Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 107

Archive 100

←

Archive 105

Archive 106

Archive 107

Archive 108

Archive 109

Archive 110

WTF?

I added the following.[1] This was immediately removed by a bot.[2] Wtf? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Not so paranoid there, AQFK. The thread was due to be archived, and your post just snuck in before the bot did its work. I haven't checked, but I'd be surprised if it isn't preserved in the archive, where it belongs. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I checked. It's preserved. This happened to me recently when I gave (what I thought was) a relevant reply to an unanswered q about an hour before the question was archived away. I'm not sure the OP ever saw my post (then again, I'm often not :-). ---Sluzzelin talk 01:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Isn't the bot supposed to check that the activity in the thread has died down before archiving it? Or is it archived after say one week, irrespective? That thread still had very recent signatures in it. —Quondum 01:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe it's set to archive at regular intervals, regardless of recent activity. The other side of the coin is when an editor has an afterthought about, or is a latecomer to, a thread that's already been archived. It's not good form to edit an archived thread, so any new contributions have to be made in a new thread on the active page, with pointers to the archived thread so that readers can connect the dots. That, to me, is even more of a pain than editing a live thread that is consigned to its dusty niche in the archives a short time later, when almost nobody would have seen it. But it does have the effect of ensuring the topic of the original thread, if not the original thread itself, remains part of current knowledge. It might be nice if we never archived anything but instead had fantastically long pages. When will IT catch up with this pressing need? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I've seen parts of the pages (days) being archived, but with automatic transclusion into the active page. That way, you can carry on editing the archive and it is visible (though when you try to edit the transcluded page you might not even notice that you're actually editing the archive), but it does not reflect on watchlist activity unless you have the specific archive on your watchlist. That seems to be pretty close to what you want, without clutter from long-dead discussions on a "fantastically long talk page". The transclusion presumably gets removed when the transcluded page has gone idle. —Quondum 01:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

They stopped that kind of archival a just a few months ago, assuming you're talking about "transclude x days until there are x days on the end of the page" (not lack of activity). - Purplewowies (talk) 15:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

This issue is something that has stood out to me from time to time as well (I'm sure most all regular contributors have thought about it a time or two) and I was thinking on ideal solutions just yesterday. I'm not sure transclusion is the way to go, even were it still available, due to its inherent draw backs and the fact it might me resisted on general principle. Clearly we do need to archive from time to time and having the point of archival be a fixed period of time makes sense as it keeps threads from becoming too involved and leading to ever broader digressions, but I wonder if there isn't maybe a sweet middle ground between archiving in this fashion and archiving based on activity. That is to say, a system that archives threads after a week if there has been no activity for a few days, but with a hold on archiving that can last up to, say, 10-12 days, provided that at least one post is made each day once the post is past day 7. Unfortunately, coding the kinds of bots used for archiving on Wikipedia is well outside my experience. I suppose the contributors at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) could give us some idea as to the viability of such an approach, but we'd need to presume upon someone for the leg work at some point. Snow talk 20:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Library Redesign?

Hi Folks,

We recently redesigned The Wikipedia Library and I wonder if the reference desk would be interesting in incorporating it.

Take a look at a mockup: User:Ocaasi/RD

Let me know what you think!

--Jake Ocaasi ^{t | c} 14:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

How about adding additional Wikimedia sites, such as Wiktionary, Wikiquotes, Commons and maybe Simple English Wikipedia? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll second that, it's nice to have those resources listed together. Also consider making the "you may be looking for" section smaller and/or off-center? With my current view it distracts from the main content. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Thirded, but strike the bit about Simple English WP, which is really just another Wikipedia. I'd put the others apart from Wiktionary at the bottom. I would suggest making the heading of the Library bit a lot smaller, although in principle I like the idea - it encourages people to think of references rather than speculation, and encourages trying to push the quality level up a bit, i.e. it reminds us there is such a thing as references for questions on the ref desk. IBE (talk) 14:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

But one caveat: when the page loads, the actual links to the individual desks are a long way down. So either making the heading "Wikipedia Library" smaller or redesigning the page might work, so long as the key links are pushed closer to the top. Otherwise, I like the idea, since I didn't even know the "Library" bit existed on WP. IBE (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

What do you do when someone raises a question for which there is no reference to be found, but someone happens to know the answer from personal experience? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

If it's something that is true, then there is almost certainly a reference, and you find it. Or you don't respond, and wait for someone else to supply a ref. On occasion it's OK to relate personal experience, and clearly state you are sharing WP:OR, so that the reader knows to take it with a grain of salt. I myself do this on occasion. E.g. here I relied a lot on personal experience to form my answer, but I still mad an effort to find several refs that back up my claims, both on WP, and to the scientific literature: [3]. The point is, this is a reference desk. I personally rarely say anything if I can't cite some references. That's not a rule here of course (nor should it be, IMO). But I think this place would be better for everyone if there were fewer responses without references. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

You're preaching to the choir on that one with me. I want to avoid making this a personalized gripe, but there's a contributor or two in particular who just seems to want to answer every question they possibly can, regardless of how speculative (vs. verifiable) it is. I've said it before, but it bears repeating here -- we have some leeway with regard to WP:V, owing to our unique role within the project, but that doesn't mean we can throw it out the window entirely. It bothers me when people flaunt this principle not so much just as a matter of principle but because I have genuine concern that if we don't show some degree of self-regulation on this matter, sooner or later someone from elsewhere in the project might start to question whether we are operating in a way that is consistent with the standards and priorities of the project as a whole, and the rules they are likely to then try to institute are likely to be much more stifling to our process than the middle-ground we can voluntarily seek.

