Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 69

Archive 65

←

Archive 67

Archive 68

Archive 69

Archive 70

Archive 71

→

Archive 75

The fruits of your labour

Anyone remember this question, asked nearly a month ago? Well, I got the video shortly after I gave the presentation, but due to issues with Youtube (who would have thought Youtube would have such a problem with PAL format videos?) it's taken this long to upload them.

Anyway, for those interested, here is the end result, which was only possible thanks to all of you!

• Part 1
• Part 2

The quality is apalling, though it's still processing, so it may improve. I doubt it, somehow. Thanks to everyone who helped me out! Vimescarrot (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The native format of YouTube is Flash Video so I assume one gets fullest control over video quality when uploading in that format. Only Part 2 has the 360/480 buttons that don't seem to do anything. You made a nice presentation. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice work! It even had drama - the part where you said "save page" and I was shouting "no, show preview -then- save page". I couldn't find the edit button to fix it though. :) Franamax (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Given that I had ten minutes (I went over the alloted time anyway) and I'd never teach them any more, and they probably wouldn't use it, I tried to focus on the most interesting bits. "Show preview will show you what it would look like..." seemed to be some fairly unnecessary filler. :p Vimescarrot (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I did notice the last question was "can we go now?" so don't take my kibitzing as criticism, I do realize that your "time-over-target" is limited when teaching. It was just something that popped out in my head while watching it, one of those oh-god-no-don't-say-that moments. :) Really though, ten minutes to explain Wikipedia, you did a pretty good job. It took me at least a year to really start getting a grasp on it all... Franamax (talk) 23:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Heh, yeah, me too. How much quicker it would have been if I'd had a teacher... Vimescarrot (talk) 01:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Debate about over-frequent questioning moved here:

User:71.100.5.197 asked what seemed like a perfectly reasonable question entitled "TV Color" over on the science desk - and the thread rapidly spiralled out of control into terratory that either belongs here - or nowhere at all. I have moved the non-relevent part of the thread here: SteveBaker (talk) 12:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

---

IP, that makes seven questions from you in two days, and that's just on this reference desk. Could you slow the pace a bit, please? Looie496 (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

For your benefit of for the sake of not adding any more information or missing information to Wikipedia articles? 71.100.5.197 (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Why? His or her questions are good. They are not 7 questions in 2 days about Avril Lavigne. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. 71.100.5.197 (talk) 23:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no rule limiting the number of questions you can ask here. There is also no guarantee we'll answer them all. But so long as they are good questions, I don't see anything wrong with asking lots of questions. If this upsets respondents - then don't answer, but don't be rude to our OP either. SteveBaker (talk) 23:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Or poorly disguised rants about GM, lawyers & eBay/Microsoft or spam about optimal classification, rapid sort, meal planners... I agree as long as we aren't getting that sort of stuff there's probably no harm. Nil Einne (talk) 00:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You know I haven't worked on optimal classification in a long time except that the other day I did use it to classify meals only to discover that to be useful I need a lot more foods or to transpose the table. As for the meals if you do not need to loose weight or be concerned about diabetes then you don't have to utilize them. Rapid sort, well I forgot you changed your user name there ah.. Demo or something like that? Oh and the GM classification thing... well since last speaking of it and without your help I discovered that the Price look-up code incorporates the prefix "8" for GM produce while using the prefix "9" for organically grown produce. So I don't spend all of my time here and still learn stuff. As for the legal system and the polychotomous key guess what I recall an idea I had about Exception Theory which utilizes the file system sub directories to provide a workable structure to implement the polychotomous legal plan. The eBay/Microsoft thing stands now with my bank cutting off PayPal and Microsoft reviewing the software to determine if it meets the level of counterfeiting necessary to justify issuing a complementary copy. This news bulletin rant brought to you in good faith by your's truly 71.100.5.197 (talk) 04:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

For clarification, I've only ever had one username unlike your 5+ blocked ones. And it's good that you got over your need to randomly complain about GM foods, hopefully you've likewise got over any need to complain about Jewish people, Arabs, Iranians, females etc. Nil Einne (talk) 10:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps if you rode a bike through dog and street gangs infested neighborhoods to get groceries or do other errands you too might appreciate the problem of not always being able to avoid riding across someone's lawn. You might also appreciate the need to be and the value of being inconsistent so as not to get infected with rabies or made more holey with lead. Such needs you do not get over until your no longer have to do errands by taking the same route. However, your point is made that since the ref desk is an ivory tower such real world needs for true to life responses rather than imaginary responses makes it pointless to inquire abut real word experience fashioned by superior learning is rarely available and therefore should not be expected here. 71.100.5.197 (talk) 09:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, this is a perfectly valid question. The desk isn't being overwhelmed with questions at the moment, so there is no reason to limit people. --Tango (talk) 01:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

There was a rant about a conspiracy of retailers, in addition to another similar question, which has been deleted I imagine by the OP. 78.151.88.21 (talk) 02:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess you mean [1]. I saw this question but wasn't aware the OP continued it after SB had pointed out it was a rant with a question at the end. I also now see [2]. So yeah maybe the OP hasn't been as good as I thought... Nil Einne (talk) 03:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

How about this idea... actually go out in the world and expose yourself to some of the pitfalls of real everyday life in the 21st century to the degree of selling off all you possessions and giving the proceeds to the poor. Then return to the reference desk and try not to rant. 71.100.5.197 (talk) 03:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, you have my full support. You can use eBay to sell your stuff since you like it so much, see you in a few years. Nil Einne (talk) 10:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Suspected case of 'asking just for the sake of it'

Not sure about this, but I have a funny feeling that on all of our reference desks we are getting a large number of joke-type questions, all from a number of accounts that all have a number of contributions posted on 4th March and never before. I suspect we have someone making a bunch of accounts then spamming us with questions. Anybody care to investigate? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You mean like this and this? This one points to a potential motive. Matt Deres (talk) 23:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that blocked user shortly after writing this thread, and there appears to be a lot of accounts, not just two of them. Can someone get a checkuser to make sure, just to be on the safe side? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

User:R22elial, User:Aject8886, User:Velderon4 fit the pattern as well...close creation time, immediately ask a few plausibly-viable-on-their-face questions that actually seem kinda fishy or obvious. My limit of WP:AGF is some schoolkids learned about this and are just testing with the first thing that pops into their head. DMacks (talk) 04:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

According to User talk:Kainaw, User:Delvenore is an incarnation of a banned user, so CU for socking/ban-evasion is a viable starting-point. DMacks (talk) 04:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

According to him also. I removed the rant he left for me that identified who he was. This particular troll has used hundreds of socks. He is technically not banned. He is indef. blocked. As such, he is not allowed to use Wikipedia. A check-user will locate him and block his current socks easily. He will make more. I've been told by multiple people that he has never left Wikipedia. He is a permanent troll. So, the only real way to keep his antics down is to CU every day and block his new socks. He's had so many CU's and has had so make socks and IP addresses blocked that the CU guys know exactly who he is and you don't need to give them tons of proof. (And he makes it easy. I strongly expect him to use a sock to post a complaint here.) -- kainaw™ 06:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

He's pretty good at inventing names. It's too bad that creative energy can't go to something useful, like providing the power needs for a small Puerto Rican village or something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to mention: This particular troll is easy to identify. If you see a user making a lot of posts that are borderline "good" and refusing to sign any of his posts, it is highly probable that it is this troll. Just ask for a CU and indicate that you have been told that this behavior is that of a well-known troll. The CU guys will know exactly who you mean and quickly block his new socks. Until he gets smart and starts signing his posts, the refusal to sign posts is a very easy way to identify this troll. -- kainaw™ 06:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Right guys, well, the list I have come up with is Kandorko, Marinada, Crockadoc, 701-DENT-SSU, R22elial, Lirvaerif, Aject8886, Olium jikki, Velderon4. I can't do a CU (and don't know how to request one), so if anyone can do that for us, I'd appreciate it. There is also another one, Ditreaium, of the same pattern, but used in answering questions, usually with an unhelpful answer, or with a very specific answer with no citations. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Unless you can find strong evidence linking them, checkusers won't bother, as they don't go on fishing expeditions. So before going through the tedium of setting up a checkuser request and having it rejected in about 5 seconds, you might want to locate a user who has checkuser authority and ask if there's any point in it. Or you could raise this discussion at WP:ANI, where a number of eyes will likely offer some advice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm also concerned about Curious Cactus (talk · contribs)—an account created today. Perhaps related; perhaps just an individual loose cannon. Deor (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Curious Cactus is signing his posts. If it is a troll, it isn't the same troll. The troll that gave us all the accounts listed herein (which are mostly all indef.blocked now) makes a big point of not signing his posts. He claims that it is a obsessive-compulsive based speech impediment. -- kainaw™ 01:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

How intelligent are beavers

Moved to Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#How_intelligent_are_beavers. -- Coneslayer (talk) 18:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive refusal to sign

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Disruptive refusal to sign at the reference desks. Thank you. —Akrabbim^talk 17:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Love how our bickering here just spilled over intact into ANI. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

What is the problem with it? It is blatantly obvious that we have an unfair double-standard here and the users enforcing the double-standard are refusing to discuss it. So, take it to ANI and get it discussed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kainaw (talk • contribs)

Sorry, should have been clearer: I just thought it was funny or jarring that our "private" bickering over here basically got cut and pasted over to ANI, no change in tone or in our jabbering. I imagined the ANI regulars reeling at the onslaught, but then after browsing the page it looks like that's about what happens with any ANI dispute. Comet Tuttle (talk) 04:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Good grief. What a tempest in a teapot. Just ignore the 82 guy. Seems to me our angst over his refusal to sign is far more disruptive than the refusal itself. (And I'd also suggest ceasing the whining over the alleged "double standard". It sounds like a pretty artificial construct.) —Steve Summit (talk) 02:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Read the ANI bottom line. He's a sock. Hopefully they will implement a long-term range block. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

They did. I was actually surprised to find out that 82.43.* was the old Avril troll. Just a couple years ago, he couldn't restrain himself from asking tons of highly personal/offensive questions about Avril Lavigne. Now, he is capable of being constructive in his content, just disruptive here on the talk page. I expect him to return again through a different IP and, hopefully, be constructive everywhere. -- kainaw™ 14:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The AvLav Troll! There's a blast from the past. I'll be expecting questions about Tim Cahill soon ;) Fribbler (talk) 14:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I wonder how many left-handed Pakistani men of the Sikh faith in mixed marriages living in Toronto will be annoyed by that question. --Sean 14:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Fire-drill discussion getting heated

Seems like we're spiralling away from ref-desk scope (and rational/polite discourse) in WP:RD/S#Fire drills. I tried one more time to answer direct question directly and remind that that's the limited purpose of the refdesk, but I probably came across too harshly (esp since I've been involved in the discussion). Just a heads-up someone else might want to step in and help moderate if things degenerate further. DMacks (talk) 04:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I count 14 posts (so far) to that thread by StuRat. Your latest post was reasonable, not harsh. Consider putting a Resolved banner on such a thread if it turns to soapboxing. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 05:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I am the OP for that Q, so it's reasonable for me to respond to others who comment there, especially when asked a follow-up Q. Unfortunately, most of the responses I got early on were of the form "prove the assumptions in your Q", rather than actual answers. I am finally getting some actual answers there now, although it's not yet fully resolved, so I'd like to keep it open for the time being. I also find the idea of putting a resolved tag on a Q that isn't resolved, just because it has gotten long or heated, to be inappropriate. StuRat (talk) 16:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Now, Dmacks, I've looked at your responses, and the last one did seem a bit heated. Your earlier responses weren't heated, but were slightly off-topic, such as being about the reasons for fire drills. That wasn't quite what I was asking, though, as we all know the reasons for fire drills. Perhaps you misread my Q as being a suggestion to cancel all fire drills ? I was asking about what accommodations are made for fire drills and evacuations in cold weather. And those are the Q's that I'm only now starting to have answered. StuRat (talk) 17:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

technical problem with reference desk headers

Not sure where to post this - there doesn't seem to be a talk page for the reference desk header - so I'll start here. The desk header template contains a shortcut link at the far right of the main (first level 2) header - looks like WP:RD/L, where the final letter is different for different reference desks. unfortunately, when you have the 'Enable section editing via [edit] links' and 'Add an [edit] link for the lead section of a page' options turned on in user preferences, the Edit link and the shortcut overlap badly. I'm not sure why this shortcut link is there in the first place, since it always leads to the page you are currently on. where can I post a request to get this fixed? --Ludwigs2 05:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the stylesheet is placing both links in the upper-right. The best I could do is completely remove the "skip to bottom" which cleans up my particular stylesheet. For you, if you don't want to see the shortcut, I can only suggest removing the shortcut in your style. -- kainaw™ 15:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

And, if you don't already know, the END key (above the up arrow on the keyboard) will move you to the bottom of the page, so such a link is superfluous. StuRat (talk) 16:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

well, I've seen these problems crop up in other contexts (for instance, they used to have he same issue with the 'Featured Article' stars that appear in the same general vicinity), so I know it can be resolved by changing the CSS coding. and it's the shortcut link and the lead section edit link - it shouldn't have anything to do with the 'skip to bottom' link at all. let me go and see how they fixed it with the featured article stars, and I'll see if I can give a more cogent suggestion for improvement.

right now, though, I'm a little annoyed at the header designer - s/he used the header talk page as a content page for the talk page header, so there is now no place to discuss either the mainspace header or the talk page header. very frustrating. --Ludwigs2 16:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

So move it .froth. (talk) 22:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Also note that many browsers do a poor job of enlarging text, such that it overlaps as you've described, when the text size is increased. View + Text Size/Zoom is typically where you go to change this magnification for most browsers, and some also provide a magnification factor in the lower or upper, right corner of the browser frame. Try setting it to normal size/100%, and see if this fixes the problem. StuRat (talk) 16:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I use Safari with no magnification - Safaris has its issues, but it's obsessively W3 compliant on most rendering issues. --Ludwigs2 17:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the reason the shortcut is there is to tell people what it is. Similar to the way done on other Wikipedia pages, e.g. WP:SC & WP:SHORTCUTBOX. You're welcome to change it to a more consistent format if that'll make things better. Nil Einne (talk) 04:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous purchasing help

I think at this stage I'd really prefer it if Bugs would take a holiday. His conduct in Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#Anonymous porn help is just not what any questioner needs. In short, it starts off with Bugs determined to refute the need for the question and/or turn it around so that the OP has to answer it (WTF), and then degenerates into utter chippyness. This is not how RDs work, it is how forums work. I suggest Bugs talents would be much better employed at such places than here. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe it's the above user who should take a holiday. There's a one-entry user raising a question that sounds like it's asking for help in accomplishing something illegal or unethical. I don't think that's what the ref desk is supposed to be doing. Meanwhile, some interesting questions and answers have arisen about gift cards and the like. Just because you want to keep the ref desk in a box is no reason others should do likewise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Purchasing pornography anonymously sounds neither illegal nor unethical to me... Vimescarrot (talk) 13:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Stop attacking the OPs, bug. Really, just stop it. It is positively offensive to have RDers treat questioners like this. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Stop applying a double-standard. IP's are allowed to say and do almost anything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

If someone walked up to you on the street and asked you a question like this, are you seriously saying you would give that stranger advice on how to hide his identity, without asking a few questions of your own first? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

That is an incredibly poor analogy. Why would someone at a reference desk treat a questioner as if they were simply a stranger walking up to them on the street? —Akrabbim^talk 13:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Explain the practical difference between the two. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

About the same as dropping your drawers on the street, versus your urologist's office. -- Coneslayer (talk) 14:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

So if a question from a stranger is on the internet, it's somehow different from a stranger on the street? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a Reference Desk, which our guidelines explicitly state is intended to work like a reference desk in a library. If you want to participate here, you should be willing to answer all sorts of questions, including those that would be unseemly if asked of a "stranger on the street." -- Coneslayer (talk) 14:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, like a library; and if a librarian were asked a question by someone unknown to them and that sounded suspicious to them, I'm sure they would ask a question whose essence is, "Why do you want to know?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

That is definitely not the case, according to Aaronite below. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

When random people on the street start asking me questions, my first suspicion is that they're trying to get money off me somehow. Otherwise, If someone was honestly asking me about Internet anonymity on the street I'd probably briefly mention proxies and re-mailers and tell them that Wikipedia was probably an excellent place to research the topic.

Then I'd wander away chuckling about people who do Internet research on the street.

