly isn't going to cut it.) - You're up against inertia and the status quo. The impetus is on the proposer to do the convincing. -- 174.21.224.109 (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

As I recall, the main argument against it was that there weren't enough questions to justify a separate page. The counterargument was that a separate page might encourage more questions. They both have a point, I suppose. Anyway, the idea was defeated. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

well, I'd personally think that religion and spirituality (and philosophy, for that matter) are a different domain than the humanities, both on subject matter and on the general interests of participants. it's a bit like lumping computers into the mathematics section on the grounds that (you know...) they both deal with numbers. it's not a big issue, and I don't see any pressing need to argue for it at the moment, it just struck me as an odd arrangement. if there's no consensus for a change, that's fine. --Ludwigs2 21:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

As was pointed out in the previous discussion: Universities and bookstores place religion (and spirituality and philosophy) under "Humanities". Also, see humanities. It includes religion. I understand the idea that some people are offended when their religion is placed under Humanities and not "The Absolute Truth About Everything". Wikipedia simply doesn't push one religion as religion and all others as humanities. -- kainaw ™ 23:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

kainaw — I don't think anyone said anything about being "offended" about religion being under humanities. And a religion reference desk would be for all religions, not just one religion. I'm sorry but I don't see how you see it as "pushing" one religion. Bus stop (talk) 02:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It could open some interesting doors of discussion. There's always a risk of constantly having to rein editors in, with potentially too many of them copping attitudes like, "My religion is better than yours", or "Religion is a humbug." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Just as physics is a part of the science desk, topology is a part of the math desk and music is handled on the entertainment desk - so religion comes under humanities. What's the problem with that? We really can't have a separate desk for every single part of the human experience. Anyway, this has been discussed to death a gazillion times before. It's simply not going to happen and that's that. SteveBaker (talk) 21:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

That was a smackdown. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

ah, yeah, but I can never resist an argument. people should really learn not to give me an excuse.

'Humanities' (as the name suggests) deals with human creations and human endeavors. that's why the arts, literature, history, pedagogy, and even the social sciences often have strong associations with the humanities. Religion, spirituality, and philosophy usually deal with metaphysical matters outside direct human control or ken. scholars in the latter group - as often as not - disagree with scholars in the former group (I've seen what happens when Lit Crit people get in conversations with buddhist monks - the most mild-mannered mess of confusion you'll ever see). and yeah, I recognize that category choices need to be made, but I hope you'll forgive me if I point out category choices that are a bit deficient in rationality. --Ludwigs2 23:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Following up on SB's comparison between computers and math, I could imagine there could be a cadre of editors who would suggest that questions about religion be included with science fiction. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

No, one of the distinguishing features of science fiction is that it's made clear that there's a rational explanation for everything going on (whether or not such an explanation is forthcoming). Most religion comes under fantasy. Algebraist 23:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe in general. Backwards time travel is every bit the fantasy that religion allegedly is. And the rational explanation in religion is that God is in charge. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

now, see, this is the kind of commentary that I find troubling. I have no problem with spirituality being categorized under humanities as a more-or-less random act of categorical confusion, but if it got tucked there because a few wikipedia editors have bugs up their collective ass about religion, that is... unfortunate. Nothing wrong with spirituality that a good dose of common sense can't fix.

I will say that I'm consistently fascinated by what I can only describe as 'skeptical entitlement', which seems to be a common feature of these types of debates. --Ludwigs2 00:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Rather than many of us just re-hashing the same arguments further, I recommend you read the previous debate, which was actually last August.[9] Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

eh, I already gave up the request. I'm just arguing for the fun of it now.