My stance on a good rule of thumb is that you don't necessarily have to provide article-space level sourcing to the information you provide here (especially if linking to our own articles that have that sourcing for all claims being made) -- that would just grind contribution down to nothing and is not really called for in the vast, vast majority of threads -- but you should be able to at least provide sourcing if it came down to the necessity. And above all, personal speculation and synthesis of a unique idea based on a blending of verifiable elements should be avoided at all costs. Again, this idea is lost on some, who favour "well it's possible you could" and "it might be said" styles of response when they don't have significant understanding to inform directly upon the question being asked but still want to. I hate having to broach this subject because I fear trying to restrain this kind of behaviour will lead to overerreach that will damage the unique tone of these pages, where we require some freedom to inform in the way we do, but there's just a couple of editors who treat this space as something too close to a forum and can't properly discern that line between a question to which they are qualified to answer (and are giving only basically verifiable responses) and those where they are just serving a compulsive need to try to be informative. Snow (talk) 23:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

"...consistent with the standards and priorities of the project as a whole..." This is a website that doesn't require registration. Until "the project" joins the 21st century and requires registration for editing, there are no "standards and priorities" here that are of any value. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

What rot. I agree that universal registration is a fine ideal, but many people have good reasons for not doing so. Yes, we have our trolls, but we will always have that problem even if all users were required to be registered. But that doesn't mean that the 99% of bona fide other activity that goes on here happens without any standards. There are murderers and rapists anywhere you look, but the rest of humanity gets on with living in accordance with standards, principles, laws, rules, values, ethics, morals and what have you. Focus on what you perceive as a massive problem for too long and you'll lose all perspective. Focus instead on what works here, not what doesn't work. -- ~!Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]}

The reason I pretty much stopped editing articles is because I was fed up dealing with trolls. That poison is what drives editors away - not harmless jokes, as some here allege from time to time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The harmless little jokes are just that -- harmless. I've never seen them amount to anything disruptive on these pages and you find them from time to time on Wikipedia in general. But I don't see the connection to registration, and Wikipedia's standards on registration themselves seem to be something of a non-sequitor to the previous subject of verifiability as regards our activities here. It's a pity that you've let trolls force you out of editing, Bugs, but Wikipedia's policies on this matter didn't evolve in a void; they are the result of considerable debate and long-standing community consensus and take a number of factors into account, factors that are weighed against trollish activity (for which we have a massive infrastructure of process to combat). And the net balance of contributions by IPs collectively is overwhelmingly positive, in my experience, even if the bad apples do tend to suck up a lot of time. Wikipedia functions differently than most online communities because it has different aims and different ways about going about them in many respects -- and look at its unique accomplishments as a result of that approach. I think Wikipedia's collaborative model (of which the open editing policies, including the availability of IP editing, are a part) put it ahead of the curve of how organizations operate in the 21st century, not behind. Snow (talk) 04:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I understand that Mozilla Firefox is a collaborative effort too - with a major difference: It's not something that "anyone can edit". Its updates require review. If Wikipedia operated that way also, it wouldn't have it's "any moron can edit" reputation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I've written over 1,400 articles (including a number of redirects, categories etc) and I daresay my edit count well exceeds yours. My watchlist struggles to ever get lower than 7,500 and has at times nudged 10,000. My range of interests is very broad. Whatever, but my experience with trolls is nothing like yours. Nothing. Sure, I come across them from time to time, and treat them with quick contempt and move on to something more worthy of my time. I never have been and never will get anywhere remotely close to "fed up with trolls". I have much more interesting things to be getting on with. Trolls do not dictate how I spend my editing time - I do. I recommend it. Something about the different ways we operate must explain the stark difference between your experience and mine. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's put it this way: My most trusted admin, ever, left here several years ago for the reasons I've described to you. You're lucky to have had minimal experience with trolls. May it continue that way. I got tired of defending articles against trolls and schlepping them to ANI. In general, I let others worry about it now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Again, I have had extremely minimal experience of ANI. Anyone who spends more than a microscopic portion of their time there is either an admin or is getting involved in stuff that I'm sure isn't what they came to Wikipedia for in the first place. But that would be their choice, unless they have handed over responsibility for their lives to anonymous jerks on the internet. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