I suppose It's possible I'm just naive or something. Maybe if the questioner was obviously ten years old my reaction would be different, but I don't see the slightest sin in giving people publicly available information. APL (talk) 16:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

And the American Library Association says: Privacy is essential to the exercise of free speech, free thought, and free association. In this library the right to privacy is the right to open inquiry without having the subject of one's interest examined or scrutinized by others. -- Coneslayer (talk) 14:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Asking for help in how to commit fraud is the problem. One thing I've noticed about this talk page is the constant visiting by certain editors who are always looking for scapegoats to hassle. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

At what point does a reasonable privacy related question "can I buy things online without disclosing my identity" become prima facie evidence of fraud, immorality and whatever else you've accused the OP of. Meanwhile you are not the victim in this affair, you are the problem. Appeals to scapegoating cut no ice. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear. And it's your nannyism that's the problem, which is why I don't usually have this page on my watch list, since it's typically useless. When you're done with me, you'll attack another editor who won't kiss up to you. You're not as bad as Malcolm XIV was, but you're definitely in his territory. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing inherently fraudulent about wanting to remain anonymous. See Bruce Schneier's essay Privacy in the Age of Persistence or Daniel J. Solove's article 'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy. -- Coneslayer (talk) 13:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

When a stranger asks you a question, "Why do you want to know?" is a perfectly fair and reasonable question to ask back. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

If that's how you feel, I would suggest that a Reference Desk is not the best place for you. -- Coneslayer (talk) 14:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

If that's how you feel, maybe the ref desk is not the place for you. We are not robots here. If an editor, especially a one-shot drive-by like the one immediately below, asks a question that looks fishy to you, you don't have to blindly try to answer it. Or maybe they're not teaching critical thinking in schools nowadays. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Given the responses by Baseball Bugs in that thread and is this discussion it's pretty clear he's trolling. I see no further point is discussing the matter with him; inform him to discontinue the behavior and if he continues take it to WP:AN/I for a swift block of this insidious troll. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.11.211.122 (talk) 14:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC) — 96.11.211.122 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Baseball Bugs is only one participant. He does not determine the course of conversation that follows. I think it is ludicrous for find fault with input that is relevant. The framework of the question posed obviously pits opposing values against one another. One value is to prevent crime and the other value is to maintain personal privacy. He (Baseball Bugs) provided relevant input. That is what many of the participants did — they provided relevant input. It's a little bit loony to start this section with purpose of attacking Baseball Bugs for merely presenting a part of the overall picture. A word or two of disagreement within the original thread would suffice. That would allow all sides to express themselves. Bus stop (talk) 14:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

No. Bugs is being singled out for substituting his question for the OPs, and then demanding that the OP answers it. That's just a bollocks way to start. His further actions - such as implying that the OP is a sock with no basis whatsoever adds insult to injury. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Tagishsimon — no one "demands" anything around here. We are participants. When we behave civilly we are welcome. Bus stop (talk) 14:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

But that is exactly what Bugs has done: demanded to know why the user wanted to ask the question. And that's the big problem I have with his behaviour. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

No, he didn't "demand." He asked a follow up question. You are overlooking that this is a human conversation. Human conversational interactions are not as clearly defined as machine conversations. In my personal assessment Baseball Bugs' participation was civil. In fact his input was merely a stating of the obvious. The framework of the question (by the OP) obviously involved competing ideals. I think it is pollyannish to pretend that we are machines that answer questions without providing hints of wider context. Bus stop (talk) 14:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Your reading and mine vary, then. OP asks a question, gets told "what's the problem?" "Unless you're engaging in illegal activity of some kind". As APL picked up on the spot, that's an insult, not a constructive contribution. It's like asking for some yellow paint and being told that you really shouldn't want to buy yellow paint. We are not in the business of insulting our questioners and denying the validity of their question. Of course we can discuss the nuances of the territory of the question as a secondary aim, but the primary aim should be to answer the OPs question without questioning or impugning their motive. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm an American of a particular generation, so I question anything that looks peculiar to me, rather than accepting it or answering it blindly. The failure to ask questions can get us into trouble. It's possible this idea of not questioning is a generational thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

APL took issue with Baseball Bugs' input, and Baseball Bugs responded to APL in a civil way. This is the way human conversation proceeds. At no point was the OP's question in jeopardy of not being answered. A productive conversation flowed forth. In fact you might consider thanking Baseball Bugs for helping to see that a lively and informative response transpired. It is a little bit myopic to single out someone for improper input when the overall conversation is productive. In my conception of human interaction, if the input is within the bounds of civility, then I think it is dubious to try to pin blame on someone, especially after a productive conversation has transpired. Bus stop (talk) 15:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

"The failure to ask questions can get us into trouble." Explain how. APL (talk) 22:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, while other participants made an effort to actually answer the question, Bugs just challenged the OP for asking it. People asking questions on the reference desk don't need to justify their reasons for asking.

@Bugs: You mentioned a "one entry user". Please stop drawing inferences about OPs based on the fact that they only have one edit. Rather deal with each case on its merits. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I do. Meanwhile, stop hassling registered users, and start paying better attention to what could be behind the OPs' questions. You are not a robot, and you have a brain. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean to hassle you (or any other users, registered or otherwise) and I'm sorry if I implied that you don't consider the particulars of each case - I know that you do. I disagree that we should be paying any attention "to what could be behind the OPs' questions". Pretty much anything could be behind the questions - we should just answer them within our "approved" guidelines. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

That discussion is where Malcolm XIV came in. He eventually retired under that ID because he "lost" his battle with me. That resignation was entirely unnecessary. If he had focused on the right things instead of trying to suppress outside-the-box thinking, he would have been OK. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

section break

Bugs, I think it's pretty clear that there's a consensus, both here and at previous similar discussions, that your behavior towards IP editors is improper. Since you don't seem inclined to alter your behavior, I'm curious: do you dispute that consensus exists? Do you just not care that it exists? Is it something I haven't thought of here? Is there a course of action (straw poll, mediation, RfC, etc) that we collectively could pursue to find a solution? I'd like to see a non-escalatory resolution, if possible. — Lomn 14:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

There was a WQA. The admin said that it "seems an abuse of WQA" and I got the impression that Bugs' treatment of "drive-by" users on this talk page was not considered as unacceptable as I thought it was. This is a bit different, though. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like for someone to explain two things to me: (1) What's wrong with asking the OP why they want to know, when they could be asking us to aid and abet in some illegal activity (such as the purchase of child porn, or just general fraud); and (2) Why are IP's supposed to get privileged treatment, compared with users who have bothered to register and establish an identity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

(1) Because it sets up an arbitrary threshold test which the OP must pass before they get an answer. We're not here to test the OPs. We're here to answer their questions (2) No one has suggested they should get privileged treatment, merely equal treatment and specifically no insults like being labelled as a sock merely because they are an IP. Your whole question 2 reeks of contempt for IPs, yet the vast majority of wikipedia users are IP. It makes no sense to hate your users. Really, you are in the wrong place. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

(1) There is no "threshold test". If they don't feel like answering my questions, they don't have to. In my observation, they seldom come back anyway, regardless of the response they get. And you're not a mindless robot. If they ask something that looks fishy, you or I have every right to ask them why they're asking. It is not the ref desk's job to aid and abet potential criminal activity. Pleading ignorance is no excuse. You're worried about wikipedia's reputation? How would wikipedia's reputation improve if someone were arrested for illegal activity, and he said, "I found how to do it from an editor on wikipedia"? (2) I'm going by what I see here and elsewhere. IP's often make good edits. Just as often, they commit vandalism, because they know they can get away with it: IP's have to be warned multiple times before being blocked even for highly offensive activities, and they can't be indef'd. They often hop from one IP to another and take their shots at many registered users, not just me. So they can't vote in AFD's. Big deal. They can get away with a lot of stuff that registered users cannot. I don't hate any users. But that doesn't mean I have to kiss up to them either. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer to discuss the original questions before shifting subjects. — Lomn 15:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The original question was, "How can I buy something anonymously on the internet?" The only reasons I can think of for buying something anonymously would be: (1) fear of identity theft; or (2) fear of being identified. The former is a reasonable fear, but I doubt it's the issue, since the question wasn't really cloaked that way. It was about porn, so the latter seems more likely. That leads to the next logical question: Who is he afraid of? The law? His peer group? His mother? If it's the latter two, that's his own problem, as he's engaging in deception, but who cares. But if it's the first one, we need some assurance that it's not about illegal activity, so wikipedia editors should be off the hook if the cops come knocking. Ya follow? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

That's clearly not the "original questions" I meant. Do you dispute the consensus that your behavior is unacceptable? Or do you disregard the consensus that it is unacceptable? — Lomn 15:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec times 3) Well, for starters, if they were planning to engage in some illegal activity, they'd hardly be broadcasting their intentions here, now, would they? So, your question will not elicit such an answer, and it is therefore a pointless question. Secondly, as others have said, it's incredibly rude for us to set up a service like this, where anyone in the world is welcome to come here and ask any damn question they like, and then turn around and want to know why they're asking. That's their business. If they want to provide the broader context of their question, they'll volunteer it. This sort of response on your part is in the same camp as the "Who cares?" or "Why does it matter?" response we've been seeing a bit of lately (not from you, though). As for privileged treatment, I have no idea what you're talking about.

You really MUST stop this distrust of people who are unregistered, and people whose first edit is here. What is wrong with asking a question here? It's not as if the Ref Desks are tucked away in some obscure corner of Wikipedia; their existence is broadcast loud and clear on the Main Page - and it obviously works. Rather than discovering potential trolls, you reveal yourself as a person with serious issues of trust when you operate like this, Buggsy. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 15:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You don't get it. I don't care if the OP is intending to break the law, as such. That's his problem. I care if the potential is there to drag wikipedia down with him. If he denies, in writing, that he's going to break the law, then we're at least somewhat off the hook. If no one asks, and he uses our answers to break the law, the Nuremberg Defense just might not work for us. Ya dig? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this a realistic scenario? Could the Ref Desk be legally liable if we've helped someone to do something illegal? There would presumably be a difference between us doing it intentionally (a few months ago, we told someone how best to hide the body) and us doing it without realising, but I'd be interested in knowing if we're at risk either way. Vimescarrot (talk) 15:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

No, WP is safe. Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 15:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if the Reference desk could be legally liable. I doubt it. But there is nothing wrong with conducting ourselves like responsible citizens (of the planet Earth). I simply feel there is a wide range of acceptable types of input. We are human beings. Bus stop (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia might not be able to be held liable, but I bet an individual would. Googlemeister (talk) 15:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting point. But even if we're not legally liable, something like that could hurt wikipedia's reputation. I think we all believe in wikipedia and in defending it. The difference seems to be on specifics. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how this would affect our reputation. Maybe that's just me, though. Vimescarrot (talk) 15:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

We are not lawyers, nor have we been given any instructions from the WP lawyers to protect WP by asking certain questions before we provide answers. Your intentions are noble, Bugsy, but your efforts are unnecessary; more than that, you can see the trouble it is causing, so please just stop defending it and accept that it's over.

I'd just make the point, Bugsy, that you have drawn far more attention to yourself, and created far more disruption, by your modus operandi, than any of the alleged trolls and potential lawbreakers you're on a quest to root out and eradicate. You've become the Torquemada-in-Residence of the Reference Desks. Or maybe you'd prefer to be the Joe McCarthy-in-Residence. That sounds all nice and grand, but it is not a good title to have, and I'd be doing whatever I could to be rid of it asap. I'll AGF and assume you're not intending to create disruption. But you are in fact creating disruption, and that's all that matters in the end. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 15:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Joe McCarthy was a good leader. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we should not be endeavoring to hammer down "personality" when it is demonstrably civil and tends to be part of productive responses to questions posed by OPs. Bus stop (talk) 15:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't intend to create disruption. I intend to raise questions that I think need to be asked. The disruption comes from users blowing a molehill into a mountain - like, for example, by bringing it here and weeping and wailing over someone who dares to ask a one-entry, never-heard-from-before-or-since OP what he's up to. If you don't like something I ask or say, then talk to me about it. I'm not perfect either, and my talk page is unprotected. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You think they need to be asked. Does anyone else think they need to be asked? Vimescarrot (talk) 16:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Those who don't think expository questions need to be asked, are free to not ask them. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Occasionally. If someone asked us how to make and store napalm, and the requirements for renting a Cessna, I would have concerns. Googlemeister (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem with asking motive is this: If the person is asking for information to support illegal activity, they are most likely not going to give you an honest answer about why they are asking the question in the first place. 10draftsdeep (talk) 17:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

No, they're going to cloak it in something that sounds sort-of "innocent". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I made that point above. Bugs' response was that we should still be seen to have asked the question, regardless of the unlikelihood of getting a truthful answer (in the case where they really do have some nefarious purpose in mind). Where this bush-lawyer thinking comes from, I have absolutely no idea, but it certainly seems to have zero non-Bugs support around here. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 17:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Bugs, you're asking us not to make mountains out of molehills and yet you're worried that answering a question you - and only you - find suspect might "bring down Wikipedia". I picked a hell of a week to stop calling people hypocritical... Matt Deres (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Lomn's original point that Bugs's behavior toward IPs has often been improper. It's puzzling to me, because nearly all of us are using pseudonyms anyway. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I avoid asking questions here as an IP for 2 reasons: 1) The abuse of IP's that ask a question that could even remotely be considered ambiguous thus setting off Bugs "always defendable" jabs at the OP. 2) The off topic forays that in my humble opinion are ore suited for chatrooms than ref. desks. My suggestion for Answering questions is easy to follow: a) If you understand the question, and have a referenced answer that has a high probability of being helpful to the OP, post it. If you think the question is loaded, if you do not have a well referenced helpful response, or you are not sure exactly what the OP asks, pass on it and let it be answered by anyone else that might better suited to research it or provide a relevant helpful response. 68.28.104.227 (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You've been blocked 3 times since November for vandalism and disruption, so you're welcome to dismount that high horse anytime. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

This is looking into Bugs's mind, which of course is not for the faint of heart; but I personally think Bugs's claim that he is defending Wikipedia is false, and that he is arguing against answering the question because he wants to discourage behavior that he believes to be immoral or unethical. Similarly, I remember Bugs arguing against answering a practical question posed by a prospective client of a prostitute (sorry I can't find the diff; I don't think it was the guy who asked about brushing up his hygiene before visiting a prostitute), though Bugs was shouted down by people who noted that prostitution is legal in some areas. If I am right, by the way, I do not think we should pillory Bugs merely for discouraging the answering of certain questions. If someone asks us how to make ricin and poison someone with it, I would hope we would all act to remove such a question. Bugs's response to this "how do I buy porn anonymously" question is in the same vein, I think: he is just more paranoid than most of us, apparently. In a related vein, I discourage questions that help software pirates, even though software piracy is probably legal in Sealand or something. I don't think Tagishsimon is asserting that we should answer every question on the Refdesk, but in case anybody is, I think that's clearly incorrect, and I don't think we should be attacking Bugs for expressing concern about certain questions — even though most of us don't share his concern in this case. Maybe a better path for Bugs (and maybe me, too) to follow would be to recommend: Bugs, if you are concerned that a question should not be answered on moral or ethical grounds, then you should remove or collapse the question, rather than grill the questioner or complain about it in the thread. Or, if you feel less strongly, suggest removal here on Refdesk Discussion. If consensus is with you, then the question stays gone and your concern is settled; if consensus is against you then this is a way to decide, one way or another, without derailing the thread on the Refdesks themselves. I personally would prefer that a debate about answering a question shouldn't take place within the thread itself. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

If the OP had instead of porn said he wished to buy a computer, whould the response have been, why? If porn makes Bugs react in such a way then maybe their help on the ref desk is not needed. Mo ainm~Talk 20:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems like too much anguish and drama here over someone asking why a questioner wants instructions for doing something which sounds shady. If someone asks "Where is a locksmith who will make a key from a wax impression?" "Where can I buy printer ink which exactly duplicates the green ink on U.S. currency?" or "How can I make my electric meter underreport usage" or "What food or beverage would cyanide be least detectable in?" it does not bother me for someone to ask for clarification about the questioner's intentions. Edison (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

What, exactly, is "shady" about wanting to buy pornography without revealing personal information? -- Coneslayer (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

100% agree with Coneslayer, it is not illegal to but porn, and it is not illegal to want to buy it anonymously. The repeated inference that something illegal is being asked is BS. Mo ainm~Talk 20:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to be factually correct, not everybody on Earth lives where you live. It is indeed illegal to buy porn in some places; see Pornography by region. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Nothing is shady per se, but, of course, we tend to be open about things we are proud of. Vranak (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Really, Vranak, this discussion has nothing to do with anything related to being "proud of" something. Anyway, I think the advice given above by 68.28. is actually quite good. 10draftsdeep (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

He's been blocked 3 times in 5 months for vandalism and disruption, so don't put all your eggs in his basket. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

And why is it any of our business whether they're proud or not? This is a Reference Desk, not a confessional. -- Coneslayer (talk) 22:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, openness tends to bring good results, and secretiveness, not so much. But people have to learn that for themselves, you're quite right. Vranak (talk) 18:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Because answering questions is boring. Putting on your Morality Police hat and saying "Unless you're a criminal and/or pervert you don't need to know!" is fun and satisfying. APL (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

For instance, I did it just now in the line above this one and it gave me a great smug and superior feeling for at least sixty seconds. APL (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Now try it after you've had a few drinks. The sense of superiority lasts right until you nod off on the couch. The downside of course is clicking "You have new messages" in the morning. ;) Franamax (talk) 01:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Replying to Comet Tuttle's speculation on what to do if one is "concerned that a question should not be answered on moral or ethical grounds", remember, besides commenting in the thread, or collapsing the thread, or proposing the thread for deletion here, another excellent possibility to consider is: just ignore it. It may violate your morals or ethics, but that doesn't mean it violates everyone's. (Or if it does violate everyone's, and if the question therefore goes unanswered, perhaps that's fine.) Nothing derails a discussion faster than when someone too-quickly injects his own opinion where it wasn't called for. (And remember, Wikipedia is not censored.) —Steve Summit (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored for article content. Clearly, that principle does not apply to the ref desks, as per the frequency of deletion of questions asking for professional advice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is not censored, period. In particular, it is not censored to remove content that some people might find objectionable. There are a couple of exceptions having to do with other Wikipedia policies, and "the laws of the U.S. state of Florida where Wikipedia's servers are hosted", but clearly, none of those exceptions apply here. —Steve Summit (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Clearly, you've got it wrong. At the very least, BLP violations are "censorable" anywhere. Personal attacks are "censorable". Copyright violations are "censorable". And if you've been paying attention lately, deletion of frivolous questions is gaining support - like the deletion mentioned farther down the page, where some clown had asked how many car accidents were attributable to little Bart Simpson-types asking the drivers, "Are we there yet?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word censor. Nothing you have listed counts as censorship, in my book, with the possible exception of the "little Bart Simpson types" question, which I have not reviewed.