--Ludwigs2 00:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

No, you're not. [To keep an argument going, someone must take a contrary position - refer to the Monty Python "argument sketch" for further details.] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

ah geez, bugs, you done out-logicked me! --Ludwigs2 00:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

No. They don't. -- kainaw ™ 00:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. They do. (What was the question again?) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

'Never try to argue with an idiot; they have years of experience. HalfShadow 00:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Any attempt to outwit an idiot can only outfox oneself, which begs the question of just who the idiot is. Plainly, arguing with an idiot makes one an idiot. --Neptunerover (talk) 01:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Speaking of idiots, the lightbulb finally came on for me, at the profundity of a statement the giant made to Bugsy in Jack-rabbit and the Beanstalk: "You can't fool me, 'cause I'm a moron!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

He can sure try though, as many morons do. --Neptunerover (talk) 01:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

This would be the anthem:[10] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2: If you like to argue for the sake of arguing, you might be interested in our WP:List of controversial issues. Pick a few disputes and try to resolve them. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Quest: I've been trying to edit on Alternative medicine recently - you think I need more headaches?

I'll take a look though... --Ludwigs2 04:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Certainly with many of those controversial issues, an agreement is right around the corner. If only some smart person could take one of those issues under their wing and tell everybody where they're wrong... they could fix all the controversy! --Neptunerover (talk) 07:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Now, now... you and I both know that sarcasm doesn't read well on text forums. honestly, I'm surprised this question has caused this much of a stir. I asked, the first couple of responses were sufficient; everything else is indulgent.

Best not to take me for a fool. I don't mind playing the role, but it is an act of generosity, and I don't have a lot of patience with people who abuse the privilege. --Ludwigs2 08:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I'm just having fun at the end here, regardless to what the initial question was, or who asked it, which I now notice was you. Paying attention to the entire overall theme of the question wasn't my interest here. I'm just making some funny observations about idiots in general, without trying to point out any particular idiot, since in casting stones at an idiot, one is likely to hit oneself. --Neptunerover (talk) 08:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Eh, no worries. I've been a little touchy the last couple of days; someone needs to sell me a chillpill.

--Ludwigs2 08:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

What I said about 'fixing' a controversy was meant as extreme humor when considering that a controversy itself is basically two sides each trying to 'fix' the other, at which point the introduction of a third side trying to fix both of those is the very definition of slapstick. --Neptunerover (talk) 09:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) I'm in favor of a separate reference desk for religion only. I disagree with the suggestion that it should handle spirituality and philosophy also. In my conception such a desk would only address questions relating to the established, so-called "organized" religions. Bus stop (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

And you see, there's where the argument begins. All with the question, "what do we want to include and exclude in our world?" Attempts like that are ultimately futile, because people will do what people will do, and all we can do is deal with whatever comes up. Attempts to confine the human spirit are not worthwhile. --Neptunerover (talk) 12:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Did someone attempt to "confine the human spirit?" Where do you see that? Bus stop (talk) 12:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm beginning to see what one problem would be with such a ref desk - trying to find the right sized fence to put around it. Even with organized religion, individuals have their own "constructs" of what that religion is and how it relates to them. I know Catholics who believe in reincarnation. That's certainly not a Christian doctrine. Yet they identify as Catholics. Also, is "New Age" a religion, or is it just pop culture nonsense? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Honestly I don't know what "New Age" is, but the existence of entities that challenge the definitions we set for such a desk is not a conclusive reason for not having such a desk. Bus stop (talk) 13:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The setting of definitions like you mention is what I think would cause trouble. The human spirit has within it a likelihood toward certain activities. Whenever there's a fence, human spirit wants to jump the fence. Religion is a personal thing to humans, and limiting it on such a desk is asking for trouble. It signifies exclusion, it is finger pointing; it really goes against religion to have an exclusive desk. And I mean it goes against religious ideals, not organized religions, which are exclusive, I think, although they should not be excluded from the desk just for that. People would be banished from the desk if they tried introducing exclusion. We want our desk to be exclusive of all exclusiveness! --Neptunerover (talk) 20:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The desks are for providing references for facts. How many people will be using this new desk for factual questions, like bible references or dates for historical religious events? Not many I'd imagine, and certainly not enough to require an entire new desk for it. A religion desk will quickly deteriorate into heated debate, opinions and pov pushing, something the reference desk and wikipedia as a whole are not for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.14 (talk) 14:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Correct — such a desk would be for facts only. Deterioration into "heated debate" would seem highly unlikely, to me anyway. Heated debate as to whether such a desk should exist or not does seem a possibility.