It comes down to whether one considers Wikipedia worth defending against those anonymous jerks. For years I thought it was, despite many voices to the contrary. I now side with those voices, and seldom defend articles anymore. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Bugs, if you are so unimpressed with Wikipedia's process, integrity and general worth, why do you bother to contribute here at all? There are plenty of other internet forums and venues where you could be answering general questions on factual matters that are not attached to a project you profess genuine disdain for. For my part, though indeed I'd be surprised if I don't speak for most who might see these comments, if all the comments you can muster are going to amount only to denigration, I think you can just save it, because it's coming across as somewhere between baiting and passive-aggressive whinging. Indeed, if I'm to be frank, when you have nothing to say concerning a community and it's priorities but to deconstruct them acidically and you proceed to do just that from within the community itself, you really come across as something quite similar to the very trolls you are criticizing as the reason for your disillusionment here. I respect this project's freedom of opinion principles too much to suggest you don't have a right to say anything you have here or that you should be quieted, but that doesn't stop me from telling you that you're coming off as intensely ill-natured and ungracious, bordering on obnoxious here. Maybe it's time for you reconsider your time spent here if it leaves such a vile taste in your mouth. If you do stay (and I would rather we didn't loose a value-adding contributor), I think the rest of us could live without hearing any more about how stupid this place is and how stupid we are for doing things the way we do, unless, at the very least, it's a part of an effort to improve things for the better, rather than just whine about how they are. Snow talk 05:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, Frank, nowhere in your lecture do I see anything that suggests you think Wikipedia is worth defending as I have done in the past and been yelled at for. I can think of a number of editors who have been driven away because of their passion in trying to support Wikipedia's rules. Oddly enough, Wikipedia is still the first place I go to find out information about any subject, and if I happen to see an error or an omission, I may fix it. But I do like providing answers to questions when I can, and I do find out lots of new information from the ref desks. So it still has value to me. "Internet forums"? Bah. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, we're clearly in agreement on some points anyway; I just wish you wouldn't throw in the towel with regard to Wikipedia proper. The trolls can be dealt with, when good-faith contributors come together. But maybe we are just very different editors; I sometimes get involved with ANI even when I haven't been brought there by a discussion involving a problem editor; I find it a worthwhile place to contribute -- it has some unique challenges, and going there too often will drain your time for more content-relevant discussions, to say nothing of general enthusiasm, it's true, but it's an important tool for the community and I like seeing the process at work. But then, I grew up around legal and legislative scholarship, so maybe it warped my brain in that regard. :) Snow talk 19:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I pretty much stopped using ANI when it became clear that nothing ever changes there. It's an endless loop of POV-pushing, personal attacks, and such stuff as that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but that's it's function. One doesn't get frustrated with a mosquito net because mosquitos are constantly batting against it. ANI is a good place to seek administrative and community review of problematic editors and behaviour. Of course many of those editors do not perceive themselves as the problem or are simply determined not to have their behaviour restrained without issue. But by pooling collective assessment and research of the facts surrounding given cases, the process typically has a good outcome, or at least the best one under the circumstances, owing in part to the fact that the admins and other users who contribute there are fairly well practices at cutting through misrepresentations and misdirection from tendentious editors. Snow talk 05:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

FYI the redesign is friggin awful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.151.201 (talk) 00:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

May The 4th Be With You

To my fellow Ref Deskers: May the 4th be with you. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

To those of us old enough to remember it, May 4th commemorates the Kent State shootings. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I must admit to being lost as to what Quest is himself referencing, unless it's a general good will, happy fourth day of this random month message. Am I missing something obvious that is going to betray my age (or general obtuseness)? Snow talk 23:20, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

This is what you're missing. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:26, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah, and I even looked at our May 4 article and still missed the link! I did wonder from the wording if maybe it had something to do with the announcement of the cast for Episode VII. Thanks for bringing me into the know, Sluzzelin. :) Snow talk 23:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Do Girls Not Like Unfit Guys

The question specifically asks if the OP will ever find a mate. Yet, we have people answering. While I can certainly think of references on the general topic of people with physical abnormalities finding mates and have further to say about money being a great aphrodisiac, neither of those are the answer to the OPs question. As far as I can tell, the question is asking for us to predict a future event (will he get married). On that alone, we shouldn't be answering. But even if we offered a reasonable and interesting alternative to the question as Ian.thomson did, it still doesn't address the OP's question. Mingmingla (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, my answer was originally directed at the OP as an example of an "unfit" man that women liked, but provided the alternate question as a means to get around the idea that we weren't supposed to answer his question for some reason. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

And the question in the title can certainly be answered with statistics, polls, etc. StuRat (talk) 01:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

What is your qq about specifically OP? Seems like you're wasting a lot of ink on absolutely nothing. Shadowjams (talk) 06:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Without seeking any discussion of it, I add this diff to the pile, should anyone need it. [4] 86.146.28.229 (talk) 14:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Is your complaint about the gross comment made by Dismas? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:50, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

What was gross about my comment? I'm unclear on that. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 14:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

It might have been considered darkly funny (albeit of little use to the OP) but then you added a shot at another editor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

(ec) I suspect Medeis missed your (Dismas') general point (that even people with very unusual properties can find compatible partners) and instead understood the post to suggest that the OP is similar to the specific example given. I don't find that a natural interpretation, but then I'm generally assuming good faith and read things fairly literally. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I was rather stunned by Medeis' strange reaction, too. She must have misread it, as she often does. StuRat (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not the first time recently that Medeis has had to put up with a direct shot from a user. That kind of thing happens from time to time. But ask yourself this: How does a comment like that figure to improve anything here? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Strange reaction, Stu? Dismas mentioned me in a discussion in which I was not involved, nor where anything I had ever said was relevant, for the sole purpose of insulting me. I don't care if that was preambled by the Hail Mary or the Horst Wessel Song, I made no reaction to and took no cognizance of anything but his "joke".