If you wish to continue to argue that Wikipedia is censored and that this justifies your public objection to the anonymously-purchased porn question, I can't stop you, but I think you're wrong, but I'm not going to waste any more time discussing it with you. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

In defense of anonymous IP's

I haven't slogged through all of the above thread, so pardon me if I'm repeating, but I think it's important to reiterate that we are honor-bound to extend AGF to all contributors, including anonymous IP's.

Furthermore, there is no such thing as this alleged "double standard" towards IP's. If a registered user feels he's being unjustly held to a higher standard than an IP editor (which is certainly possible), the merit of that injustice can be addressed, but nothing gives any of us the right to publicly berate anonymous IP's as some kind of second-class citizens. There are those who sling phrases like "drive-by IP" around with, it seems to me, more or less the same blind prejudice as a racist uses the term "nigger", and it could be considered analogously offensive.

Now, believe me, I've done my share of vandal-fighting myself, and I do understand that any given anonymous-IP contribution has a much higher probability of being vandalism or trolling. And if it is, you revert (or perhaps just ignore) it, just as you would any other vandalism or trolling. But -- and this is the key point -- you should keep your opinions about the general character of IP editors to yourself. The anonymity may help you form your decision -- i.e. that a suspicious edit is indeed vandalism or trolling -- more quickly, but in the end, you dealt with it because it was vandalism or trolling, not because it came from an IP editor. If you act as if "all IP editors are vandals and trolls", you are being prejudiced and failing to follow AGF, and that's not acceptable. —Steve Summit (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Fully agreed and endorsed, especially at the reference desks. See also IPs are human too and Not every IP is a vandal. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Being anonymous and constantly shifting addresses should not give IP's any special privilege to attack registered users, yet that's what I see being argued for frequently. There IS a double-standard. IP's can get away with almost anything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you point us to any place where anyone argues for special privileges for IPs? --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The first posting in this section is exactly what I'm talking about. We're supposed to kiss up to IP's as if they were registered, established users, regardless of what they say or do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a world of difference between "kissing up" to IPs, and a) not being hostile to them and b) getting on with answering legitimate questions without hectoring them. Have you any other examples than this one? --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

When a one-entry IP's lone "contribution" is to take a verbal shot at someone, they have forfeited any right to assumption of good faith. As has been noted many times in various venues, "AGF is not a suicide pact." You want examples? Look through the archives for every time I referred to one of those malicious characters as "drive-bys" and the hand-wringers here were all over me for daring to speak the truth about them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer it if you could find even one single instance of your assertion that anyone has argued for special privilege for IPs. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Apparently you're either new to this debate or have not been paying attention. That argument turns up every time I call a malicious IP or red-link user a "drive-by". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You wouldn't have much trouble in pointing me at one of these, would you? Because right now, the only example we have before us is of you treating an IP's legitimate question with contempt and the IP with hostility. As normal, I'll put to one side your ad hominem attacks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what "attack" you're referring to, and I'm not doing your research for you either. But you can bet it will come up again. The next time an IP or red-link posts in bad faith, and if I happen to call them what they are ("drive-by") you cats will be all over me for it. I don't recall that I even used that term in this case. I basically argued for not just blindly responding to something that to me at least looked fishy. If you don't think it's fishy, that's fine. But it doesn't make you right and me wrong. Ya dig? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You said "should not give IP's any special privilege to attack registered users, yet that's what I see being argued for frequently". Can you point me at any place where that has happened? It's your argument, not mine --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, every time I use the term "drive-by" and get yelled at for it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not just about empathy and kissing up. Using "Drive-by" labels attempts to deflect away from the topic toward the contributor. I'm not saying it's never acceptable to point out a particular user's history, I have done so myself when I was certain about mischievous alternate identities. Generally, I find this kind of deflection disruptive though. I don't appreciate it for registered users either. ("Look at his user name, need I say more?"..."Why should I listen to what you are saying, you are an admin."..."Why should I listen to what you are saying, you are not an admin.") Focus on what is being said, not who said it. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I only use the term "drive-by" when it fits. If an IP, a red-link, or registered user posts in good faith, I don't call them drive-bys. Your being apparently blind to this problem of malicious editors is your issue, not mine. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I conclude that you are unable or unwilling to back-up your assertion that anyone has ever argued for special privileges for IPs on wikipedia, and accordingly dismiss your argument as some unfathomable prejudice on your part. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I conclude that you unable or unwilling to understand what I'm saying, as you all are making that very argument right here in this debate, so accordingly I dismiss your own argument as some unfathomable blindness on your part. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

In would dearly like to understand your position, but if you make assertions and are unable to evidence them, what is anyone to make of them? Remember, this is in the context of your biting IPs for reasons entirely unsupported by wikipedia policy or guidelines. It is not a frivolous issue and calls for your evidenced justification. It is not acceptable that you appoint yourself a bully of IPs in the way you have in this instance. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I have vivid memories of being yelled at every time I use the term "drive-by", and I do not wish to revisit those annoying debates. If you want to search the archives, you're free to do so. Or you can wait until the next time. But as you may note below, I've tried to get away from "drive-by" by posting the SPA tag, as I was advised to do here (and, no, I'm not researching that for you either), and I'm getting yelled at again, even though the guy is a single-purpose, one-entry account. And I'm being yelled at here for daring to ask the IP OP a leading question (which he won't answer), and the IP is being defended as if he were some innocent lamb. You're right, it's not a frivolous issue, except you're not seeing the same thing I'm seeing. My company has ongoing Code of Conduct training, and one recurring theme is "red flags". If someone says something that seems suspicious, then it's entirely appropriate to raise questions. You feel it's not appropriate to question anything a questioner asks. And you're free not to question. I don't agree with that approach, and if something looks fishy to me, I will ask. There are several reasons someone might want to hide their identity, and some of those possible reasons could put wikipedians in the position of aiding and abetting a crime. My guess is the user just didn't want his name connected with porn, which is understandable if a bit paranoid (as others have noted, most porn tends to be legal, though some is not). If it were furniture he was buying, fear of identity theft would be the more likely explanation. But your continual claim that I don't have the right to use my brain and question the questioner, is what I'm talking about when I say you want me to kiss up to the posters. If they were registered users, they could be more easily communicated with. IP's jump all around, so posting a question on an IP talk page may well be a waste of time. So the only practical place to ask is on ref desk page, where there's a chance the OP might see it, and possibly answer it, under possibly a different IP address. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Use of SPA template

In light of the guidelines at Wikipedia:Single-purpose account, I'd be grateful if Bugs would outline his rationale for this edit. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It's what I was advised to do, on this very page, in lieu of using the term "drive-by". And in fact, 4 days later this [3] remains that user's lone edit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

What, exactly, led you to conclude that this editor was one to whom scrutiny of the sort discussed in the SPA guide should apply? SPA is normally applied when there is some contention about an editors edits. What contention was there in this case? Why did you decide to so label the IP? --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Because it was (then and now) the poster's only post, and it looked to me like a request for advice on how to do something questionable. And while all this debate has gone on, the OP still has not come back to comment on anything that anyone has said. So I am even more convinced now than I was 4 days ago, that it was a questionable and frivolous posting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Bugs, you were right about the anon/troll who was posting on this page earlier being a drive-by. I support your use of the term in that instance, in fact I think I used it too, I just didn't keep pushing the issue, instead I tried to indicate that I simply had no interest in whether they had valid points or not. However for the IP OP question that kicked off this latest, you are dead wrong. Do you seriously think someone worked through their ISP address pool until they found an address that hadn't ever made an en:wp post? If they can figure that out, would they really need help with buying porn anonymously? Your use of "single-entry", "SPA" or "drive-by" is simply unsupportable in this case. It is an anonymous editor asking a question and that is all. If you don't like a question, don't answer it. If someone else turns out to aid and abet a crime, let them take the heat, no-one here is asking for your help. WMF will not be threatened at all, read up on "safe harbour" provisions. This really does look like your own personal morality coming into play, combined with your idea that somehow IP's get special privilege. It's rather disruptive at the moment. Franamax (talk) 05:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I try to keep wikipedia's broader best interests as a highly important factor. I hear people ridicule wikipedia all the time - not for its alleged treatment of alleged newbies, but for its unreliability. The average reader couldn't care less about this debate over IP's. And if an IP is trying to ask advice on how to do something that to me looks shady, then I think I owe it to wikipedia to challenge the poster on it. Contrast that with a discussion on a recent page about pot, in which the IP engaged in dialogue and it was a much more useful discussion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You certainly shouldn't be using the SPA template for IP users. Some people have internet service providers who have a VAST range of IP addresses and recycle them frequently - that's particularly true of dialup users who typically get a different IP address allocated to them each time they log in. So even a frequent and respected contributor might show up on an IP address which had never been used to access Wikipedia before. Therefore you know NOTHING about IP users. SPA is intended for named accounts that are created for a single use. SteveBaker (talk) 05:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That's precisely the point. IP's have no identity. One IP could be a hundred guys, and a hundred IPs could be one guy, or any combination thereof. And you want them all treated as innocent newbies, even when it's clear they aren't. That's the double standard. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't be silly Bugs, for one thing you know that a returning editor can be spotted by <beans> amd <beans>, among other <beans>. For another, you know that what you just said is equally, if not more, true of registered accounts, amd this can only be detected by <beans> and requesting a <beans>. You also know that casual detection of <beans> can be easily defeated by just doing <beans> and <beans>. I'm really quite sure you know all this, but I'll fill in all the blanks privately if you want. Sorry, but I question your very thesis here, you haven't carried the analysis far enough. Franamax (talk) 04:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The core problem is the difficulty of communicating with IP's, especially the ones that hop. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you there. But the fact that I can't even expand on my agreement with reasons, 'cause of, you know <beans> - doesn't mean that all and sundry editors here who happen to arrive anonymously should be tarred with ahy particular brush. Spotting the patterns of malfeasance is more complex than that. Franamax (talk) 05:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Gevalt! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Crass nonsense by User:Googlemeister

I propose deleting this troll post: Given the fact that some people have died from allergic reactions to penicillin, there are no moral grounds for using antibiotics. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 01:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not a troll. It's just a poor analogy.

It is not intended to be read as a serious argument against penicillin, it's supposed to ridicule the somewhat absolutist anti-capital punishment comment by DOR(HK).

Forgive the logic, but does the phrase "somewhat absolutist" even make sense? I would think absolutist is binary, on or off. . Googlemeister (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Your confusion is not very unique. -- Scray (talk) 14:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You are either a moral absolutist, or a moral objectivist, there does not seem to be a middle ground. Googlemeister (talk) 17:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

My use of small font, and the juxtaposition of the relative "very" with the absolute "unique", was meant to suggest that I agreed with you (it was meant to parallel "somewhat absolutist"). I apologize if that was not sufficiently clear. -- Scray (talk) 18:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Stated clearly without the ridicule and sarcasm, Googlemeister is saying that he belives that a small number of accidental deaths is an acceptable loss for the gain that capital punishment provides to society.

I don't agree with him, and his comment is off-topic, but no moreso than the ones that came before it. APL (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It may be a poor analogy (since the death rate from execution is very close to 100%), but I see that as a legitimate "point on a graph". There is a continuum of desired and unintended consequences to any action, so approaching the idea from the "morality of <xxx>" standpoint can be useful. Death rate from vaccination against mortal disease may have been a better analogy. Franamax (talk) 01:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually the death rate from executions isn't particularly relevant, since the point isn't related to the injustice of people being executed (while some may feel that there's no justification for putting people to death, that wasn't being discussed). The comparison was to innocent people being put to death and while it's definite innocent people have been put to death, it's also almost definitely not close to 100%. However with something like penicillin, you can likely come up with somewhat meaningful statistics for the number of people died/number of people saved; whereas with the death penalty even if you could come up with some statistics innocent people executed/guilty people executed it doesn't mean the same thing. And trying to come up with statistics for innocent people executed/innocent people saved by the executions, is basically impossible Nil Einne (talk) 02:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I said it was a poor analogy. APL (talk) 02:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry. Thought you were replying to me. Didn't notice Franamax's post in between. APL (talk) 02:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

There was a ref desk question a few weeks back asking how many innocent people have been executed. There's no way to know, since the cases of executed criminals are seldom re-opened. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Tangential discussion of punishment and innocence

Nietzsche argued that everyone receiving punishment was 'innocent', insomuch as they are not the same person who committed the crime. Arguably true psychologically, though of course victims and those clamouring for justice will not be interested in the distinction. But this has nothing to do with Googlemeister. Vranak (talk) 03:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

So, I take it he was an anarchist? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

no, not an anarchist, precisely. Laws for Nietzsche were a bit like walls at a zoo - protecting the 'animal' from the 'human' as much as they protect the 'human' from the 'animal'. Anyone truly human would have no need for them, but the rest of the people need the comfort of knowing that they are protected from themselves. Did I mention he was kind of scary? --Ludwigs2 06:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Do tell. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

“I know my fate. One day there will be associated with my name the recollection of something frightful, of a crisis like no other before on earth, of the profoundest collision of conscience, of a decision evoked against everything that until then had been believed in, demanded, sanctified. I am not a man, I am dynamite.” -- Nietzsche

So he knew he'd be scary to some people. Vranak (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, not the best analogy (though certainly not crass nonsense). I was just trying to make the point that no human endeavor is perfect, and that a system that is not 100% perfect can still have utility. Googlemeister (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Penicillin saved a dying patient's life in 1942 (see linked article) then countless thousands of lives during WW2, the urgency of which brought production by 1945 to over 600 billion units per year. Less than 1% of patients have adverse reactions to penicillin, almost none of them fatal. I don't see any cases of fatality due to penicillin in isolation. Penicillin is only the first of the range of antibiotics that are central to medical practice. Medical ethics demand best-effort actions. Yes Googlemeister, you posted crass mocking nonsense and I have deleted it. Answer an OP with verifiable facts and references not puerile sarcasm unless you think your humour will be appreciated in small print, which is not the case here. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not seeing any support for your perspective that this is deserving of deletion, nor for your interpretation of its meaning. Bielle (talk) 22:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Bielle if you want to reinsert the claim be sure to let your family doctor know that you don't want to be treated with an antibiotic.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you miss Googlemeister's point. He is not saying that antibiotics are immoral (though that's what his post literally says), but rather that the death penelty connot be considered immoral simply because it kills some innocent people. His sarcasm works on the assumption that no one would say using antibiotics is immoral, even if it does hurt some people. Buddy431 (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

While I agree I don't think the removal was a good idea or necessary and it's clear CA3 has either misunderstood GM's point or is unwilling to accept that it was a valid way to make the point given the tone of the discussion even if some may find it offensive, IMHO provided Googlemeister is fine with letting his/her modified way of making the point replace the original post, there's nothing to be gained by continuing this further. Nil Einne (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

If Googlemeister (or anyone) wants to say something about executions that does not involve sarcasm and belongs in this encyclopedia then I say welcome. I suggest Googlemeister muzzle the medical opinions. @Buddy431 there actually are people who have taught that antibiotics are ungodly so you cannot assume otherwise. I cite[4]: If the religious adherent withheld antibiotics from a sick person, either in favour of a divine healing, or in favour of traditional herbal remedies, is the religious adherent immune from an action if the patient dies? Cases... show the answer to these questions is far from clear.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Cuddlyable3, Are you being intentionally obtuse or are you just not listening? Googlemeister's post was clearly intended to imply that both penicillin and capital punishment are good things. Your continued rants here about the usefulness of antibiotics are puzzling, you're preaching to the converted.