I think what you misunderstand is this has nothing to do with debate. This has to do with information. That is the purpose of Wikipedia. Bus stop (talk) 14:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't misunderstand, I'm just being realistic; it will turn into debate very quickly, regardless of what the intended purpose is. You will have a huge influx of people going to that board to push their religious views, get angry over others "disrespecting" their religion etc etc etc etc. But, as long as it would be strictly monitored to keep it to factual questions only, then I have no objections. However, are there really that many questions being asked on religion that we need another desk? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.14 (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

82.43.89.14 — Its intended purpose has nothing to do with "religious views." There can be disagreement over factuality. Doesn't that happen on such desks as the science desk or the math desk? Such a desk would not even be concerned (primarily) with "comparative religion." The aim, as I envision it, is to have a place where inquiries can be made about a given religion. I don't think it would matter if the person inquiring were of that religion or not, though I will admit that I think the core use for such a desk would be for members of that religious group. The various groups would merely share that desk by dint of their all being, loosely speaking — religions. I think such a desk would, or should, find it unimportant whether or not a person were a member of the religion he/she were inquiring about, and a general introductory statement to such a desk should even discourage participants from disclosing their religious identity, but on the other hand it would be no big deal if they did reveal any such feelings of membership in any religious group. My hunch is that most postings would be from people with no religious affinities, certainly none of a particularly strong nature. I say that because I think that reflects the general population of wikipedia. But I can't really claim to know the religious/nonreligious composition of wikipedia. Bus stop (talk) 17:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. Yes, I know its intended purpose has nothing to do with religious views, but I guarantee you that's what it will become and it'll be a constant battle to remove that crap every singe day. You are inviting that sort of thing by making a desk called "religion reference desk". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.14 (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

If people were inclined to do that, they'd have already done it on the humanities ref desk. Honestly, this conversation has taken a relatively minor question and blown it way out of proportion, mostly because of some (apparently deep-seated) reactions to organized religion. When I originally thought about this I imagined that people would want to ask questions about Buddhist meditation, HIndu wedding practices, Christian mysticism, Islamic prayer practices, the religious influences on architecture, western or eastern philosophical ontologies, facts about relatively under-covered faiths like Zoroastrianism or Sikhism, ancient or primitive practices such as tribal shamanism or saturnalias, the epistemological concerns of people like Sartre or Kierkegaard or.... when you guys think about this ref desk, you apparently envision hordes of torch-bearing, pitchfork-wielding villagers screaming up the hill after the misbegotten, unholy monster that is wikipedia. There's just nothing to say to that that would be meaningful, so I'll refrain, except to say that I think it's a sad perspective on faith. --Ludwigs2 17:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

If you honestly think no one will go to that desk looking to make their viewpoints known and treat it like a battle ground, then good luck. Go for it. And I'll be laughing in two months time when the desk is removed because it's become a giant troll honeypot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.14 (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Will you double over backwards, cackling with glee? --Neptunerover (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Previous discussions suggesting a Religion Ref Desk

Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 62#Religion reference desk (August 2009)
Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 52#Proposal: Religion reference desks (September 2008)

I ran back through the archives as far as late 2007 (archive number 40) searching for the keyword 'religion'. In general, the consensus seems to be that there isn't an excess of traffic at Humanities which would require that Desk to be divided, and that the number of questions received on religion-related topics (about 20% of Humanities' traffic, or roughly two questions per day) would be insufficient to sustain a new Desk. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not for "traffic" reasons, it is for "incompatibility" reasons that a religion desk is needed. The humanities are hostile to religion. This very discussion is strongly flavored by the hostility of not only the humanities to religion, but everything else to religion. It is the nature of religion to stand all alone (my original research). Religion stands apart from most things. Entertainment, for instance, is overwhelmingly anti-religious. Science is anti-religious, by and large. And the humanities — literature, visual arts, theater — all oppose piety. (You may disagree that piety is the essence of religion, but I think you will have to admit it is related.) Upshot: a person who might have a sincere, factual question pertaining to religion, is not going to pose that question in an environment that general frowns on the presuppositions that accompany such a question. Bus stop (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The incompatibility is only a perception though, for there are religious connotations to many things entertainment. In fact, from one religious perspective, God is everything, so everything written was written by God (including all movie scripts). God wants for us to have fun here, and it all depends on our perspective. --Neptunerover (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Neptunerover, you make a reference above to "one religious perspective." I was wondering — which "religious perspective" would that be? Bus stop (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