We have had all these recurring bullshit discussions about who is ruining the Ref Desks, attracting even the attention of proxy users, an admin above making jokes at another editor's expense for no reason, then justifying himself, rather than dropping the topic or removing his comment. We've got the first response on a question about a rabbit variety on the science desk offering no answer, but criticizing the OP's very exact and chosen language, and we've got Dismas, not for the first time, making a snide personal attack (in the form of a joke, presumably, which is what's called passive aggressive) as if this were Dismas' personal chat page, and as if the OP shouldn't mind his question being made the subject of a joke.

I apologize to the OP for the reaction he's treatment he's gotten here.

If editors can't stick to answering the questions rather than insulting the OP and other editors out of the blue they should take a break. All I ask from the regulars is that we focus on the questions, and not bring up our opinions of the past, but respond with specific complaints and diffs if something happens worth discussing in the future. μηδείς (talk) 20:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Dismas' comment implying that you tend to hat discussions was not blatantly insulting, but "Fuck you dismas" most certainly was, and was also not an answer to the question, so had no place on the Ref Desk. You seem to be taking things way too personally, overreacting to them, and escalating a snide comment into all out war. StuRat (talk) 22:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Snide comments have no place here either. It takes 2 to tango. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's the thing: Certain editors have yelled at both Medeis and me, for too much hatting and too many jokes, respectively. In response to that, I've cut back the jokes and Medeis has cut back the hatting... and we (especially Medeis) is still getting yelled at about it. Do you all really want compliance with what's been asked of us? Or are you just looking for punching bags? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm in the middle on this one: Dismas' jape, out of the blue and marginally snide as it was, was probably a little inappropriate and certainly not terribly constructive. But the tone of Medeis' response was out of proportion all the same (and it's not the first time I've seen her become confrontationally vulgar when her ire is raised). But then again, as Bugs points out, if this was a dig at a good-faith behaviour that she nonetheless has tried to adjust as per consensus, it's a step backward to be giving her crap out of nowhere. What it comes down to guys is that acrimony like this is just inappropriate all-around. We wouldn't get away with it on a Talk page and we can't be tempted to think we will here. We have to start concentrating again more on WP:Civility (which I remind everyone still applies to us individually even when we are responding to someone we feel has already been uncivil to us), and to try to build the comradery here again. Maybe it's just a subjective consequence of my on-again/off-again editing history here, but I've been haunting/contributing to these pages for years and I can't recall a time when there was more petty back-biting and division as to what is appropriate on the pages. Let's pull it back before it develops into a real problem.

Extended content
Now you two hug it out and show the OP there is hope for love in this world. Snow talk 23:08, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

This kind of question is not what the reference desk is for. I'm not surprised that it's descended, once again, into sniping, backbiting, "humorous" in-jokes etc, but it doesn't deflect from the fact that this kind of question is not a reference desk question. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree. We should ask ourselves "If I were a real-life reference librarian and someone walked up and asked me this question, what would my response be?". In this case, I know what I'd be saying: "Sorry, but we can't help you with that sort of thing. We have a section on personal relationships, and browsing that might be useful; otherwise, try a telephone counsellor or some relevant professional". Translate that to a suitable response for our page, then mark it Resolved, or hat it.

Apart from that courtesy of responding to the OP in order to direct them elsewhere, we should not get involved in such questions AT ALL. Such an approach would have obviated all the above interpersonal bitterness and what caused it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

The suggested response is good. The "hat" suggestion is not. Just reply, or not. NE Ent 22:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, we still haven't come up with a cogent policy for when hatting is appropriate and when it is not. All we ever seem to have is individual comments on individual hattings or proposed hattings, but never a guideline we can all adhere to all the time. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