I see that you've removed the post. Why? There is no consensus for that. In fact, the consensus seems to be that you are wrong here. Please do not remove other people's posts against consensus.

I've tried to undo your improper deletion on general principals, but the undo hit a conflict and I just can't be bothered to resolve it manually. APL (talk) 23:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

In fact I don't believe GM was even intending to suggest that capital punishment was a good thing (he may think that, it's irrelevant to the point), simply that the fact innocent people have been killed doesn't automatically mean it's a bad thing or indefendable. It is clear that GM meant that antibiotics are a good thing Nil Einne (talk) 11:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Children playing games?

Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed a number of redlinked accounts asking particularly numb-nut questions lately? three off the humanities desk: Kandorko (talk · contribs), Marinada (talk · contribs), R22elial (talk · contribs). I don't know whether this is one user socking to be annoying or a bunch of users playing a weird form of tag. Not a huge issue - the questions are stupid, not disruptive - but a bit of a time waster. is it worth trying to do something about?

I've seem some templates floating about that we could use to block out nonsense (they're normally used to deal with disruptive posts on mainspace talk pages); we could adapt one for use on the desks. --Ludwigs2 02:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

A well-known troll was recently hit with a block of many of his socks and the anon IP address range he was using. As the blocks were being added, he stated that he was returning in full-force and very quickly started making as many accounts as possible. They are being identified and blocked. I've asked on SPI if there is a way we can easily list the suspect socks to the IP addresses can be checked and, if they are his range, the accounts blocked. -- kainaw™ 02:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I just checked. Marinada and R22elial are already identified as the troll and blocked. The questions asked by those users should be completely removed. The user is indef.blocked and not allowed to post questions. Every question/comment we leave up is, to him, a score. He continues to make new accounts and tries to see how many questions he can get us to leave up. Kandorko is not blocked... yet. -- kainaw™ 02:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

lol - the things that turn some people on. I'll do the legwork on the first two (if no one else has gotten to it); we'll see what happens with the third. --Ludwigs2 02:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

To my mind, most of the deleted questions were reasonable and not at all "stupid". Unless the troll starts being offensive or disruptive, I say treat his sock questionss like any other questions. Chasing him round and round the RDs only reinforces his attention seeking behaviour and encourages him to continue socking. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

That used to be my opinion, but now I feel differently. He is not allowed to use Wikipedia. That is all there is to it. "not allowed". He isn't blocked "unless he makes a somewhat reasonable question." He is simply blocked. So, anything he does should be removed. Even if he asks the perfect question that everyone reads and suddenly achieves enlightenment, it should be removed immediately. -- kainaw™ 13:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Having been a pest myself, I concur. He needs to reform his behavior, and there's no incentive to do that without systematic, implacable exclusion. It's hard for him but hey, it's worth it in the end for everyone. Vranak (talk) 20:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

"Every question/comment we leave up is, to him, a score. " to Kainaw as well, apparently. Oh well, if you're going to play his game I suppose you might as well play to win. (Minor Nitpick : In the future, I wonder if it wouldn't be better to leave the stubs. It's confusing when questions just disappear.)APL (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

And if there's a little collateral damage, well, that happens in total warfare. -- Coneslayer (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Comparing this to total warfare is a bit obnoxious. The collateral damage here is fixed with a simple "undo". In total warfare is it really possible for the President to go: "Oops. My bad on bombing your town and killing a bunch of civilians. Undo." This is not a war. This is simply a matter of following policy. When a banned or blocked user uses a sock to evade the ban or block, anything that the user posts should be removed. -- kainaw™ 00:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

See here and here for this discussion already in progress. Also, still more are being created and used. Rules are rules and he is blocked whatever he does, but, specifically, sockpuppetting is against the rules. Also, it is actually disruptive, because he is using upto 5 or so accounts per day and asking upto five or six questions from each. This is upto thirty or so pointless questions every day, all from the same person. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Another system-wide check is going. Those turn up ones he hasn't even used yet. This particular troll actually made me consider WP:RFA. Luckily, I know I'd never pass an RFA, so I didn't do it. Although, I did consider it once before - just to see how poorly I'd do, but then I saw that it would be closed right away due to WP:SNOW and didn't waste anyone's time. -- kainaw™ 15:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Well of course he's going to post 30 questions a day if you chase him round in circles - just to show that he can. He's got you playing his game - every time you throw the stick he brings it right back. Now we just wait to see who gets bored first. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

There is also the problem of him giving short and incorrect one-line answers to others' questions, with no citations (because he made the information up), from some of the accounts he is using. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Point of information - the source for some of the "reasonable questions" seems to be WikiAnswers. e.g. this, cf this removal diff. --LarryMac | Talk 16:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed. I have googled the complete wordings (complete with occasional typos and/or grammatical mistakes - for a reason) and found the exact same ones (with same typos/grammatical mistakes) on both WikiAnswers and Yahoo Answers. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I have removed this un-answerable question, which I believe is related to all this. —Akrabbim^talk 17:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Unanswerable factually, but at least showing some imagination. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Ref desk troll

Curious Cactus (talk · contribs) Woogee (talk) 00:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It was suggested earlier that this was the current troll that has been the subject of a lot of blocking and question deletions. Curious Cactus doesn't follow her procedure. Whoever Curious Cactus is, he/she is not copy/pasting questions from other question/answer sites while refusing to sign any of the questions. So, it doesn't appear that Curious Cactus is the same person. However, the troll who has been a bit of trouble has allied with other trolls through message boards and she will likely call on them for help. Therefore, it is not possible to say that Curious Cactus is completely unrelated. -- kainaw™ 04:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm seeing good faith (possibly naive edits). I realise we have a swarm of midges (recognisable by their red talk and user pages) - but they seem entirely innocuous, possibly friendly, and potentially even useful.

Perhaps some other website (forum?) has decided to join the ref desks en masse.

It's possibly that some of the new posters are 'doing it for the lulz' but on the whole why not just leave it. 87.102.67.84 (talk) 12:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

No, they are all the same person. See further up this page (in two places) for this discussion. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

No - you're infering that - there are other possibilities - school computer, group of people acting in unison etc. etc. 87.102.67.84 (talk) 14:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

No, believe me. It has basically been established that this is the work of one person (who may or may not have recruited 'friends' to help out), and work is in progress to ban this user for breaching of rules. If you are interested and want to comment further, I suggest you read the above discussions again, and click on any links within them before proceeding. Thank you. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

So where did you work out that it was one person? ie actually establish that? (link?) (diff?) - no nothing - it's just typical ref desk talk page nonsense - User:Kainaw and others too busy "fighting the trolls" to actually contribute properly to the project.87.102.67.84 (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

please, you are right to ask for a relevant locus (or diff), but don't insult those who work hard to keep the desks manageable, even if you disagree with their approach. "Kainaw and others" do actually contribute properly and considerably to the project. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not altogether sure how the registered editors here determined it was one guy, but I am inclined to trust their judgment. Those who study the work of weird users recognize the patterns. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hold it though. Kainaw is saying above that this probably isn't the same guy as the other new accounts (who I guess have been linked together?). Buddy431 (talk) 17:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

So there is some disagreement about observations, and probably an SPI would be good if someone wants to go through that effort. Fortunately, so far this little swarm are only gnats and not hornets. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

No, Curious Cactus is assumed to be a different user thus far. All of the above is related to the 'swarm of midges' that the subsequent IP posted after Kainaw's answer of clarification to Woogee's post. There is no confusion or disagreement. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was certainly confused. Buddy431 (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Likewise, but no harm. There is something kind of familiar about CC's approach, but we'll see how it plays out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→

Well, CC did immediately catch my attention, but as you say, we can only watch. May be someone else entirely unrelated to this issue. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I note that its entire output so far was a "3 hour tour" on the 4th. So it might be reasonable to assume that it's part of the same cadre, and have it blocked. Its M.O. seemed to be a little bit like TrialicWave's. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

"He hasn't done anything recently, so we ought to block him." What kind of convoluted logic is that? Buddy431 (talk) 05:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That would be up to an admin to decide. I don't see what the uproar about these redlinks is anyway. I've seen far worse from one-shot IP's who get defended by the hand-wringers here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL, Bugs. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You got a guilty conscience? >:) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

No. I'm pointing out your incivility in the line above, and reminding you of policy. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I know the truth hurts. But thanks for the reminder. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, BB and Sluzzelin. Look, IP, I don't even know who you are, and I don't feel under any obligation to answer anything you say, especially when you are insulting people who are trying to do a job here. If you think this board is nonsense, you are perfectly welcome to take your IP and post it somewhere else. I did not come here to argue with you, and feel no need to. If you want to contribute to this particular part of the project, do something constructive. If not, do something else. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Is TrialicWave one of these sockpuppets that were mentioned in an above topic? Seems to be a bit cranky to me. One to watch? --TammyMoet (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Tammy, thanks for that. This username fits the bill perfectly, as, in addition to the usual similarities, it is giving unhelpfully incorrect answers to questions, in the same way as some of the other usernames we are blocking. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to mentioned that AFAIK, some of the early accounts were identified as socks by checkusers, so it's almost definite that the user concerned is doing this. We obviously can't say for sure that all of the accounts are and I'm not saying it's necessary or wise to delete all these questions but as someone mentioned collateral damage is inevitable (for example, [5] while this is a homework question and would always be ignored, it's fairly typical and so may not be from the user in questions) as it always is (ironically the user concerned was always the one complaining about collateral damage) and this applies whatever we do. Perhaps I shouldn't say this but I personally am ignoring all questions which fit the profile, even if I feel I have something to offer. I'm sure I'm not the only one either not answering, or less likely to spend as much time on these questions. Nil Einne (talk) 10:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Veterinary advice

A question has recently been moved from an article talk page to the Science desk, where the OP is asking for advice about a chicken. Does our prohibition on medical advice extend to veterinary matters? See [6]. I note that "veterinarian" is listed among the professionals that should be contacted instead of asking on the Ref Desk in the page header. Tevildo (talk) 00:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

If Richard NF is answering, he will know where to draw the line on veterinary advice. If a cosmologist chips in, well, hopefully they also raise hens. Chickens are a bit different than dogs or cats. It's definitely not an article talk Q. Franamax (talk) 00:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal?

Why was my reply removed? A little OR-ish, I guess, but it seemed to answer the question. What up? 64.235.97.146 (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Probably an inadvertent removal as a result of Ultraexactzz's edit conflict with your post. I've restored it. Deor (talk) 17:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. 64.235.97.146 (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

He has done the same to me. When he gets an edit conflict, it appears that he just deletes whatever caused the conflict. -- kainaw™ 17:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

That's really the lazy way to do things, unless he doesn't realize he's doing it. I've had it happen occasionally, from different users. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It's quite possibly inadvertent; sometimes things don't register as an edit conflict, and the old version of the page is saved (with the editor's comments). Don't ask me why, but I've seen it happen a number of times. Gwinva (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You're right it happens, I don't know if even the developers know why. Perhaps it's some sort of race condition. But if it's happening a lot with a specific user as suggested above, I would be concerned about that not necessarily because they're doing it on purpose (the specific user is an admin in good standing) but perhaps there's something wrong with their browser or internet setup that makes it happen a lot (and they may also be a good test candidate if the developers don't know what's wrong). However I'm not sure if it is, I looked at their past ~25 edits to the RD which given they stopped editing for a while and don't contribute to the RD that much reached October 2008 and I didn't come across any other examples Nil Einne (talk) 04:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

"My computer has a virus" FAQ

Because we get queries from unfortunate virus-infected or other-malware-infected users every week or so, I started a FAQ at User:Comet Tuttle/Repair. Comments and fixes direct to that page are welcome. If another FAQ already exists I'm happy to defer and/or merge. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Renaming Humanities to Humanities and Social Sciences

Hi all. In the summer of 2009, it was debated whether the Humanities desk should be renamed to something like Humanities and Social Sciences: Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Archive_59. I'm only a single voter but I would propose that this be highly considered. My reasoning is that there is such an enormously diverse range of disciplines and subject matters encompassed in what we now call "Humanities" (military history, modern law, sexology, specific works of literature, social behavior, hardcore economics, theoreticaly philosophy, etc.) that it would make more sense to indicate this broad range in the name...Just curious if the time was right for this debate and whether there's actually a realistic chance of a rename this time (or a vote thereon)....--达伟 (talk) 23:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not in favor of the proposed renaming, because "Humanities" is adequate and the change would complicate searches in the archives.

-- Wavelength (talk) 23:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Wavelength. I don't see a problem keeping things as they are. The only change to the Desks I'm in favour of is to fold the Entertainment desk back into Humanities. Matt Deres (talk) 00:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I proposed killing the Entertainment desk a while back and I was shot down really hard. It's not gonna happen. I'd dig up the archives but I don't want to relive it :) Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Aha, then you would have a space left in the main page, for the proposed Religion desk. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I am against it as well because Social Sciences fall under Humanities (as does Religion). Entertainment was removed with great debate. If it is folded back into Humanities, I suggest filling the empty space with a Hedgehog desk. Sure - there aren't many questions about hedgehogs now, but if there was a specialized desk just for hedgehog questions, I'm sure we'd get plenty of them (yes - that is the argument normally proposed for "Can we have an fill-in-the-blank desk?). -- kainaw™ 04:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps if we had a Troll & Sock-puppet Desk, wherein those sorts of folks could troll each other to their hearts' content? Any naughty questions posted to another desk could just be banished there. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 08:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

A single-word title is apparently needed. Perhaps "Hosiery". Then the socks and trolls could go there and get hosed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"Humanities" is just fine. "Entertainment" is just fine. Keep as is. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, Humanities and Social Sciences are not the same thing. Humanities are analytic like Art and Philosophy and Social Sciences are empirical like Economics and History but there usually ends being much overlap so one desk is better. I'm not sure whether a rename is needed but it might be.

A major problem I see with the current setup is that we recommend Finance questions on the Humanities desk - that's just bizarre! E.g. understanding a change in a credit spread on a corporate bond is definitely NOT a Humanity. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

What is is then? —Akrabbim^talk 13:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean "What is Finance?"? Well, we don't have a separate desk for it (nor should we since we typically get very few questions) so I think the Misc desk is the best candidate. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Finance could fall under Social sciences. It could not be considered a humanity. The humanities and social sciences overlap in some places, but they not identical.--达伟 (talk) 14:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Finance is a Social Science. In my experience, technical Finance questions get better answers on the Misc desk and mathematical Finance questions get better answers on the Maths desk - but we encourage OPs to ask on the Humanities desk.

Regarding the overlap: I was just using the point to argue against splitting the desks. There are some good reasons for renaming, though, but things don't really change round here. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm for either two separate desks or a renaming. I agree that it is bizarre to have finance and economics questions appearing on a desk titled "Humanities". If a single "Social Sciences" desk receives few questions, that's a plus. I've argued in the past that separating topics into different desks rather than combining into a single desk broadens participation. Wikiant (talk) 13:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That was my original point...the spread is far too broad. Technical finance questions alongside questions about painting alongside questions of sexology alongside questions of constitutional law? --达伟 (talk) 14:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Medremoval

Diff OP asks for treatment advice. Removed per Kainaw's criterion etc. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree, appropriate removal. -- Scray (talk) 23:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Off-desk answers

[7]

A respondant (right word?) asks the OP to give his email address to get more information. I find this...odd. I suppose it doesn't help that I know nothing about the subject involved. We shouldn't be hiding information from other people reading the question by deliberately keeping it off-site, should we? I'm asking mostly so I can get a firmer idea of where the consensus stands on this kind of thing. Vimescarrot (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Right word, wrong spelling - it's 'respondent'.
• It's not usual procedure for a respondent to communicate directly with an OP, either on their own talk page or by email. There's absolutely nothing to prevent this happening, and there's nothing wrong with it; but it's a bit like a library ref desk librarian going to their client's home to give them some information, rather than giving it to them at the library.
• Given that we ask OPs NOT to provide their private contact details, it is definitely going against policy to ask for one, however disguised it may be. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

In general, I would say that both of you (Vimes and Jack) are correct. The diff linked above certainly gives the impression of I've got a conspiracy theory that I want to send you, at best. While I can think of one or two cases where it would be appropriate to communicate part of one's response off-wiki – sharing a paywalled or subscription-only journal article which can't be posted or directly linked, for instance – this doesn't look like such a case. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

People can email each other using the Wikipedia without revealing email addresses to every one else. There can be reasons for not being visible in public here, such as material that is useful, but is non commercial and so cannot be posted here. Or it may be a business opportunity, and irrelevant to the desk, or perhaps a personal visit is going to be arranged. Lots of reasons are possible for a private communication. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this "sheer speculation"?