If you don't believe me, check out this (I got the link from below) Words, words, words --Neptunerover (talk) 21:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting point - that maybe readers get discouraged from asking religion-related questions on other desks since they know the first thing they're going to be told is, "Religion is humbug." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I was kind of hoping that this section would serve as a useful reference to previous discussions, and would discourage people from bringing up the same points they brought up last time around. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

well, unfortunately, the discussion (here and previously) is largely unsatisfactory. the arguments against seem to boil down to:

It will attract trouble
There's not enough traffic/demand for it
it will boil down to opinion mongering

none of which actually addresses the point. basically it's: 'we don't want a religious reference desk because it is too much trouble to deal with people who are interested in religion.'

This discussion is useless. If I decide (sometime in the distant future) that I think this is a good idea, I will skip the conversation and make a religious reference desk outright, per wp:BOLD. then we'll see whether these idle fears actually have any sense behind them. --Ludwigs2 20:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I haven't noticed too much trouble with religion questions on the Humanities board. It's when questions involving religious concepts are asked on the Science board that the responses can become rather insulting. Deor (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You wouldn't notice "too much trouble with religion questions on the Humanities board" because people are not going to ask a question of a religious nature on the Humanities board. They are too inhibited by a basically ridiculing environment from posing even a simple and straightforward question of a religious nature. Where you have ridiculing (of anything) you can never have seriousness. Ridiculing always wins out. Were science mocked there would be no place for the discussion of science. But religion is not just mocked, it is widely mocked. Wikipedia clearly contains a systemic bias against religion. It is no big deal. I don't hate Wikipedia. I still like Wikipedia. But it is a simple fact. Sometimes you can't see the obvious. Were a person to ask a straight and simple and straightforward question relating to religion, the guffaws would almost be audible. A religion reference desk would be a step in the right direction in addressing this systemic bias. I'm sorry to have to say it, but the argument to not have a religion reference desk is an effort to preserve a systemic bias. Bus stop (talk) 23:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me make myself clearer. I myself am a (Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States) believer. I've noticed that on the Science desk, questions involving rather outré science fictional concepts tend to get responses on the order of "According to the current understanding of the way the universe works, that is impossible", whereas questions involving, for instance, the divine creation of the universe tend to get responses that append or consist of statements equivalent to "... and you're a moron if you think that it could be so". I've rarely seen responses of the latter sort on the Humanities desk; and when they have appeared, they've been easily discounted as idiosyncratic or tendentious. You may have noticed other posts that I've missed or ignored, but my perception is that religion questions on the Humanities desk are not met with "guffaws". Deor (talk) 00:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Questioners often do themselves a disservice by asking religion questions on the Science desk, because they're usually told things to the effect of "There is no God" (as if there were scientific proof of that assertion). That there is no scientific proof of it is never mentioned. It's like asking the head chef of a posh restaurant about the merits of McDonalds. Of course you'll be told there are none. (There may not be any anyway, but the head chef's opinion is hardly an unbiased opinion). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