In my view (which no one should give a fuck about), hatting portions of a thread makes sense when an answerable and reasonable question gets sidetracked by something that has nothing to do with answering the question and starts taking up the majority of the thread. Apart from that, hatting is overrated and usually performed by the wrong people (i.e. those who don't see things exactly the same way I do). If you (generic you, not JackofOz, ditto for subsequent yous) need to hat the entire question, you might as well remove it (or you could, conceivably, also just let things be as they are, not respond, and focus on answering genuine questions with informed referenced replies instead of officiously worrying about what is and what isn't appropriate. Monitor your own behaviour, not that of everyone else). ---Sluzzelin talk 23:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm mostly in point-by-point agreement with this. I generally don't see the need for hatting, personally. I've given the "this is not really the type of question we are meant to be addressing" schpeel a dozen or more times when I was the first to spot a question that warranted it, but that's about the extent of what I feel is warranted in most cases. I don't like the "official" tone of hatting, especially when, as Jack points out, we have nothing approaching consensus on where it is appropriate. Anyone following my involvement in recent discussions above and in the past would probably decide that I have a stricter-than-average interpretation of what we are meant to be doing here and how we are meant to be going about it, but discussing when those principles are being breached can take the form of ordinary postings and dialogue; there is something slap-in-the-face-ish about hatting a discussion, putting it in a box that no one can touch. Most of the people who seek information here and get rebuked through a kindly worded message of our scope here accept that statement without hassle, or, quite rarely, try to find a way to approach the issue that is more consistent with what we can do here. For those who can't take the hint, hatting isn't going anywhere and can always be utilized if clearly necessary, but as a first step, it just seems like a superfluously loud way to accomplish the same end as informing the OP that the question is incompatible with our activities here. And the visibility of the hatting itself only serves to attract more eyes, distracting from the more appropriate questions and baiting arguments about whether the question and/or hatting were appropriate to begin with. Best just to use plain formatting. Snow talk 23:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Also well said. NE Ent 01:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Well said. NE Ent 01:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Removed Water Nosfim post

Does anyone object to removing Water Nosfim's ramblings, as I just did? -- BenRG (talk) 07:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

It's consistent with all or most of that 192.116.142.154 (talk · contribs) IP's postings. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Rather irritating post, quite reasonable to get rid of it IBE (talk) 09:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Ent Desk

Did we really go five days between questions? Yikes. Matt Deres (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

It used to be that the entertainment desk didn't get much traffic routinely. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

minor archiving glitch

I'm traveling, and I've discovered that the travel laptop I'm carrying is missing one of the archiving scripts, the one that's responsible for creating a talk page redirect for every archive page. There's no good way for me to fix this, so the effect is that there's going to be about a week's worth of archive pages (across all six desks) that don't have talk page links. If anyone feels that these links are important enough to create them by hand, feel free. --Steve Summit (talk) 16:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Premature Archiving

Why was May 5th language desk archived 15 minutes after May 4th was? This discourages following on articles you think have 48 hours left.

(cur | prev) 01:20, 12 May 2014‎ Scsbot (talk | contribs)‎ . . (75,936 bytes) (-27,448)‎ . . (edited by robot: archiving May 5) (undo)
(cur | prev) 01:18, 12 May 2014‎ Crisco 1492 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (103,384 bytes) (+270)‎ . . (r) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 01:11, 12 May 2014‎ Scsbot (talk | contribs)‎ . . (103,114 bytes) (+12)‎ . . (edited by robot: adding date header(s)) (undo)
(cur | prev) 01:05, 12 May 2014‎ Scsbot (talk | contribs)‎ . . (103,102 bytes) (-7,879)‎ . . (edited by robot: archiving May 4) (undo)

μηδείς (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Because I'm traveling, and was behind, and catching up. --Steve Summit (talk) 05:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

New RD front page

I don't recall seeing any discussion regarding the redesign of our landing page. It's... not attractive. While I have no issue with a redesign in general, I think it would be best to go back to the old one until this has been refined. Mingmingla (talk) 00:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion is two threads above: "Wikipedia Library Redesign?" ---Sluzzelin talk 00:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The redesign does not reflect a consensus of any sort, and that is speaking as someone who backed the change, albeit with modifications that I regard as extremely important. IBE (talk) 00:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Mingmingla. We should revert to the old design until a consensus is reached. As Mingmingla so tactfully put it, the new design is less than attractive. There is too much white space in the top part (e.g. there are two vertical inches of blank-ness in the upper right above the image) and the fonts are too big. The "Wikipedia Reference Desk" box is fine, but I have to scroll down to see all of it, which is less than optimal...it should be the focus of the landing page. Minimizing the empty white space above it would solve that problem.

Also the three headings below that box ("For information on any topic, choose a category for your question", "For help specific to the operation of Wikipedia:" and "For Wikipedia reference information:") don't "pop" enough. The size/font seems fine but perhaps they should be in a different color font or centered over the respective boxes below them.

Thirdly, the majority of the "discussion(...)two threads above" didn't even concern the redesign.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 01:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted back to the old version while I play with suggestions at User:Ocaasi/RD. Feel free to make tweaks there. If we agree it's an improvement at some point, cool, if not the old design works just fine. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 01:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