I'm refering to this thread at the Humanities desk. The question was:

Subject - was Iraq an unprovoked attack like Pearl Harbor?
Question - Was Iraq an unprovoked attack like Pearl Harbor? If so, would Iraq have been justified in nuking two large American cities until America capitulated?

The first question is not speculative. One could explain whether the Iraq War is considered provoked or not and perhaps point out that certain people believe that Pearl Harbor wasn't entirely unprovoked. To deal with the second question, either simply state that (depending on the answer above) it could be considered justified or not depending on who you ask or explain that we don't speculate.

But I think that the OP asks an interesting and valid question about the Iraq War and its similarities (or not) with Pearl Harbor - it's not the OP's fault that respondents can't keep their opinions to themselves. For example, Baseball Bugs called the question "inappropriate" and "strictly speculation" and then proceeded one minute later to answer it (with a pretty weak answer anyway). I think the discussion about whether the question is trolling/soapboxing should be deleted and the collapse box removed. Of course, it is possible that the OP is trolling - but at this point we AGF. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I gotta agree on this one. The first half has a non-speculative answer, if not obvious and quite complicated (I don't know the answer myself). I would refer them to articles and works that discuss the lead-up to the war, and then direct them to draw their own conclusions.

Would a physical library ref desk refuse this question? No. They wouldn't answer, but they would provide the means to draw a conclusion. Plus, we need to remember that not everyone in the world holds the same perspective on the matter. Western bias, Middle Eastern bias, I-don't-care bias... Leave it up.Aaronite (talk) 19:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The comparison of the iraq invasion to pearl harbor is complicated, but I think the factual/historical answer would have to be 'no'. the problem with the question, however, is that it's not a historical question - it's a politically motivated question masquerading as a factual question. You can tell because there is no way to answer the question without invoking a value judgement (which is the intent, to try to trick people into expressing a value judgement which can then be criticized on moral grounds), not without an extensive digression into historical (dis)similarities. I generally think of these as gutless questions: someone doesn't have the guts to come straight out and make a direct moral condemnation, so they try to maneuver people into saying things that can be sneered at instead. waste of time, and I think removing it was probably a good idea. --Ludwigs2 21:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Calling the OP gutless and accusing them of trying to trick people is a clear violation of WP:AGF but you evidently see no problem with that. I think we should treat OPs like trolls AFTER they become trolls. Also, there's nothing wrong with asking a question that requires an "extensive digression into historical (dis)similarities", and value judgements can be avoided if respondents would stick to providing reliable souces - if you can't find reliable commentary from historians, that's fine. It probably means that no one has thought about this question - but don't sling mud at the questioner for asking. To me, this is a good example of a question destined to be ignored/deleted because refdeskers can't keep their personal politics out of their responses. Here's a crazy idea: let's answer questions as though this was a reference desk. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

you're right, I don't see a problem with that. I honestly would prefer it if the OP were more direct and confrontational in their approach (stating what they mean to say) rather than using this kind of indirect nonsense. it would be better for them and better for the board, since we wouldn't end up with editors trying to answer the wrong question. If the OP straight out asked whether the US was morally wrong in their invasion of Iraq, and whether that justifies later terrorist acts, I would certainly do my best to answer such a question. don't put the 'troll' word in my mouth; I respect directness. --Ludwigs2 23:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a problem. If it slides into pointless debate, we should can it, but I see no reason other than its controversial nature for it to be preemptively (ha) removed. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The first question has an easy answer: NO. The second question is based on a false understanding that was revealed by the first question. The best course of action (for me and others) would have been to send the OP to an article about the Iraq War(s) so that he can get some insight into the matter, and possibly draw his own conclusions as to what the answers are to his questions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

These kind of questions (speculative, historical, a bit loaded, and touching taboo themes), occupied my teenage mind for quite a while. Luckily I had a patient history teacher who would put things it context. Maybe the querent doesn't have anywhere else to ask. Mr. 98's answer was helpful. Dweller provided links with more context. I'm tired of seeing questions being boxed just because we volunteers can't control ourselves. We aren't WP:ANI. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

In what way is this discussion useful towards editing the article? This is not a forum. Woogee (talk) 00:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

You clearly misunderstand the purpose of this talk page. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 08:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Controversial and even taboo questions should not be simply avoided, because Wikipedia is not censored. But political questions are not factual questions, ie. "would Iraq have been justified in...". Such questions border on discussions of morality and are prone to debate (regardless of whether or not the debate was intentional). ~AH1^(TCU) 03:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Great, Zain, explain to me why discussing political issues is appropriate use of this page. Woogee (talk) 20:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

We're not discussing politcal issues. The purpose of this thread is to discuss the appropriateness of the question in question. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense questions

Moved from WP:REFDESK/S, specifically, from here: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#is_it_possible_to_boil_water_through_the_power_of_the_mind_alone.3F. StuRat (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with DVdm. The excessive number of nonsense question on this page is a real problem. It would be nice to have a separate page for them. Dauto (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Could we not repast them to a section called something like: Questions not yet meeting basic requirements. Then deleate after 48 hours.--Aspro (talk) 17:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

This discussion does nothing for the OP... perhaps we should move it to talk? – ClockworkSoul 17:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we should just delete it. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 17:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thinks: When uploading a file one gets asked a lot of questions, how about a ‘Submit question form’ requiring the question to be properly stated and referenced?--Aspro (talk) 17:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

You want people to supply references when asking a question on the reference desk? Huh?! --Tango (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm really, really opposed to this idea. If a person asks a question based on ignorance or magical thinking in good faith (or even possibly in good faith), to dismiss their question as "nonsense" we would be depriving them of one a the few opportunities they have to have those magical beliefs challenged and (hopefully) corrected. It would be a terrible disservice. – ClockworkSoul 18:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I know what you mean. I often get the impression that those who answer Qs here (or refuse to do so) are only willing to deal with people of a similar background and world view as their own. If the OP doesn't speak proper English, or isn't scientifically minded, then they get more abuse than answers here. StuRat (talk) 18:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not seeing this specific question as "nonsense" at all, Dauto. It is quite the kind of thing someone young with a vivid imagination but not much scientific knowledge might ponder. (Did you and your friends never try to bend spoons?) And the question is well within the capability of the Science Desk regulars to answer, simply and thoroughly. I would agree that some of the current exchanges between the regulars are not particularly helpful to the OP, but that is hardly the fault of the question while being mildly entertaining to the rest. Bielle (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes I tryed bending spoons with my mind when I was five. And my parents gently explained to me that it was just a magic trick. I don't think we should delete the question, instead we should gently explain that the question is nonsense. Dauto (talk) 19:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

You know, I think it might be a good idea to open a 'Fun and Nonsense' desk, and be fairly liberal about refactoring questions over there. If someone objects to their question being moved, they can always ask to have it moved back, but most such questions would have a good chance of getting answered anyway (just for fun) and it would keep the other desks open for more serious kinds of questions. I don't see any harm in it, and if nothing else it might serve as an escape valve for people for people with a serious itch to fuck around. --Ludwigs2 19:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Eh, but that sort of thing quickly evolves into a "general bullshit" style forum. It's beyond the Reference Desk's purpose.

Anyway, one way to consider this is that there are almost no inherently bad questions, just bad answers. I have been enriched by many good answers to bad questions on here. They are often much more out-of-the-box informative than the questions that have straightforward answers.

I think we should spend more of our time policing answers than we do policing questions. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem here is that there is a clear and correct answer: "No, you can't." What's annoying is people posting responses that try to find devious ways to not answer with a simple "No". They aren't helping the OP - if anything, they are encouraging more such junk questions. I'm opposed to a "junk" desk - and I'm fairly sure it would be frowned upon by the rest of Wikipedians and soon be deleted. It would drag down our high standards to create such a thing. What we really need to do is to stick with simple answers to simple questions. Trolls will soon get bored with such simple answers. SteveBaker (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, Wikipedia has apparently outgrown such things. See Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense.

Steve, the best answer is surely not a straight 'no', since at the moment we can assume they are a young, inquisitive person with little scientific training: much more rewarding to give them discussion and explanation of why we don't think it is possible, and what would be needed to make it possible. Not only is this more informative, it can spark an interest in science and show how science can be used to reason about problems. Only if they repeatedly ask the same questions without seeming to have read the answers should we treat them as trolls, with a simple 'no'. 86.178.167.166 (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with 98 and SteveBaker. I think it was Deborahjay who, a long while back, first said that we should do our best to answer borderline questions—maybe even outright trolling questions—factually and with a minimum of fuss. These talkpage sections always seem to end with the same conclusion: it's not the questions which are the problem, it's our answers.

Policing responses on the desks is no fun, and often leads to outrage and argument here on the talkpage. (I think i may have even "policed" one of Mr.98's responses back when he was a lowly drive-by IP.) It does tho seem to give some improvement to the overall quality of the desks. Problem is we've never been able to come up with a way of policing the desks that does not end up being more trouble that it's worth. How do we encourage the high quality responses while discouraging the chatty, argumentative, and sophomoric answers which are all too common? Or do we just let the downhill slide continue?—eric 21:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) Steve, IP 86 - the problem as I see it isn't with young, inexperienced editors asking erratic questions; the problem is with people asking silly questions with the mere purpose of having some fun and wasting some time. I think it's fairly easy to distinguish between a serious question which comes from a clueless person and a non-serious question coming from a jokester; the problem is that there's always going to be someone who (against their better judgement) decides to give the benefit of the doubt to the jokester and tries to answer it anyway. rather than having one 'fun and nonsense' desk where such things are allowed, we end up with 8 ref desks that are half-filled with nonsense anyway.

sometimes the only thing to do is bow to the inevitable and give it an outlet. --Ludwigs2 21:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree strongly. There are plenty of other outlets out there. In any case I agree with the sentiment above that a Silly Desk would get deleted hop-quick by other parts of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a general discussion forum. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with outright dismissing any questions as "nonsense" or "bullshit". This may offend the OP, which is not our goal here as refdesk volunteers. The only time any questions should be removed, IMHO, is for forbidden expert advice questions, trolling against volunteers or Wikipedia, hate speeches, purposeful debates or diatribes, forum-seeking, general opinion questions, questions consisting of outright vandalism, personal attacks and threats. Categorising questions as silly or nonsense is arbitrary and can lead to dispute. Borderline or trivial questions are inevitable, but sometimes they do in fact conform to existing guidelines. Some questions also have to potential, while they are being answered, to lead to improvement of Wikipedia articles (and we have plenty of unusual articles). The same goes for subjects commonly thought to be discredited, as we can still provide balanced information if Wikipedia has articles on them. Let's not be judgemental to the diversity of OP origins, nor to their questions, and attempt to answer them if they are not purely against the guidelines and policies. ~AH1^(TCU) 03:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for boring you with another anecdote from my own adolescence, but I think it fits the topic.

My best friend in high-school had visited a fair (I don't remember what, exactly) where someone had been selling some mechanical device designed for squaring the circle along with a book implying that this wasn't a mere approximation and claiming to have proof (I don't know what the book said). He brought this up in math classes, and our math teacher, normally a friendly, if slightly pedantic fellow, went purple-faced (supposedly at the charlatan from the fair, but it felt like his anger was directed at my friend). He said that any such claims were not only complete nonsense but dangerous pseudomath and that he would hear no more of it. Shortly after, he took sick-leave and we had a young substitute. My friend decided to bring up the topic again, and this time we were treated with an entire lesson dedicated to this ancient problem, using it as an excursion into the history of Geometry, the nature of mathematical proof, and also transcendental numbers (which hadn't been part of our curriculum yet).

The first teacher's response alienated us, both with regards to his person as well as towards math in general, which he made sound quite doctrinary with little tolerance for imagination and thought experiments. The second teacher left us with a feeling of awakened curiosity and enlightenment, and I don't think any of us left classes believing that circles could be squared. Similarly with the boiling water question one thread above: I believe those respondents who led the question into excursions on the Stirling engine, the problem of remote-boiling water without boiling one's own brain fluids (which didn't immediately occur to this layperson's mind, e.g.) or even the "strange physics" fantasy helped the querent. To echo Mr.98: informed, coherent, and relevant "out-of-the-box" answers can sit well with the more straightforward ones. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Bielle wrote: "It is quite the kind of thing someone young with a vivid imagination but not much scientific knowledge might ponder." I agree with that. I also think that a few short gentle humourous (non abusive!) replies are perhaps more likely to put such a person "straight", than a factual reply. IMO the combination of youth, a vivid imagination, and not much scientific knowledge, stands more in the way of recognizing facts as such than it does with humour. Of course, there is the possibility that the OP is just trolling, in which case humourous replies might just feed them. Usually that becomes clear with their response in turn. When that happens, it's time to sign off, which is what I did.

FWIW, assuming that humour is a no-no, I think the most appropriate and very to-the-point reply was this one given by Tevildo, but with the closing remark (" - I can't imagine why. ;)") removed. It is factual. It is on-topic. It points to relevant articles. It is education. In the same vein I also think that Stephan Schulz's first answer was excellent.

If my responses were somewhat unaceptable and misjudged, I'd like to apologise. DVdm (talk) 12:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Can't we just answer questions?

Okay, Aaronite here from a different IP (or does that make me a liar and a drive-by?): Is it too much to ask just to answer questions? I mean, if it's stupid or you somehow disagree with it, just leave it alone unless it specifically asks for the forbidden advice. Can you boil water with your mind? No? Then say so, and provide a link to metaphysics or something. Seriously. People ask this in real libraries, and they don't turn them away. I read this section largely out of curiosity. I'm interested in what people are asking, and when answered intelligently, I learn something too. We aren't here to judge whether someone means it when they ask a question. We are here to answer it. No questions asked, aside from appropriate reference interview-type questions. Who knows what people's motivations are. Maybe they really don't know. I don't care if they are being silly; real libraries don't either. Sure, it might be annoying, but they answer. Curtly, with less detail, but they still answer.

I know we aren't professionals, mostly, but seriously people, this bickering and refusing questions isn't professional. It's embarassing and provides no benefit to anyone. Gosh! 24.83.112.118 (talk) 20:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you're right, and I've been concerned about the escalating levels of navel-gazing and second-guessing and petty bickering for its own sake, too.

None of the RD's are ever going to be the utterly pristine and lawful places that any of us (or any clause of our guidelines) might want them to be. If we ever succeeding in ridding the desks of all discord and inappropriate content, we'd have sterilized them of all interesting content, also. We're only here because people show up and ask interesting questions that we can have fun (and show off our knowledge, and oh, yeah, improve the encyclopedia) by answering. If the rules we make (and the eternal arguments over the interpretation of those rules) end up making the place inhospitable to people who just want answers to their questions, the whole scheme falls down.

The problem is -- and oh, yes, it's a problem -- that if we're wide-open to the new and interesting questions we want to answer, we're also open to the stupid ones. (And if we're also wide-open to the really carefully-written good answers to those questions, we're equally wide-open to the bogus ones.) It's just like Wikipedia at large: as long as it's the free encyclopedia anyone can edit, there's always going to be vandalism, and there are always going to be articles (the majority of them, in fact) that are less than 100% perfect.