lol - that's just weird. Might even be proof that there's a genetic component to common sense, because I can't imagine how else anyone could lack it to that extent, except by missing a gene. --Ludwigs2 20:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll take that as an attempt at a humorous aside from an editor who has already acknowledged his recent touchiness, and not as an actual insult. Feel free to correct the record if you feel it necessary. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I really don't see how separating religious questions from the rest of rational discourse does anyone any good. If people come here expecting to get answers of a spiritually enlightening nature - then they won't get that. That's not because we're biassed or we hate religion - it's because we're required to answer questions with verifiable facts. Sure, I'm an atheist and I think religion is all bullshit - but if someone asked whether John wrote his gospel in order to refute Cerinthus - we could look that up in Gospel of John and find a reference to an answer in "Cerinthus." Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005. Questions like that are answered on the humanities desk in a cool "reference librarian" style - which is great. I don't see any evidence that their questioners are set upon unreasonably. Take a look at the Humanities desk right now - I see half a dozen questions about various religious issues that were able to be answered with fact and references. But if someone goes to the science desk and asks a question that's clearly a sneaky effort to get creationism introduced into the conversation - or why science refuses to prove that god exists - they are absolutely guaranteed to get a solid run through the issues of evolution, falsifiability, occams' razor, Russell's teapot and all of that stuff. Sure, that's not the answer the questioner wanted - but we're bound by the rules to provide only the truth. That's how it should be. We deal with the facts. Questions that relate to 'faith' are simply not things that a library reference desk can - or should - answer. SteveBaker (talk) 05:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

"separating religious questions from the rest of rational discourse"? does the Mathematics board separate Math from the rest of rational discourse? or is this an indication that you think all religious discussion is inherently irrational?

look, I'm not religious; I don't believe in dualisms at all, so I personally think that atheists are just as mistaken as religious zealots. I'm not arguing that that religion should be 'separated' from the rest of rational discourse - I thought it was an naturally separate domain of information; that's it and that's all. The more I listen to opinions like this, however, the more I think it should have a separate board, just to separate it from mind-bogglingly irrational discourse like this.

but whatever! can we close this discussion, please, before I exercise my option to take everyone here to task for prejudice? --Ludwigs2 06:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, since you asked two questions of me - here are the answers:

"does the Mathematics board separate Math from the rest of rational discourse?" - yes, it does. But math gets an average of 6 questions per day and the answers often have to be long and complex. Religious questions trickle in at one or two per day and the legitimate, fact-based ones are usually answered very simply with one or two paragraphs.

"is this an indication that you think all religious discussion is inherently irrational?" - No. Questions of fact (Does this religion require that of it's followers? Does this religious book say that?) are perfectly sane and rational and can (and MUST) be answered rationally with cold facts.

SteveBaker (talk) 06:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

what part of "can we close this discussion" do you have trouble understanding? never mind, I'll do it myself. --Ludwigs2 06:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Mocking the OP

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

Going ahead and WP:BOLDly archiving this, people have been warned and there doesn't seem to be any more constructive use for continuing this discussion here. If anyone wants to continue, they can do it elsewhere. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed two comments from a thread here that mocked an OP for his lack of perfect English grammar. Come on, guys — we're supposed to be here to help. The OP obviously doesn't speak English as his first language and he's new to Wikipedia; there's no need to taunt. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Good call. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Ridiculous tangential discussion with awful indenting.

I'm not disagreeing here, but I do have a question. Do you think the OP would go easy on us if we tried speaking their language? From what I can tell, people are merciless everywhere when it comes to mispronunciations. Stuff like that is very funny to people, and one thing it is not, is a reflection on the person speaking in the foreign tongue, making it a good humor, as long as nobody gets their feeling hurt by misinterpreting the situation for more than it is. --Neptunerover (talk) 01:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Mockery can be hurtful, or at least counterproductive. We don't do it. Vimescarrot (talk) 01:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

When a questioner says "I want an perfect answer", he appears to be making a demand. However, since he doesn't know the usage of "a" vs. "an", it's also possible he doesn't realize he appears to be making a demand. For all we know, he might think he's asking politely. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