BTW, I had also meant to say thanks for the effort. It's easy to point out what's wrong but nothing would get done unless somebody actually gets bold. So, thanks!--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 02:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, good approach to put the idea under our noses then revert awaiting discussion. I agree at least with the foregrounding of the name "library", but not with anything that takes up lots of screen space. IBE (talk) 02:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Yep when approaching the desk in the library I don't expect to walk down rows of lines being shown irrelevant pretty pictures and stuff about disputes. I expect to just go up to the desk. They asked for the reference desk, they don't need to be told they're in the library or see a picture of people in a library. If somebody wants to invent a game where you simulate a library building and one has to open the doors and walk up to the desk and we have a simulation of a librarian talking back fine, but I'd prefer to just give the links and a quick description of where they lead to. Dmcq (talk) 08:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, but I really like the idea of emphasising the "library" bit in some way. One way might be adding to the text where it says "The Wikipedia reference desk works like a library reference desk." I would follow this with "It is part of the Wikipedia Library" and of course make that link to the library. The library stuff is at the bottom of the page at the moment, and as a result, I never even knew the library existed. It is a natural thing to draw attention to for anyone looking to answer questions, and I'm hoping to gradually make a habit of checking it out. IBE (talk) 12:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Whatever you do in redesigning the front page, can you please put the links to the actual desks at the very very very top of the fold, made big and clear? When we switched to icons, the whole point was that we stripped the page back and made it easy to find where to go. The page has since acquired a lot of cruft, some of it through other's editing the help header. Most people who find their way here for the first time are not looking for more endless writing about procedure and other areas of Wikipedia: they have clicked and clicked trying to find somewhere to actually ask their question. We should make it easy to see the actual light at the end of the tunnel: all that wall of text around the links is really just for us old farts who don't need it. 86.146.28.229 (talk) 20:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes. When I go to the front screen, I see 3/4 of a page of yakkity-yak, and just the start of the icons. That situation could stand improvement. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

There is another proposed change up there now [5]. Personally I think the words "Reference Desk" are much too big, are in an ugly font and should not be in gold. --Viennese Waltz 15:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Definitely overkill. And the huge gold letters partially overlay the next line, at least on my PC. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:33, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Ditto to last point. - Purplewowies (talk) 08:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree with VW, as per my own thread below. As stated, I strongly support some clear mention of the Wikipedia library bit, but this I feel should consist of links in standard blue. I'm thankful that the library has been brought to my attention, but I want the links to the ref desk pages to be as close to the top as possible. IBE (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Disgust (Latin: bad taste), and what are we doing here?

I protest the blatant insensitivity embedded in the reply and edit summary of User:InedibleHulk to a query, WP:RD/H#Pink Dollar generated in the United States. If it's acceptable in the RD community that a WP editor makes remarks about "boobs," "udders" and "cash cows" (no scare quotes in the original) in reference to fundraising efforts for researching a cure for breast cancer, then my censure is going right there in the discourse and not (only) politely noted on this page where I suspect it wouldn't be read as widely as the remarks to which I object - not only personally but in the name of humanistic discourse in a voluntary online community to which many of us contribute and countless more read. -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll plead guilty on the "udderly" crack in the edit summary. That was mainly an afterthought, since I'd seen I'd typed the words "boobs" and "cows" together. Just a margin note.

I used "cash cow" in its normal sense initially, hadn't meant to imply women (in general or Susan G. Komen herself) are cows. Just that this practice is very good for business. And for eventually curing cancer. But we were talking about money. And I was referencing the scam, not the entire cause.

Sorry for any disgust. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

My point is about the use of vulgar language on a topic many people would find sensitive. There's arguably something unacceptable with littering or urinating in public view, but both are actions people evidently take (not things that happen). Each of us is responsible for our language, a form of behavior. That's one reason what we do here is called "editing" in Wikipedia. "Humanities" includes the human, humane, and humanistic. I'm disappointed by the low level of discourse here sometimes, and there's reason to believe I'm not alone. -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

It is a shame, Deborah, that you have brought this here, rather than dealing with Hulk on his talk page. That simply invites others to comment, so I believe my comments here are appropriate. Further, I have considered them before posting. I'm sorry if you consider the matter resolved, so I hope I am not reopening something, but the post seems to invite a reply from an observer. I know you as an erudite, accomplished person, who contributes only from the overflow of her cup, not the dregs. However, I cannot see your point, and I think you have escalated beyond what is reasonable in the first instance. It may be that you read "cash cows" in an offensive way, and the other things were interpreted in this light, so you let it escalate, when it was really rather mild. That would be awkward, and would explain a lot. But I do agree with Hulk, that he can only tiptoe so carefully, and all his comments were very PG. There is also no apparent skirmishing in his contributions, nor have I seen this at any other time from him. He writes in good faith. I might have just let it go, as others seem to have done, but it seems reasonable to say something since you brought it to this page, and deliberately called it to our attention. I am sorry if it should so turn out that you have changed your mind (I have suffered the same thing, where people deal with something that is already over), but I cannot read minds, so I am responding to the comment. IBE (talk) 11:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

It seems an appropriate post for here. For one, it helps OP and Hulk see how the rest of the community feels about it. Also, it allows Hulk to apologize in a way that lets everyone know, not just one person. For myself, I see Hulk as sometimes getting a bit carried away with opaque references and humor, but to my eye this does not usually cause much disruption. Deborahjay didn't call him a bad-faith troll, she asked him to be a bit more tactful in his wording. A civil chastisement and apology seems like what has happened here, and that's just fine by me. As long as we are civil here, there's no reason why an issue like this can't be discussed as a community. My belief is that as we start to think of each other as members of our community, and not strangers on the internet, we might be able to get along better. I agree with Deborahjay that we could all do with a reminder to be a little more human and humanistic in our posts. SemanticMantis (talk) 13:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Another thought: sometimes (as here, it seems) it's the piping of links that can sometimes go wrong when we use it as a way to make commentary or jokes. I usually link the whole ugly think, just so people know exactly where I'm sending them, e.g recently I posted Race_(human_classification)#Modern_debate. So, perhaps link transparency might help avoid misunderstandings... SemanticMantis (talk) 13:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the Reference Desk should remember it's supposed to be a Reference Desk, not a chat board. That would avoid this kind of unpleasantness that's been going on for a year or more. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm definitely a habitual meanderer off the path. Not totally trying to justify it (for me or anyone), but a bit of discussion often rings bells and opens new avenues of thought, and these can help later editors link something useful they'd have otherwise forgotten or not considered finding. I won't link examples here, but only because they're abundant. Picking one or two would be WP:UNDUE. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