But it's a problem that we almost certainly can't ever solve without destroying the project as we know it, so it's a problem that at some level we have to live with. And anyone who's not willing to live with it is well-advised to find a different project to work on, because they're never going to "fix" this one to their satisfaction. —Steve Summit (talk) 21:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Messiness is inherent to the concept. The messiness is productive in most cases. Sometimes it is destructive or at least distractive. But there are few consequences to just ignoring annoying things. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

We shouldn't ignore or remove questions that are unusual or difficult or even "stupid", just as long as they don't violate guidlines stated in the template. Many "unusual" questions have proven to be rather useful to the OP (for example for road directions) and in other cases the OP might be curious about the possiblity or plausibility of certain things that may be considered pseudoscientific but we shouldn't reject those questions nor give an automatic dismissal without at least doing some research first. ~AH1^(TCU) 03:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the need for all this angst. Refdeskers should be displaying enough intelligence and discretion to answer things they can appropriately, and leave the rest. An unanswered question will bore a troll more quickly than any removal; on the other hand, if a question can be answered intelligently and sensibly, then that is to every reader's benefit, regardless of the motives of the OP. Good answers also breed good questions. When people provide a good range of intelligent responses to all sorts of questions, we invite a good range of intelligent questions. Whenever the desk degenerates into sniping, or flippancy, or "you shall nots", the quality of the rest usually slips. (nb. flippancy is an attitude thing; appropriate humour, on the other hand, is good and makes the place enjoyable.) Gwinva (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Derailing comments removed

That kind of snippy comment is the reason I call one-shot IP's drive-bys. Except you're not a drive-by, you're a regular contributor - albeit one with no identity, hence you feel free to make personal attacks since you can't be stopped, unlike a registered user who can be indef'd. What I've described is how it "used to work". And you're right that later generations may work on reclaiming their heritage. But the cold hard fact is that refusal to assimilate into society will hold you back, be it in the US or elsewhere, unless you get lucky. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

In light of the IP's interesting input here,[8] I should retract the statement that he has no identity. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you would receive fewer criticisms on the Reference Desk if you treated this as a Reference Desk and provided any references for the questioners. Really the quality of your posts in this thread has been poor, and you have no cause to object to someone critiquing them. Comet Tuttle (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess the OP was talking to you and the IP when he said "thanks for the input so far"? I'm providing the OP with ideas to think about in pursuit of his topic. You are free to do likewise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Derailing comments moved to talk page. 86.178.167.166 (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Except for the IP's own derailing comments, which remain here. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Removed as pointless derailing. I worry when a lot of replies are added without references or helpful terms, particularly when they are added to look like replies to each other: someone who could answer the question well can easily think it already has been. Hopefully knowledgeable people will add some useful answers to the question: lacking experience, I'm not familiar enough with terms to search for the ideas that I know are studied. diff 86.178.167.166 (talk) 16:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Note that Bugs is now editing other users' comments and marking his edits as minor (presumably to avoid detection); [9] [10] [11] [12] 87.114.109.244 (talk) 20:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)It was minor. I was trying to move the IP's personal attack here, so others can see what was said. Apparently someone reverted that. So be it. As I've said before, personal attacks by IP's are considered to be just fine here. But I am unchecking the "watch this page" box, to avoid any temptation to get further riled. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Calling your answers "guessing" isn't a personal attack, it's an attack of your posts. It's a bit uncivil, and fails to assume good faith, but not WP:NPA material. (Are you still watching? [13]) Staecker (talk) 22:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, Bugs, this was simply unacceptable here. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

But not inconsistent with Bugs' current refusal to accept that another issue involving him is something that he has to deal with. Changing another editor's post at all is always unacceptable, but to do it in order to lessen their criticism is yet another form of denial. (JackofOz =) 202.142.129.66 (talk) 01:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Bugs: You need to understand that NPA means "no personal attacks" - no attacks on the person. We are directed to comment on the content - not the person. I'm not allowed to call you an idiot - but I'm perfectly at liberty to say that what you wrote was junk. It's specifically called out in Wikipedia:NPA#Avoiding_personal_attacks. Editing other people's posts (other than to correct formatting errors that disrupt the readability of the page) is frowned upon everywhere in Wikipedia - and specifically banned on the Ref Desks. Please don't do it anymore. SteveBaker (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Viruses and malware repair FAQ

I've taken the liberty of moving my FAQ about repairing a Windows machine that has been infected with malware or viruses to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing/Viruses. Hopefully this is tenable and we can point to this FAQ each time the question is asked. I've put redirects at /Virus and /Malware. Thanks to Steve Summit for the review. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! --Mr.98 (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

IP's and such

Griping about an ANI post unrelated to the RD
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
For those of you who consider IP's to be innocent lambs and who think I'm the only one who speaks out when they misbehave, please check this out:[14] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC) ?? Of course some people who use IPs do stupid things. But plenty of people with "real" accounts do them too. WP:AGF still applies, even if someone has not bothered, or does not know how to, or does not desire to, register an account. Generalizing on the basis of whether people have accounts or not is stupid. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC) As the other editors point out at ANI, behavior is what counts. If someone acts like a drive-by, then that's what they are. If they act sincere, then we treat them with sincerity. And that principle applies to IP's, redlinks and registered users alike. The ability to IP-hop, coupled with the fact that we never indef IP's, does not afford unregistered users any special privilege to do whatever they feel like. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC) No one thinks that all IP's are innocent lambs, if that's what you're insinuating. Nor are you the only one who speaks out when they misbehave. (Not sure why you're having such a hard time with this.) —Steve Summit (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC) It's the double-standard I have a problem with. Not sure why you're having such a hard time understanding that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC) You have not provided any evidence of the exercise of double standards. We are have not observed and are unaware of any promulgation of such double standards. That is why we are having a hard time understanding your issue. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC) I think he has tried to, actually. The IP-hopping gives less accountability and also makes it harder to communicate with this kind of user. This is a wiki-wide phenomenon, of course. So is sockpuppeting of registered users, and sockfarming etc... I still value it differently than Bugs does. Assuming good faith is the only valid modus operandi at the desks, in my opinnion. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Yes. A major part of this double-standard is that IP's have no identity, and when they are IP-hopping they almost never say, "By the way, I'm the same IP as that other one." Yet we're just supposed to pretend that everything's fine. This discussion seems to be an endless loop. One-shot editors, whose sole purpose is to harass someone while having no identity of their own, have forfeited any expectation of an assumption of good faith. You all who complain about my standing up to them, must not have had to take these characters to the AIV woodshed very often. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Neither IP hopping - unavoidable if you do not have a static IP address - does make it more difficult to communicate, yes. I'm not sure I agree on the accountability issue, beyond noting it is more difficult to get someone to account for something if you can no longer reliably talk to them. None of these things, however, are double standards, evidence of double standards, nor evidence of the promulgation of double standards. So I'm still not clear what the problem with double standards relating to IPs is, indeed I'm completely in the dark. I suspect most of us are. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC) As noted above, you must be one of the lucky ones that hasn't had to deal with that ilk very often. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC) I don't know about anyone else, Bugs, but the reason I often have a hard time understanding you is that (a) you make such wild and unsubstantiated statements, and (b) you jump haphazardly around in the conversation, reacting to things that weren't said. For example: a. You said "[some] of you consider IP's to be innocent lambs" and "I'm the only one who speaks out when they misbehave", neither of which is true. b. When I pointed out that these two things weren't true, and asked why you had such a hard time with those two things, you dragged in a third thing which you and I had not just been talking about ("the double-standard") and asked out of the blue why I had trouble understanding that third thing. (Now in fact I don't have a hard time understanding that third thing, but that's beside the point.) If you want to be understood and taken seriously, you should try to act seriously, not keep hopping around slinging the same unsubstantiated statements over and over. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Baseball Bugs and his continuing saga at the Ref Desk Proof that anyone can edit Wikipedia. 68.28.104.251 (talk) 02:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC) I restored the above after an admin deleted it, because it illustrates the point perfectly. An IP with a grand total of 7 edits since July, and the above the first one since December. Seemingly one of the "Jersey Boys", although it could be Pioneercourthouse. But guess what? It doesn't matter. Chasing down these various IP vandals and their socks is a waste of time. It's much more instructive to think of them as basically just one guy. And by the way, if he were a registered user, he would be indef'd with no questions asked. But he's an IP, so he'll either not be blocked or just for a short time, like a day, because he'll be on to another IP address the next time anyway. Now, cease your lectures about how there's no double standard. The above IP is a benificiary of that double standard. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Bugs, you're not making sense. (a) The comment "Proof that anyone can edit Wikipedia" (if that's the one you're referring to) was not worthy of an indef block. (b) An admin did delete it. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC) My take on this thread Buddy431 (talk) 06:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Doh, and ffs. You're arguing for Collective punishment and given that the dynamic IP user does not repeat their IP from session to session, your proposal is in any event futile and will not serve the stated aim of dealing with the rouge user. It reads like poor judgement allied with technical naivety. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC) It doesn't matter. I've demonstrated the double standard, and your response doesn't deny it. Q.E.D. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC) What is this discussion supposed to achieve? Vimescarrot (talk) 11:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC) To point out that there are, in fact, different rules for IP's vs. registered users, and the next time someone whines at me for calling a drive-by a "drive-by", I can point them to this section and then do the "told-ya-so dance". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Meanwhile, I have had quite enough of this myself, and am taking this page off my watch list (again). Feel free to archive it, delete, expunge it, whatever. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC) The longest suicide note in history? --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's another case of IP abuse mentioned on ANI.[15] Hiding your heads in the sand is your choice, of course. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

All?

I was just curious about the "All" option for the desks. I never even knew it existed and there doesn't even seem to be a link for it. The "what links here" special page mentions that the RD header contains a link, but I don't see it (I believe it's lost in the various transclusions and hidden pages, etc.). The Page view statistics page says about 80 people use it, but given all the various transclusions and extra bits, I'm not sure how reliable that number is. Should we link from the main page and/or header?

I'd still be in the dark about it myself, except I happened to be tracking down misspelled wikilinks and someone had linked to "saphire" on a recent question. When I checked the links, it gave me a hit for the Science desk and the mysterious All desk... Matt Deres (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It has it's uses, like doing a search when you don't know which Desk has the Q you're looking for. However, the size of the page is such that it could potentially take down many browsers, so we might not want to make it too easy to access accidentally. StuRat (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyone ever studied the average coverage of authors vs desks?

I read all the desks except for Math and Language. I very occasionally contribute. Sometimes questions get put in "wrong" places and people suggest they be moved to X Desk for a better answer. There are times when this would clearly be advantageous, and times when the question seems more general and highly-specialized knowledge is not required to answer. I also notice the names of common "helpers" or whatever you call yourselves popping up on many desks rather than just one.

So I'm wondering - has anyone studied the desk-coverage habits of the regular "answer-ers" ? Do the majority confine themselves to answers on only a select few desks? Are certain desks (perhaps Language?) more likely to have "single-issue" contributors? ... I feel this is an interesting area of study and would like to know more, if anyone's ever done an analysis... 218.25.32.210 (talk) 06:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Speaking for myself. I focus on my favourite 3, occasionally drop in on the others (but have never contributed to maths or computing). I read more than I answer.
You can obtain a list of the main contributors through toolserver. eg. Humanities, language; Miscellaneous, Entertainment, Science, Computing, and Mathematics. Gwinva (talk) 06:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly very variable by contributor. I mostly hang on the science desk - if there is not much action there, I hop onto miscellaneous - and on a REALLY slow day, perhaps the computing desk. Occasionally I ask questions on the math desk...but that's about it. SteveBaker (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

If you count me as a 'regular', my habit is to visit daily if circumstances allow, work backwards from 'Miscellaneous' to 'Science' omitting 'Mathematics', and answer anything where I think I can make a useful contribution (or, I confess, an occasional lame joke). As I have shallow but diverse interests (to quote Terry Collmann commenting on the Language Log blog last year, "Personally I like to think of myself as a polymoth - flitting around many subjects . . . ."), and I'm fairly adept at researching and summarising from an unfamiliar topic (something I used to do professionally), my contributions spread themselves around 5 desks at varying levels of erudition. I'd answer more often than I do on the 'Science' desk if it wasn't already blessed with more knowledgeable, prolific and speedy contributors, not least the immediately previous responder! 87.81.230.195 (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I've been gradually expanding my portfolio (possibly beyond my skillset - somebody should prod me if I'm attempting to answer too many questions that I don't actually know anything about!). I started off on the science and maths desks, then expanded the misc, then hums and more recently language (although i read more than i contribute there). I very occasionally read (and even more occasionally contribute on) the computing desk. Is that all the desks? Ah, Entertainment. That I'm involved with about as much as computing. --Tango (talk) 23:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

If someone prods you, just remove the template and make him or her take you to EfD. Deor (talk) 02:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Using the data provided by the links given by Gwinva, I made a matrix and did a correlation between each of the seven desks. This is based on number of authors that edit on both desks with the entire group of authors as the denominator (limited to top 100 authors on each desk, throwing out bots - so it isn't actually 100 users per desk, it is 100-bots users). I translated these to simple integer correlations of 0 meaning nothing in common and 10 meaning every editor on one is an editor on the other. This is correlation, so 5 does not mean that 50% of the editors work on both desks, it means that there is a 50% probability that an editor on one will be an editor on the other - there is a difference, but it doesn't matter here. What matters is which desks are more correlated than others. Here's the table:

	Language	Miscellaneous	Entertainment	Science	Computing	Mathematics
Humanities	4	4	3	3	2	2
Language		3	4	1	1	1
Miscellaneous			4	6	2	2
Entertainment				2	2	1
Science					4	1
Computing						1

I considered taking the number of edits per user into account, but I don't have the time now. I'm interested in any other method other users may have for drawing correlations between the boards. I did turn the number of edits per user per board into a matrix (using only the top 10 non-bot users) and calculated the SVD. It didn't give me any idea of correlation between the desks. -- kainaw™ 02:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Nice job, Kainaw. I'm surprised to see a relatively weak correlation between Science and Computing. I wonder if there's any social network analysis software that could assist your analysis or provide insights into meaningful ways to compare the data sets? Nimur (talk) 03:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the Science-Computing correlation is rather strong. I rounded the values off to the nearest integer to make it easier to compare. Notice that there is only one stronger correlation (Misc-Science). A correlation of 4 is a bit higher than average. What this really shows is common and isolated desks. Humanities and Entertainment are the desks with the most crossover. Mathematics is the desk with the least crossover. -- kainaw™ 03:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It makes sense that the closest connection is found between the Science desk and the Miscellaneous desk. That is because science-involving questions are likely to turn up under miscellaneous. Bus stop (talk) 04:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

What happens if we throw this talk page into the matrix? I would imagine that the more... drama prone... desks like science and humanities have a higher correlation here than say, the language desk. Buddy431 (talk) 05:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm dumb at these kinds of tables. Why is there no Math on the vertical axis and no Humanities on the horizontal axis? (Braces for gentle application of the clue-bat to point out something obvious I'm missing...) Matt Deres (talk) 10:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC) D'oh, never mind. They'd be blank; just ignore me... Matt Deres (talk) 10:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The math desk is already entirely taken care of by the vertical column on the right, and the humanities by the first row. All of the other desks only cross some of the others on their respective column or row, and so must be put in both places. If I had made the chart, I would have put all the desks on both axes, and filled in all of the boxes (except for when a desk crossed itself) so that it would be easier to look at one desk without having to look in two places. You would duplicate boxes that way though, so I think that's why it's not done in this case. Buddy431 (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Disappointing. I not only fail to make the top 100 on any desk, but I'm dwarfed by a sockpuppeteer. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

When looking, did you notice the only top 10 editor on all desks is StuRat? I didn't realize he was everywhere all the time. -- kainaw™ 14:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the most amazing thing is that User:SteveBaker has more edits than User:SineBot on the Science desk, both all-time and year-to-date. (User:StuRat also beats SineBot all-time, but with a head start.) -- Coneslayer (talk) 14:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You have no idea how much work it is to sign all of those unsigned posts. Maybe I'll let SineBot catch more of them in the future. :-) SteveBaker (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, the next brave step is now to produce a signal-to-noise ratio number for each editor and maintain a Top 20 Hall of Fame and Top 20 Hall of Shame. This would cause the shamed to shape up quicker than any manual hectoring. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Distinguishing signal from noise is highly subjective, though, so likely to cause more drama than it is worth. --Tango (talk) 09:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe "Luminous efficacy" would be the right index: How much light does each editor shed on the subject, compared to the amount of heat generated? This could distinguish true luminaries from mere hotheads. Edison (talk) 03:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

In addition to the points above, number of edits is always somewhat of a weak measure since some people make lots of edits for minor things, some people make a few edits for major things. Case in point, as some may know I often end up editing my posts (although usually not when someone has replied to my post) for corrections or additions, occasionally for deletion, because I'm somewhat bad at previewing and in any case often only notice things after a several brief read throughs or think of things a while afterwards. These large number of edits tends to inflate my edit count/posts. Of course given my infamous long posts, some may argue the large number of edits is reflective of the amount of text even if not necessarily content or 'signal'. On the other hand, I also usually make multiple posts in the same topic in one go which while not making a big difference to my edit count, will for others but not everyone is going to do this. Nil Einne (talk) 09:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Images and page size

I've harped on this before but I have a new twist this time and a proposal:

• Total page size is a big factor for using dial-up connections. We have in the past discussed the best number of "question-days" to retain in order to keep page size down.
• Images on the RD pages also affect load time on first encounter. For this reason, images should always be thumbnailed. Thumbnailing (using the "thumb" or "<N>px" parameter) reduces any image from it's raw size on the upload server to about 8-16KB. Raw images should be thumbnailed immediately.
• Animated GIF's are a problem. The thumbnailer currently can't handle animated GIF's, so they are rendered onto the page at their native size. There is a discussion going on somewhere (MediaWiki or Bugzilla maybe) on how to thumbnail each frame, but the software is not there yet.
• Examples where use of an image result in a drastically increased load size are the current #Noise in MRI scan thread (600 KB) and a recent thread on apparent size of the moon (950 KB). There is little point in worrying about the size of the page text when use of a single image can double the page load time.