He must be new to WP; otherwise he'd know we're not going to give him a perfect answer :P FWIW, I agree with both ToaT and Bugs on this. While it does seem like a demand to our anglophone ears, it may be a perfectly reasonable phrase in the OP's native language (some Indian language, I suppose). Matt Deres (talk) 02:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who's taken first-year French knows that demander can simply mean "to ask", "to request" or "to enquire" without the insistent or compulsory connotation of "demand" in English. One example in Le Petit Larousse Illustré, 2004, is demander une jeune fille en mariage (to ask a girl to marry you), which does not normally involve compulsion today. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Before you go heaping (or drizzling) any praise on me, I did say something there about "an perfect question". Hard telling if the OP got the joke or not. But hopefully, sending him to the article might help, as unless we have an expert on the subject handy, the article is about the most "perfect" answer we can give. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I think what the OP wanted was a good argument in favor of making a state, not a perfect answer to a question. That's the way I tried to answer it, anyway. you have to read through ESL issues sometimes to get at the meat. --Ludwigs2 04:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with removal, not only was it mocking the OP, it was a totally pointless comment anyway with no attempt to answer the question —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.14 (talk) 11:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Always enjoy hearing from the drive-bys. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

What the hell is a "drive-by"?

BaseballBugs' shorthand for a post (or its poster) that is rushed, opportunistic and unconstructive is a Drive-by. "Drive-by" has by analogy to Drive-by shooting the meaning of someone recklessly delivering something undesireable, an example being a Drive-by download. A theme of dissension is reflected in a mention of a "drive-by argument" that has subsequently been adopted as the name of a band "Drive-by Argument" and their eponymous début album. The term "Drive-by Post" has currency in the Internet blogspace to mean a rushed post[11][12] [13], or negatively as in "Drive-By comment spammers". The wise and beautiful Diana Kroll has cool advice on how to treat a Drive-by.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I've always thought it was Bugs' way of describing users (almost always IP's) that have few, if any, contributions to their name, and their first, or almost-first, edit, is an attack on a Wikipedian. I never did any research to back this up, but that's the impression I got from the descriptions he's always had to provide. Vimescarrot (talk) 17:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Well thank you for the explanation. To Bugs; I edit the reference desk the same as yourself, post and answer questions etc etc. If I am a "drive-by" then so are you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.14 (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I see a (different? who can tell?) drive-by leveled a direct insult at the questioner, yet I don't see anyone here deleting it. Apparently the IP's are supposed to get special treatment, while the registered users get yelled at. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Right, I'm going to take a stand here. Can you please stop calling ip users "drive-bys". It's very negative, doesn't assume good faith and ip users have as much right to be here as those with accounts, and your attitude is verging on a personal attack. As for "IP's are supposed to get special treatment", where have you gotten that from? All users are equal, no one gets special treatment over anyone else; an admin, a normal user and an ip user are all treated the same, with the only different between them being the level of access granted to perform wiki actions. So please, stop this. With regards to "who can tell?" part of your comment about different ips, go to the contribution page of the ip you're looking at and click "Geolocate" at the bottom of the page. That'll give you a rough guide to if it's the same person or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.14 (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Geolocate only tells you where the ISP theoretically is. We've had notorious vandals that have figured out ways to jump to IP's thousands of miles apart. So geolocate is not fully reliable. And if it were, most of the IP's on the ref desks geolocate from the UK. Yeh, that narrows it down. As far as "drive-by" being a negative, I only use it when it fits. P.S. In future, sign your posts by using 4 tildes. That will at least make you look somewhat experienced and a little less like a one-time, single-purpose "drive-by". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I will sign all my posts in the future if you promise to stop using the term "drive-by". Deal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.14 (talk) 20:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Very funny, as you didn't sign this one either - the bot had to do it yet again. See, the problem is that a number is just a number. You yourself could have many IP addresses, and one IP address could have many users. So each individual IP who shows up to harp and criticize, can only be assumed to be a one-shot user, i.e. committing a "drive-by" shooting of a registered user, because there's no way to know otherwise. And if someone doesn't know they're supposed to sign their posts, that reinforces the appearance that they are one-shots. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course I didn't sign it; I said I'd start signing my posts when you promise to stop calling ips drive-bys. Look, this has nothing to do with how many people may or may not be behind an ip address, it's simply rude to call ips drive-bys. I could start calling registered users "squatters", that wouldn't be helpful either. So I'll ask again, will you please consider rephrasing to something less negative like "ip user with few edits" or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.14 (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