OP explains: I posted here to elicit responses and appreciate all the input provided. My remarks were about wording, not content (as I'm an inclusionist), to understand what's regarded as acceptable here. As such I don't consider any topic taboo per se so long as it's Ref Desk material. It emerges that my online writing guidelines - my own and evidently what I prefer in others' - are more stringent than the degree of looseness practiced by some RD editors' contributions. Background: these past three decades (half my life), during which I've written much for the Web professionally and personally, I've been living in a multilingual, multicultural environment in one of the world's most contended and contentious countries. My spoken English is native AE, but I try to write ELF when attempting to deliver the goods. And yeah, I'm an unreconstructed feminist (B.A. English literature, UCLA 1976) so there are some buzzwords that pop my fuses. As a wannabe humanist, I shall try to adjust my antennae without erecting any filters. Thanks again to you all. -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

If it helps keep the signal clear, I'm a bit of a misanthrope, but I take that word to include women. And every subdivision you can name. In a nutshell, every person I meet starts at a baseline 2/5 on my caring meter. Getting to 3 just takes a basic decency, and everyone here's shown that. It's a lot harder to drop to 1 than go to 4, but not as hard as getting to 5.

In light of that, I'm still likely going to be "opaque", as the appropriately named Mantis put it. So just know that if you have to think about whether I said something or not, that something isn't to do with anything under the group hate umbrella. When I do make a blanket statement about a subculture, I try to be at least rather transparent (3/5), if not right straightforward. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

In your first paragraph I read "...[everyone] here..." as being this page, contributing WP editors who patrol the RefDesks. So your second paragraph aroused my concern for the OPs (the querents), their being likely to read your response as utterly straightforward, as-is, black on white. In phrasing the content & style of your response, to what extent are you writing for the OP and lurkers? for your peers here? for yourself? -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

New OPs would be 2/5. If they ask their questions without a chip on their shoulder (almost all do), they get promoted to 3/5 level respect (that is, none, but no disrespect either). Of course, "respect" is a subjective term, and we're all going to occasionally ruffle some feathers (not implying the querents are chickens). But even an OP (or regular) who deserves rudeness is only going to get it mildly from me. Intentionally, anyway.

Whether a response is more for me, the OP or another reader depends on the particular question/reply. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Nobody deserves rudeness. Descending to a poor standard of behaviour in response to someone else's poor standard of behaviour is never justified. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Before we met, I was a plucky optimistic young man, ready to save the world. Then I came here for help, and you convinced me I was a risk-averse underachiever. Then Medeis hatted me. And here we are. It was basically this, but if I were Jack and Jack were Batman.

All good, though. Just reminded me. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

In a recent question a disabled OP in Bangladesh India submitted a question posed both objectively "Do Girls Do Not Like Unfit Guys" and personally "Will no good looking girl date me and marry me." Both quotations are sic erat scriptum with the OP's imperfect English and lack of punctuation such as a "?" sign evident. Responses by regulars ranged from the genuinely helpful one(s), to an admin posting solely to attack a poster in vulgar terms, and to a stunningly gross obscenity. I twice tried to put a "hat" around the infection, considering that hatting should not be done by anyone involved in a discussion and that the form of hat I chose was a calm green one with no request to stop discussion. The hats were cancelled by Dismas insisting in edit summary: "My answer was helpful, it was taking a statistical look at the question." and again by Stephan Schulz: "While not a sterling example of interaction, there is useful info in the thread". On this page, User Snow further expressed dislike of any hatting, presumably disallowing even this gentle form of containment of expletive language. I make no more comment on the particular "stunning obscenity" that occurred because the subject has been exposed on this page and because the responsible poster commendably voiced later a kind of apology for the reception the OP received, as well as finally giving the OP a genuinely useful reference to support groups for their disability. (A more intelligent response than marshalling and defending the social Darwinist world view that a eugenicist would apply to the OP's disability.)

Deborahjay's protest, like my attempted hatting, focuses on what we are doing here for each OP. Vulgarity is an issue on the Ref Desks, and inevitable for complaint on this page, when a long-term admin feels free to post language (not excluding the Foulest word) more offensive than most of us would ever find acceptable or necessary. Since there are posters convinced that Freedom of speech has been hard won just to liberate their own profanity, we have to bow to WP:F***. Deborahjay's standpoint, well explained, is that of a sensitive feminist. Her question from the outset uses a specific term "Pink" in the context of sexual politics; one needs the explanatory link she gave to Pink money because the word "pink" has changing meanings, sometimes perjorative, as you will know if you saw Audrey Hepburn in the movie Funny Face or remember Joe's little list of pinkos.