So my proposal is that we adopt a standard practice of:

• always and immediately add a thumb or size parameter to any included image if the OP forgets to put it in.
• immediately changing any animated GIF's to be in-lined images (add a colon after the [[ so it becomes a link) if they are larger than, say 50 KB.

Is this a reasonable compromise between convenience for high-speed users and accessibility for dial-up? Or am I being overly sensitive to the needs of them who I used to be just a couple of years ago? Franamax (talk) 19:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree - those seem like very reasonable guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveBaker (talk • contribs)

It's not like we have a need for the full size image to be on the page, so downsizing seems reasonable. Vimescarrot (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. People usually shrink images anyway (otherwise they take up the whole page), so if they haven't thumbnailed them (and are just displaying the full image smaller) it is probably just because they don't know better. Being able to tidy up after people that don't know better is one of the best things about a wiki. As for animated gifs, I agree in principle, but maybe we should up to limit to 100kB. Just the text of the Science desk is 136kB now, so a gif of 100kB would less than double the load time (plus the time to open the new connection, but you get that with any image). I think doubling load times for a few users is acceptable if the animation really adds to the question/response. If it doesn't, it can be changed into a link, whatever the size (animated gifs are annoying, whatever the file size!). --Tango (talk) 23:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Note that I have a relatively high-speed connection but the rendering of a 3MB animated GIF in my browser significantly slows things down (when loaded on top of everything else, and my other tabs, and etc.). So it's not just dial-up who might object to this kind of overhead! --Mr.98 (talk) 14:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't object to making things easier for dial-up users but must confess that I have mostly forgotten all about them, and as a broadband user of Wikipedia I loved seeing the beautiful MRI animation in the middle of the desk. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it's easy to forget the dialup experience, just imagine having to go back to that! You'd click on a link that started loading a .pdf and sit there with absolutely no idea if you would see it before bedtime. I used to live one hour's drive from central Toronto and there wasn't even a chance of ever getting high-speed except for insanely expensive satellite service. Franamax (talk) 00:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I wonder how many users have a dial up service rather than broadband? I am concerned about making the encyclopedia less useful for those with high speed connections, if a small segment of the userbase is still using a dialup modem. I suggest that there be some mode a user could select which reduces the quality down to the point they can access text in a reasonable time via dialup, without slashing the richness of the encyclopedia for the rest of us. Maybe they could get smaller or lower res images. I recall an encyclopedia with several hundred thousand text-only articles which I used to access by dialup, a pre-internet computer service provider. Edison (talk) 20:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Two things:

1. You can set the size of the "thumb" images in your preferences, I believe. So those who want it big can make it big and those who want it small can make it small. That's one of the appeals of using it rather than hard-coding pixel sizes.
2. The problem is that at the moment, Wikipedia can't do anything about resizing animated GIFs, so everybody gets them at full size. Until animated GIFs can obey the thumb tag (and can thus be throttled), they probably should be avoided unless they are quite small.

I think using the "thumb" tag and in-lining animated images is a small concession to make if it means that the Reference Desk is easier for people with slower computers or slower connections to use. Again, we're not talking about ancient machines here—my just-a-couple-years-old laptop and 801.11b wireless connection would occasionally have real trouble with the multi-megabyte animated GIFs that were sometimes displayed on the Ref Desk in the name of prettiness. Turning such things into thumbnails or links only changes things in an aesthetic way (content is not removed, learning is not lessened). --Mr.98 (talk) 23:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

According to Pew Research, 10% of Americans used dial-up in 2008 it seems.[16] In undeveloped Internet markets, new access is likely going to be wireless. In between are all the countries where the transition to high-speed is still ongoing, and it's likely that dialup has a higher rate than the US in many of them. People in rural areas and people with lower incomes will undoubtedly be more likely to use dialup (no source for that) and these are the people who need access to the information in a free encyclopedia. I'd rather have the image in a separate window anyway, those animations are great to illustrate a concept, but once you get it, they just keep going and going and going... Franamax (talk) 00:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way, dial-up users are supposed to get a better experience at mobile.wikipedia.org ... for browsing, not posting. In my experience, though, mobile.wikipedia.org often gives undecipherable, cryptic errors when trying to access the Reference Desks. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I would actually prefer to have to click to activate an animation. It is distracting and hyperannoying to have some animation repeating itself endlessly while I am trying to read an article. Edison (talk) 19:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, either that or a "stop now" button. Seriously, how many times do you need to see a rotary-engine cycle or what a laser beam looks like going to the Moon and back? I'd like to formulate a Bugzilla on that but I think it might make some dev's head explode. Franamax (talk) 20:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

While we're griping, I think it's really too bad that many Wikipedia editors seem to think that an animation is in general "better" than a series of static frames. Any designer can tell you that they serve different purposes. My canonical example of this is File:UFission.gif and File:Fission chain reaction.svg. The former takes a huge amount of time to convey essentially the same information as the latter, and all of that time is spent in passive watching. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Concerns

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Questionable_question_on_the_ref_desk. Please comment there, to keep things in one place. Thanks. --Tango (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

But that wasn't the right place to post, this is. Only problems which can't be handled in-house should be escallated to that level. StuRat (talk) 17:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem I was concerned about (someone with an apparently unhealthy interest in death and strangulation) is not something we can deal with on the ref desk, it would require contacting the authorities. That is usually done through AN/I. It seems nobody else shares those concerns, though, so I'm probably over-reacting. --Tango (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

No, Tango, just because everyone's out of step with you, doesn't necessarily mean you should make it easy on them by abandoning the drum you're marching to and following theirs.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I have a nagging feeling the editor in question is a manifestation of one of our eternal RD friends, but I can't choose between door #1 and door #2. Maybe it's a whole new door being made. The failure to sign is rather telling and the RD questions and contributions seem pretty borderline. Some people have developed pretty effective trolling techniques for the RD's. BTW, the editor's problematic article-space edits argue toward posting at AN/I rather than here, so I've no big problem with Tango choosing that venue. Franamax (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The editor in question has been disruptive and has not responded to our attempts to address the issue conversationally. I support Tango's post to AN/I; it will be good to get an uninvolved administrator to evaluate the situation and provide some insight. The OP either has serious problems or intends to disrupt the reference desk by making us believe he has serious problems. We shouldn't sustain this kind of behavior; a block, or at least a temporary block, may be in order. Nimur (talk) 01:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Archived here for anyone who might be looking. -- Scray (talk) 20:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

An actual reference desk employees here?

Given that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, and that everyone has some degree of knowledge that others lack, I'm pleased that the reference desks gives anyone an opportunity to answer people's questions.

I do have a question, though: How many of our regular contributers actually work in a real library doing real reference? This is by no means a judgement on the quality of answers (I've been quite impressed, actually), but there is most definitely a parallel here.

In real libraries, for example, we give no legal advice, no medical advice, no personal advice. However, we do find relevant legal documents, health books, and self-help guides as requested. We also don't refuse questions or ask for any in depth motivation for asking beyond whether it's homework or simple curiosity. And simple curiosity is a perfectly valid reason for asking.

So, if someone asks is it illegal to x, we can't say yes or no, but we could refer them to the law books of their particular jurisdiction and tell them to read that and ask for a lawyer's advice.

Just some thoughts.Aaronite (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be funny, but that is generally what we do. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Generally is the keyword. I guess I'm just calling for continued AGF (of which there is an occasional lack).Aaronite (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

So, your concern is the occasional lack of assumption of good faith here? In the context of your edits above, am I also right to infer that you think professional reference desk librarians never have this problem? In my own experience this is simply untrue, and this is not surprising given human nature and the reality that almost everyone has a bad day now and then. Ultimately, your rebuke seems a little sanctimonious. -- Scray (talk) 04:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a big difference between a real library and this RD. In a real library, if a person is kicked out and told never to return, it is rather obvious when they return. Here, there are three users in particular who have been kicked out and told never to return. They keep returning with different account names. It is not proper to AGF for a user who has been kicked out. -- kainaw™ 20:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

AGF stands for Assume Good Faith which is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I do, sort of, although my job only rarely involves answering research requests. The biggest difference is that we could charge a crazily high fee for something that could be researched in a matter of seconds. I have also worked in a university library in the past but the reference desk there was free. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Since nearly all Ref. Desk responders are anonymous it isn't possible to answer how many have a library as their workplace. It is apparent from responses that many responders are accustomed to working with reference materials. Given the on-line nature of Wikipedia, and the comparative ease of citation, those materials are at least as likely to be on-line ones as paper-based ones in physical libraries.

Another difference between your real library and the on-line Ref. Desk is that interactions here are more volatile that your library could tolerate. I think your library workers would refuse a demand like (example) Write out the prime numbers between 257 and 51 in reverse order.. We would also refuse that because regardless of the motivation it is homework.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

251 241 239 233 229 227 223 211 199 197 193 191 181 179 173 167 163 157 151 149 139 137 131 127 113 109 107 103 101 97 89 83 79 73 71 67 61 59 53 (btw 51 is not). 68.28.104.229 (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that, in total, the RD respondents actually have a much wider knowledge range than the average library assistant/ ref person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.242.68 (talk) 00:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but all Kindergarteners, in total, probably also have a wider range of knowledge than any particular librarian. And, based on the number of Pokemon Q's we get here, their knowledge might be quite helpful. StuRat (talk) 16:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I do agree that there is way too much questioning and far too little answering of the original poster. If someone said they saw a bear in California, and was wondering what kind it might be, a valid follow-up Q might be where and when they saw it, and what it looked like. Unfortunately, they could also expect us to ask them if it was a guy in a bear suit, challenge them to offer sources proving that bears are native to CA, ask what proof they have that it's a bear, if they were in a zoo at the time, whether they were hallucinating, etc. StuRat (talk) 16:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

We also have WikiProject Librarians. Some library also offer online reference desk services, but those are private and often take a couple days. ~AH1^(TCU) 03:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

In reply to AstroHurricane, public libraries have online reference desks too. Most of them work by e-mail, are free of charge, and apparently provide answers in a few hours. An interesting example is Enquire, from People's Network, a network of British public libraries, where conversation with the staff is by instant messaging.:

http://www.questionpoint.org/crs/servlet/org.oclc.home.TFSRedirect?virtcategory=10836

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs

Why me, when it was an IP that was the OP?

About 12 hours ago, I asked Baseball Bugs to refrain from always having to come out with some supposedly witty remark, no matter what the subject of the thread is (see second-last para). I said I live in hope; but it seems my plea has gone unheeded. His latest “contribution” is sure to offend many, and has already produced a strong reaction and a demand for a retraction.

Does anyone have a clue about how to explain to him just how inappropriate - and now offensive - his remarks often are? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that this particular comment of his is pretty bad, but I wouldn't say that his remarks are often offensive. —Akrabbim^talk 23:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Nor did Jack. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 23:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I ambiguously worded that. They're often inappropriate; and his latest one has crossed the line into offence.

I hate to provide fuel to someone whose main aim seems to be to draw attention to himself, but I couldn't let this one go without comment. If it's attention he wants, I guess he's got it now. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Bugs, I would like to recommend reading what BrainyBabe writes in this thread. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that making such jokes as often as Bugs does is a little excessive, I didn't find that particular joke offensive. Inappropriate, maybe, but it was pretty funny too. --Tango (talk) 00:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

There may be an issue around whether humour per se has a place in responding to the queries in RefDesk. Personally I think it can do, but that needs to be caveated by recognising that humour itself is very different in various locations. I read a news article recently that talked about the perception in the UK that the US didn't do irony, concluding that whilst in the UK irony is the default humour in the US it was less common so needed telegraphed. An ironic comment was frequently itself caveated with just joking afterwards, something as a Brit I find really strange.

Personally I find Baseball Bugs approach to be pretty boorish, but my own sense of humour is very dry and dark.

I do think that there is a degree of aggression that isn't all that helpful, it may be worth recognising that queries on RefDesk may be from fly-bys who see no need to create an account, they're unlikely to come back so don't see a need for a unique identity. That shouldn't be penalised or diminished, which I get the impression is largely the issue here.

ALR (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I find that particular comment from BB deeply unpleasant, but I doubt it was intended that way. To BB, it was most likely produced as something funny without social context. For me, it made me flash back to darker days on the desks (many, many moons ago) when certain editors gave deeply inappropriate replies to someone who presented as a teenage girl asking about menstruation. And it flashes me back to all the times I've seen discussion shut down in other places by "Ew, bleeding and vaginas". BB mostly likely doesn't have that context for this, and so meant to invoke nothing of the kind. Nonetheless, I think it's the sort of comment that you generally retract when people explain why they have a problem with it. Doing so will harm no one or thing. 86.178.167.166 (talk) 02:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Boring. Bugs does not harm except to those who have no sense of humor. Woogee (talk) 02:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

BB's joke was added rather early in the response sequence, and was one of his less appropriate ones. A "filter" between what is thought and what is said (or typed) is a wonderful thing to cultivate. That said, it is amazing that anyone pretends that "menstrual extraction" is something besides an early abortion. Edison (talk) 04:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

look, having spent the last few weeks getting systematically attacked by a manipulative, hyseteria-prone troll, I have to say count your blessings... Bugs may go over the line every once in a while, but at least he has a sense of humor of some sort. I agree, a little more tact would probably be called for in some cases, but on a scale of 1 to 10 of wikipeida "please-don't-do-that's" it ranks somewhere between 2 and 3. If you feel the urge to bitch-slap someone, I can point you to a few people who really need to be bitch-slapped; just remember to wear a helmet and athletic cup if you try.

Plus, that cherry yogurt thing (early abortion or not) really was pretty funny, even if it was tasteless. --Ludwigs2 05:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

"Tasteless", Ludwigs? Curious choice of word, I think. I suspect "tasteless" may be funny to the same group who find "racist" or "sexist" forgiveable if funny, and thus "funny". Bielle (talk) 05:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm sure they are different groups (though there may be some overlap). There is a difference between humor that demeans of degrades a group of people and humor that trips someone's gag reflex. If bugs were making blond jokes, I'd call him out on it myself (since blond jokes are usually codified misogynism). but the worst this joke can be accused of is being puerile and adolescent. --Ludwigs2 16:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

What I do like about BB, even though he drives me a little nuts some times, is that he does seem to take criticisms to heart once they accumulate. His signal-to-noise ratio has increased appreciably over the last month or so in a way that I would not have assumed possible. I think he still needs to work on it a bit (and so do many of us, I suppose), but I think he does definitely have it in him. Unfortunately I think that once one has built up a reputation, people are understandably less likely to assume good faith. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

@Ludwigs2: is that what made the comment funny, that it tripped a "gag reflex"? I had no idea what was funny about it, so I am now the wiser. Here I thought it just a puerile, knee-jerk response to a health-care matter involving menstruation, the sort of automatic clown act usually found (and generally discouraged) at the high-school level. Well, I live and learn. And the Ref Desk feels this is a part of a good response to a question about early term abortion, a topic likely to be very sensitive, does it? The response had nothing to do with the question and was only tangentially connected to one link. How is this a help to the OP? Bielle (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I advised BB of this thread, as a courtesy. His response was that he’s not watching this talk page and won’t be participating in this discussion. We can say what we like, but he's remaining deliberately oblivious to it. I also copped some personal abuse from a supposedly Veteran Editor for my troubles; that wasn't of Baseball Bugs' doing, but he did seem to condone it. He has in the past shown an ability to change, but on this occasion he seems to be treating this issue with complete contempt. He doesn’t think it’s an issue, so therefore, as far as he’s concerned, what anyone else thinks is irrelevant. I wonder how this goes in relation to his regular raising of issues about anonymous IPs. He wants the rest of us to sit up and take notice of his issue, but won’t do the same in return. That a regular would operate in such a manner is troubling; more troubling than the content of this or any one particular issue. Having raised this one, I can let it go and move on. But it has been very instructive to observe how Baseball Bugs operates. Sometimes people don't set out to be deliberately trollish, but end up having that effect despite themselves. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

He clearly does think it's an issue, because he won't shut up about it: [17] [18] [19]

He's just more interested in venting his spleen all over the Reference Desk than he is in being accountable for his actions. 87.114.109.244 (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Says the guy logging in from a random IP so he can't be held accountable for his actions. Look up 'irony'. (Off topic: Is there a polite way to tell someone to die in a fire?) HalfShadow 19:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I see it more as an ego-defence mechanism. He's aware someone's complained of being offended, but he's unwilling to come here and find out just what else has been said, or to discuss it. He's unwilling to even accept that there's been real offence ("They had no valid reason to be offended by my comment ..."). So, he's deciding who's allowed to be offended and who's not. What a shocking lack of respect for one's peers. Oh, but I'm forgetting myself - the people who've complained of being personally offended are unregistered, so of course they don't count in BB's eyes, and have no rights. How convenient.