— 82.43.89.14 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I don't care what you or anyone else calls me. It's not important. But by continually refusing to sign your posts, you dis all the editors here, not just the ones that get your Irish up by calling it like it is. The fact is, every IP appearance could be a single-purpose, one-time entry, there's no way to know. Note the SPA tag above. There is no way to know for sure that you're the same guy that entered the previous post. You could be one of those vandals I was mentioning (there were several just this past week) who turn up out of the blue to try to fan the flames. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You might not care, but others do. It's a very simple request, all I'm asking you is to rephrase "drive-bys" to something less negative, something which assumes good faith and doesn't imply the ip in question is a gun-toting maniac. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.14 (talk) 21:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Others care what you call me? I wouldn't think so. I have no evidence that a given IP is anything other than a one-shot, an SPA, so when they come here and criticize, they have nullified my assumption of good faith. And when they continue to dis all the wikipedia editors by refusing to sign their posts, that further erodes their credibility. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand; others care what they are called. You said you didn't care what people called you, I said that attitude of not caring doesn't apply to everyone. Regardless of what evidence there is, even if the ip in question is guilty of being a SPA, I'm asking that you refrain from using the term "drive-by", for the reasons I outlined above. Please use SPA or "ip with few edits" or something along those lines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.14 (talk) 21:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, others care about impoliteness, for sure. Continually refusing to sign your posts is impolite to all users, so saying you'll start signing if some particular editor starts or stops doing something is a bogus argument. Fix your own impoliteness before you go criticizing others for their impoliteness. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

So will you stop calling ips "drive bys" now? 82.43.89.14 (talk) 22:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

How do I even know that you're the same guy that posted previously? How do I know it's not 10 different postings by 10 different editors? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm asking you not to use the term "drive-by". Whether I'm one person or 10 different people is irrelevant. 82.43.89.14 (talk) 22:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It certainly is relevant. If an IP user makes one negative edit and makes no other edits, that's a "drive-by", whether you like the term or not. And by definition, any IP entry could be the lone entry of someone who just feels like taking a shot at other users (be they registered or unregistered, actually). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You are complicating matters. I have no problem with you saying an ip has made few edits, I have no problem with you being extremely paranoid and assuming every edit an ip makes is a different person. What I am asking you to do is not to use the term "drive-by" because it has extremely negative connotations. Please use SPA or "ip with few edits to other areas of wikipedia" instead. 82.43.89.14 (talk) 22:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not paranoid. I just don't trust editors who turn up from out of nowhere and start criticizing others. I only use the term "drive-by" when they act like one. And there are plenty of registered users that are also drive-bys. Many times they're redlinks, although that by itself is not necessarily an indication. And I do not intend to waste my time putting "SPA" tags after every IP posting that turns up. Don't act like a drive-by, and I won't call you one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Whatever your reasons are, will you please consider using a different term, one that doesn't have such negative connotations? As I've said three times now, SPA or "ip with few edits to other areas of wikipedia" conveys the same meaning as "drive-by" without the negative aspect. 82.43.89.14 (talk) 22:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Users who turn up, make one negative edit, and disappear are drive-bys, by definition, which I've also told you several times. Lots of things that are true have "negative connotations". I'm not interested in bending to political correctness. If it were up to me, that bot would tag every IP entry as an SPA, since there's no way to prove otherwise. And by the way, SPA is also argued to have "negative connotations" (at least it's argued by the SPA itself). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so you'd rather insult people by using a term that is clearly derogatory, than spend an extra 3 seconds typing "ip or account with few edits" instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.14 (talk) 22:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I'd rather the IP's treat registered users with the same level of courtesy that they expect for themselves. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because you might have had a few bad experiences with ips doesn't give you the right to assume all ips are by default out to get you. By continuing to use that derogatory term, you disrespect every editor here. 82.43.89.14 (talk) 23:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I disrespect that ones that act like drive-bys. When they do that, they forfeit the right to assumption of good faith. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't be disrespecting anyone, regardless of how they act. By your own admission the term "drive-by" is disrespectful, so please discontinue using it in favor of SPA or "ip or account with few edits". 82.43.89.14 (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Stop acting like a drive-by, and I'll stop calling you one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Stop calling people "drive-bys", it is disrespectful. 82.43.89.14 (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