HalfShadow, please desist with the extreme language. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Nobody's first edit is tattling, (with links) followed by posting here. He's IP socking and therefore deserves no respect. At best, they're a coward. HalfShadow 20:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Or alternatively, someone using a dynamic IP. You're not exactly above reproach yourself. 87.114.109.244 (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

At least I'm not hiding behind a number. Wuss. HalfShadow 20:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved observer here, ips are allowed to edit on Wikipedia and you are being uncivil by calling editors "wuss" and accusing them of "hiding behind a number" by the sole fact that they are an ip editor. It could equally be said that you are hiding behind a pseudonym. I also think that insinuating an editor should "die in a fire" is a personal attack. 92.141.212.109 (talk) 20:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• 'Uninvolved observer' whose first ever edit is here. If anything, you're just making my point for me. HalfShadow 20:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I regularly read the reference desk and it's talk page. There's no requirement to edit other areas of Wikipedia before commenting here. And none of this excuses your rudeness and personal attacks. 92.141.212.109 (talk) 21:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Right on. This whole thread is about offence that has been caused, probably unintentionally, but caused nonetheless. If HalfShadow wants to defend Baseball Bugs, fine; if he/she wants to argue against my point, fine. But his arguments do not have to include going out of his way to cause other offence. It certainly does Baseball Bugs no credit to be associated, however innocently, with such behaviour. (JackofOz =) 202.142.129.66 (talk) 01:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Having read User talk:Baseball Bugs#Ref Desk humour and noting the contribution of HalfShadow, I come away convinced he or she has yet to read or understand WP:NPA and WP:CIVILITY; not least for a disgraceful personal attack on Jack of Oz. The whole thing reminded me most strongly, I'm sorry to say, of Beavis and Butthead. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

As the OP posting a genuine question about this 'procedure' (I had seen discussion of it on TV the other night), I was dismayed at BBs jokey reply to it: implying what it did. Im sure he didnt mean to cause offence to anyone. Maybe Im too sensitive, Maybe all bodily functions can be made fun of. Its just that I thought this was particularly misogynistic and disgusting. I just dont know whats proper or not. Its just that I found that comment repulsive. But maybe other comments on certain bodily functions maybe more repulsive to other people. Again, I just dont know why this one particularly upset me.--79.76.188.14 (talk) 21:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, it may be worth eliciting comments from female editors as to the offensiveness of this 'joke'--79.76.188.14 (talk) 22:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't find it particularity offensive, but then there's so much shit on the internet you kind of desensitize to it after a while. It was an immature, unfunny, unnecessary and stupid comment for sure, but not really something to get worked up over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fire2010 (talk • contribs)

I'm a woman, and I didn't find it offensive. A bit gross, yes, in bad taste, probably, but nothing to get your knickers in a twist over. MorganaFiolett (talk) 11:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Woman here: I actually found it quite funny... but then I've been having periods for 40 years now, nothing fazes me about it! --TammyMoet (talk) 13:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I find it curious that "Wikipedia isn't censored" except when it comes to embarking on witch-hunts against our fellow editors. Bus stop (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

That's such a weak argument, and you know it. "Wikipedia isn't censored" does not give everyone a licence to write whatever crap they want wherever they want. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

In my understanding we are human beings, not machines. We have personalities. We form a community. In my understanding no community consists of one type and one type only. Monocultures fail. They are artificial. If no great line of offense was crossed then I consider this a non-isssue. Bus stop (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Bus stop, I don't think anyone wants to stop people expressing their personalities altogether. But, in this case, in my opinion, this user's expression of his personality is quite disruptive. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. There is a community, and it has norms arrived at by discussion and consensus. In this case, we're discussing with reference to a specific incident, whether it is appropriate to meet a question with a fairly gross joke. My view is that people do not come here to have the piss taken out of their questions, and that to engage in tomfoolery of the sort exemplified by Bugs' joke devalues the RD, sets the wrong tone, and acts as a disincentive to those thinking of asking questions. Much like the established norm that the RD is not a forum, the RD is not a place for witticism unrelated to answering the question posed. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

OK

I have now read everything that was said here. I didn't participate because I was already riled enough and figured anything I could say at that point would only add fuel to the fire. Instead, I let it run its course and meanwhile I'm trying (again) to temper my natural tendencies to see humor in almost everything. I've been accused of trying to draw attention to myself. I don't think that's really the case. In real life I don't even especially like to do that. But what I do like to do is try to make people laugh. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, and sometimes I wander too far down the wrong path (which I should tell you drives my wife crazy also). But I also like to answer "trivia questions", and sometimes I get a little too far into the speculation area (I'm sure I'm not the only one). I would ask one thing: It seems that oftentimes I don't really realize when I'm getting carried away and need to make a "course correction". And I'm getting a little tired of seeing my username in section headings on this page. My talk page is unprotected, and I very seldom fire back with something like "Get off my page!" So if you think I've gone over the line, feel free to drop a gentle hint on my talk page, and I'll try (again) to reign it in. Just try to avoid lecturing me about something being "inappropriate". Just keep it simple: "I don't like this." I think I would respond better to a comment along those lines. Alrighty then, back to the mill. P.S. I've been warned that there may be some trolling afoot this weekend. My thought on that is, bring it on. I've been trolled countless times. One or two more won't make any difference, and they might even say something unintentionally funny that I can add to my list of funnies. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

FWIW BB, I think you're funny without being too mean. Wikipedia should just be grateful that Sarah Silverman doesn't have an account here, or that would be real trouble. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 07:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. And thank you. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I have a dilemma, Baseball Bugs. I don't want to prolong this unnecessarily, and maybe the best course would be to just move on without a further word. But maybe that would be doing you a disservice, because sometimes people need to hear how others perceive them. On balance, I'll take the risk and say what's on my mind.

I've said on a couple of occasions now that you seem to engage in attention-seeking behaviour. You've denied that this is your motivation; rather, you like making people laugh. I can and do accept that on a certain level. But at the same time, ask yourself what a comedian does. He draws attention to himself. The same is true for any musical performer, actor, politician, professional sportsman, or anyone whose activities are done in the public eye. Part of their purpose is to be simply the agent through which the joke, or the music, or the drama, or whatever they do, is imparted to the observer - but part of their purpose is "Look at me". When we go to see a comedian live, we don't come away grumbling about how he engaged all night in attention-seeking behaviour - that would be simply absurd, because we've paid money to go and see him. But on WP, it's a totally different ball game (I've heard you're into ball games). I'm not saying there's anything wrong with wanting people to notice you, but it has to be kept in balance, because when the same person often appears to be saying "Look at me", that's when problems start. General talk pages are for discussion of the topic; and the ref desk is for answering questions. Sure, some humour is fine, even necessary for the maintenance of a light and positive place for people to visit. If humour is inserted here, it's for that purpose; it's not to make everyone else notice the editor concerned.

You ask that people drop a friendly hint on your talk page when you seem to be overstepping the bounds. That's fine. So, what was that conversation we had on my talk page all about? Less than 12 hours later, you made the post that led to me raising this issue. So, it's hard to know what to make of your latest request to be advised, since - at least in this case - you totally ignored that advice. And you went further - you chose to ignore my raising of the issue on this page; people could say whatever they liked, but you'd remain contemptuously oblivious of it (not your words, but that was the definite message I got). You still talked about it in at least 3 other places - but not where it really mattered. You sure made your point, if making a point was indeed your point (but if it wasn't, I don't know what your real point was).

Now, a week later, after it's all subsided, you've come along as if cap in hand, and made a response. It almost doesn't matter anymore what the content of your response is, because you've just confirmed by your behaviour the very point I'm making: if coming to the party a week late, after initially refusing point blank to attend, is not drawing attention to yourself, what is? You'll undoubtedly argue along the lines that I've raised an issue and asked you to respond, and now that you've done what I asked, what am I complaining about. Yes, it could seem that way. That's a risk I'm prepared to take. I just want you to understand my commentary on your activity.

If anyone were to raise an issue on your talk page, what guarantee do they have, in the light of this episode, that they won't be deliberately ignored for a week (or perhaps longer, or perhaps indefinitely) - or that their post won't just be deleted outright, as you did with one of mine? You now say you chose not to respond initially because you were "riled up" - but that was FAR from what you said at the time. Can you see why some people might see this latest post of yours as being just a touch disingenuous, and that you have (probably subconscious) motivations for only now making an appearance.

If you're tired of seeing your name raised here, the answer seems obvious to me: change your behaviour. That must be preceded by awareness, and to that end I hope I've been able to reflect back some of what I've observed. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe "riled up" is overstating it - more like "perplexed" at the overreaction to that harmless joke. And I still am. "One of the sickest comments I've ever seen here"??? That's ridiculous. The IP's having led an ultra-sheltered life is its problem, not mine. Oh, and I didn't exactly delete your comment, I archived it, probably without response. I almost never delete anything. And I don't recall the specifics of the posting you're talking about on your page. Believe it or not, I don't retain that kind of thing for very long. Anyway, if you're saying it would have been better not to respond to all this stuff at all, rather than to wait a few days for everyone to say everything they were going to say, then, fine, in the future (if any) I will simply not respond at all here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• No, what I'm saying is that it's normal procedure to respond at around the time the issue is raised (we all have busy external lives and sometimes we're delayed by real life goings on - but that wasn't the case in this case). You raise issues here when it suits you to do so; imagine how you might feel if you were totally ignored by other editors. It seems to display a basic lack of respect for your peers, and for this place, to pointedly ignore an issue when it happens to be about yourself.
• This issue was not primarily about the cherry yoghurt post; that was merely for me the straw that broke the camel's back. Which is why I asked "Does anyone have a clue about how to explain to him just how inappropriate - and now offensive* - his remarks often are?". (emphasis added) The issue was about the general pattern of behaviour, not about any one instance.
• * I later clarified that only this latest one was in the offensive category; elsewhere I also told you that, while I was not personally offended by the joke, I acknowledged that some people were offended by it, and that's not something that can be ignored. This is an acknowledgment that you seem completely unwilling to make; you prefer to ridicule those editors, which is further evidence of your disregard for those who don't see things your way. Would it have made any difference to your attitude to those editors if they'd been registered? I wonder. If you had come back and said to them "I'm sorry you were offended", that would have made a world of difference, at least as far as I was concerned. It would shown that you are actually capable of giving a damn, and capable of taking what others say to you into account.
• I did say it "almost doesn't matter anymore what the content of your response is" - the word "almost" is important here. To wait for a week before responding exemplified what I was talking about. But I did nevertheless get into the substance of your post, by asking some questions that you have not yet responded to.
• What I said to you on my talk page, the bit that you disregarded in unseemly haste, which led to this whole thing, was this: "You have a choice, just as Joe McCarthy did. Less really is more sometimes. And that applies to not always having to have the final say in a thread, and not always having to drag out some Marx Brothers quip or clip or some other witty remark. It very often ill matches the tone of the thread." (emphasis added) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and about that message of mine on your talk page - it sure looks to me like you didn't just archive it but you deleted it without any sort of response. You certainly never came back to respond to the message on Tagishsimon's talk page. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You didn't look far enough:[20] I merely did several things at once. Since my archiving is all manual, I can do that. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

How ridiculous. That reply never appeared on your main talk page, but only on the archive page. Do you seriously expect people to trawl through your archives to find replies to their current posts? In effect, you never replied to me at all, because the communication was not effective, and in any reasonable person's world was never going to be. Which you of course know. Notice that I am still, against all the evidence, assuming you to be a reasonable person. I seriously wonder how much longer I can reasonably hold on to this position. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

If I hadn't added that comment, you would have found another reason to complain about it. The fact is, I archived it, and you didn't bother to check my contribs list for that time period. But now you know I archived it. So drop it already. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Yet more disingenuity. It's no longer enough that we should check back in the place where we make a post, to find a response to it. Now, we have to check the other guy's contributions list to see in what other places the response, if any, might be. Do you really believe that's remotely workable, Bugs? Really? I've just about reached the end of the road with AGF with you now. First time I've ever said anything even close to that in over 6 years on Wikipedia. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Jack, for taking the time to continue to comment on this. Me, I keep swearing not to. Bugs is not a troll in the classic sense, but for me, he displays enough of the hallmarks that I'd really like to just ignore him.

It's tempting to thank him for his reasonably thoughtful note here of March 20, but I fear he's still basically unrepentant. He seems incapable of grasping the basic point that he does not get to define how others ought to react to his posts. I had him in mind as much as Vranek when I wrote,

It's my observation that when someone's behavior is questioned, the someone's reaction tends to fall into one of two distinct patterns:

1. "Gosh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize. I'll try to do better. Let me know how I can."
2. "What are you guys talking about? I've followed all the rules. Show me where I've broken a rule. I haven't done anything lots of other people haven't done. Why are you picking on me?"

And, needless to say, when the pattern is the second one, things never seem to go well. [21]

But Bugs is pretty clearly not a type 1 poster. So my own conclusion is that complaining about his actions here, or on his talk page, is unlikely to accomplish much except to raise tempers and waste time. I fear our only two real options are (a) ignore him (and apologize for him to the people he most badly offends), or (b) wait for something so outrageous that there's a clear case to be made at AN/I or RFC. (But, hmm, one of the prerequisites for filing an RFC is to show what previous mediation attempts have been tried and failed. So strike (a), I guess.) —Steve Summit (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Steve. As I said up above, "Sometimes people don't set out to be deliberately trollish, but end up having that effect despite themselves". I have no evidence that Bugs has any malicious intent. But that's really beside the point. It's only the outcome that matters. In manslaughter there is no intention to kill anyone, but someone still winds up dead, and someone has to take responsibility for the outcome. I have no issue with people being their unique, wonderful, individual selves when it comes to human interaction. But when a person's way of interaction regularly annoys, irritates, angers, upsets, offends, distresses, disrupts and whatever other negative effects they have on others, then it's time something was done. Some things can be intolerable despite not being unlawful. Human nature takes care of the difference. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Some users (even that one IP farther up the page) are not offended by my harmless comments. So your response is clearly not universal. And because I am not a mind-reader, I cannot guess ahead of time (as with the harmless yogurt comment) that someone will have a cow over it. The bottom line is, I am not responsible for how you choose to react to something I say. If you have a specific issue with something I say, you can raise it on my talk page. If I think you're right, I'll acknowledge it. And if I think you're wrong, I'll bloody well say so. Or, if I'm feeling more polite than confrontational, I'll say nothing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Problem with that is, there's no "right" or "wrong" when it comes to feelings. If someone says they're offended, then they're offended. If you think someone is "wrong" to feel that way, then at least you're implicitly acknowledging they do feel that way; but then you about face and deny they even have those feelings, which is tantamount to telling them they're lying; or tell them they have no right(!) to have those feelings. As Steve said above, you don't get to define how others ought to react to your posts. We're now going over old ground, and all I've seen from you is denial, defence, and justification, but not the slightest sign of "Mmm, maybe you guys who keep on commenting on my behaviour actually have a point, and maybe I need to change something". My views are on the record. I'm outta here. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think it's appropriate for the subject of a debate to mark that debate closed, and to collapse it, but perhaps that's just me. If anyone else is moved to un-collapse the above, I'd welcome it. —Steve Summit (talk) 12:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It speaks for itself. Bugs comes along saying he wishes to discuss his conduct; does not like what he hears; decides to close down the discussion. It is, for me, a form of solipcism or narcissism in which he somewhat sociopathically makes up the rules as he goes along to suit his mood; a gross form of immaturity. We should take comfort in the belief that he does at least, from time to time, understand that his behaviour falls short of what is expected - especially in regard to his incontinent jests. It is frustrating to watch him backslide into denial. The shame of it is that he is capable to making strong positive contributions to the RD. He's pretty much put his finger on what annoys us (and, apparantly, his long suffering wife) when he says "But what I do like to do is try to make people laugh. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, and sometimes I wander too far down the wrong path (which I should tell you drives my wife crazy also).". I dunno guy. When your RD colleagues and your wife (and who knows who else) is telling you essentially the same thing, maybe it is time to heed what they're saying. All it will take, in the context of the RD, is to avow that "I, bugs, will restrict my RD input to providing answers to questions, and desist from seeking to make jokes which are not a participle part of a responsse to question". --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I've taken away the collapse since y'all don't like it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes I think it would be an interesting experiment to log out and post something really offensive (unlike that harmless yogurt joke), then log back in and criticize my own IP for it, and then watch and see who yells at me for beating up on the poor, defenseless IP. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)