When they act like a drive-by, I call them what they are. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

But why do you insist on using a clearly pejorative term when there are far less offensive terms available? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.14 (talk) 23:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I gave up on you at least an hour ago. What I'm trying to do now is observe the behavior of text with over 30 indentions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

That translates to me as "I lost the argument so I'll act like a child and pretend I don't care." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.14 (talk) 23:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

So you intend to continue dissing every editor by returning to not signing your posts. In other words, you intend to continue acting like a drive-by. Good for you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not that good with words, so perhaps my overall point has been lost though language difficulties. Comet Tuttle has said exactly what I have been trying to convey to you here, so I'll leave it at that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.14 (talk) 23:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

He's not a drive-by, nor does he act like one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

What? Who's not a "drive-by"? What are you talking about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.14 (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Comet Tuttle is not a drive-by, nor does he act like one. P.S. That's 39 indents now. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I never said Comet Tuttle was a "drive-by", please re-read what I wrote. I said that Comet Tuttle put into words what I have been trying to say to you throughout this entire discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.14 (talk) 00:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I must interfere here, for in labeling such comments as mockery, you introduce something which is not evidenced by the comment. You insinuate there being a negative tone to the comments made, and I disagree. 'Making fun' doesn't mean 'making mean' --Neptunerover (talk) 12:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd say it would be better to call it removal of that which has the potential to be misunderstood from the way it was originally intended when stated. Calling someone a Mocker is like calling them a bad name. --Neptunerover (talk) 12:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Far too much unnecessary wordsmithing. — Lomn 14:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Words, words, words - is that all you blighters can do? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Very neat. =) I've never seen that. Thanks for showing me --Neptunerover (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades, good removal. Neptunerover, making fun of a questioner, especially one with poor English, is grounds for removal of a comment. Bugs, stop calling IPs drive-bys. There are surely thousands of lurkers here and they have as much right to comment, in any way and about anything, as you do; and just because it's their first comment doesn't mean that they haven't read hundreds of Refdesk threads, or their criticisms are unjustified. Dismissing the statements of IPs by calling them "drive-bys" is like making an argument from authority. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I only call them drive-bys occasionally, when they act like one. How about if they afford registered users the same level of courtesy that they expect us to afford them? Like telling us who they are, signing their posts, etc. By the way, I actually answered the OP's question, or tried to. All the IP did was come here and fire shots. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Bugs, without regard to the IP editor, your conduct in this thread has been distinctly and unambiguously unhelpful. Is that not clear to you? Dropping the use of a pejorative name is a reasonable request, no matter who makes it. — Lomn 01:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I see User:Nimur has helpfully rolled up the long off-topic discussion above. As it's about Bugs and not about the reference desk really, could further discussion be moved somewhere else, such as Bugs' talk page (if it's really that important to discuss at all, which it doesn't seem to be)? Thanks, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The discussion with that IP was a total waste of everyone's time. 'Nuff sed? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Bugs, it's petty to try to claim the 'last word' here, especially when your own conduct was so poor in that part of the discussion. It would be equally accurate to say that The discussion with Bugs was a total waste of everyone's time. Don't use insulting names to refer to other editors — logged in or not. Don't assume bad faith — that's something that has to be earned on an individual basis. Don't go looking for fights on this talk page. And remember that this whole thread started because you – Bugs – and HalfShadow couldn't resist making fun of someone for not being able to write perfect English. If you don't have something to say that will improve the Ref Desk, please don't say it here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.