I support Deborahjay's admonishment about vulgarities posted on the Ref Desks. However she must accept the risk involved in employing a hot political term there, and it should not surprise that InedibleHulk reacts after just 30 minutes (that's knee-jerk time in encyclopedia work) with a post formulated like "Whenever I hear "pink..... I think of....(proceeds to describe a gender-related scam allegation unrelated to the question)." InedibleHulk's humor based around boobs, cows, udders, etc. is indeed cheap but I disagree with Deborahjay that it is hurtfully vulgar. When she touts "the widespread and often deadly and disfiguring diseases that are breast cancer, striking so many women and irreparably harming them and their loved ones." I hear only provocative opportunistic rhetoric. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 16:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Am I missing something? The OP you referring to only posted once AFAIK and they never gave any location information. The only location information we have is the IP WHOIS and geolocation details which both before and now suggest the IP is from India not Bangladesh. In any case, I remain unconvinced that an unrepentant sockpuppeter who is currently indef blocked under multiple different accounts and is therefore defacto banned should be admonishing anyone or hatting stuff, particularly when said sockpuppeter still seems to be up to the nonsense that got them blocked in the first place. Nil Einne (talk) 07:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The closest I can locate the OP is by their IP 117.194.249.78. This is assigned to Bangalore by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) which is India's oldest and largest communication service provider based at Kolkata. Following your note, I have

• corrected the location that I posted. Apologies for any offence that error may have caused.
• corrected this nonsense about Bangladesh telecoms. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 15:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

New banner

What do others think of the new look by Ocaasi? I don't agree with the new header. As stated above, I want the library bit foregrounded only. What we have now is just a big banner that takes up space. I like the owl logo on the far right, but I don't agree with the big banner. I still think we should emphasise the library bit, but this has not been done anyway. The "library" bit simply needs to be stated somewhere, and linked in several places, in ordinary blue text. We should emphasise its presence, and support it where possible, but I see no need for banners at the top. It just means extra scrolling, which for people like me who use the arrow keys, is annoying. IBE (talk) 05:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you. I reopened the discussion on this subject yesterday, seven threads above this one. It would be good if discussion could be kept to a single thread rather than having multiple threads on the same topic. --Viennese Waltz 07:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey folks, just to be clear, I have no intention to claim this page or dictate its design. If you want to update or adapt what I put down, go for it. This recent version was a modification of an older (and even less successful Wikipedia Library design), but I'm still open to suggestions, or just removal. It's your page. Perhaps we can let a few more folks weigh in and go from there. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 21:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Your actions are all clearly reasonable, so there's no problem there. I'm waiting for a few more people to comment, but be aware that they often don't bother because they edit WP in their downtime, which may not allow much time for anything other than content pages. I get into these talk pages myself only when there is a lull in my outside life, as there is now. IBE (talk) 05:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

It's ugly. Get rid of it. And move the actual ref desk links up high enough that the editor doesn't have to scroll down to get to them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Donning my ex-Editor's hat, I agree with Bugs that it should go. It takes up space unnecessarily, textually it repeats something already present just above, and the typeface and logo are both stylistically at odds with the graphic design of the site in general and the page in particular. It's a bit like sticking a classically designed portico on the front of a steel-and-glass office block - nothing wrong with either, but a bad combination. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The owl, or whatever it's supposed to be, is freaky-looking and should also be removed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Using an iphone, the splash icons with the links to the desks are now three screens down the page. Please, can we just rip everything else out, or stick it below the splash icons? 86.146.28.105 (talk) 19:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Front page edit

Smallish edit of front page of ref desk for simplicity, diff here: [6]. Thanks, IBE (talk) 11:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Further diff for another edit, including one by Jack which I endorse. [7] IBE (talk) 12:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

A small suggestion - refreshment break

If editors are finding things acrimonious on the desks, and want a break from them and from arguing in general, may I suggest that WP:FAC is always looking for more eyes. You get to read about new things, be as pedantic as you like (with people thanking you for it), and build the encyclopedia in a measurable way you can feel proud of. It might be refreshing, if you need to be refreshed. 86.146.28.105 (talk) 23:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Interesting suggestion, thanks! SemanticMantis (talk) 15:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

This is an excellent suggestion. I'd like to suggest to @Baseball Bugs: that he and I both go and lend a hand there, in the interest of profitable co-operation and putting our skills to good use. Bugs - would you be interested? AlexTiefling (talk) 15:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

As in reviewing the recommended articles? I don't know if I have the qualifications to do that. But I'll give it a look. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The "qualifications"? Read this page: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-04-07/Dispatches, then you'll be as qualified as anyone. 86.146.28.105 (talk) 17:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Seeking Advice

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

---

Is there a list of banned topics that are not allowed to be discussed on the reference desk? I have just now experienced this and I could see no warning about topics of culture and race being disallowed, however I fully respect the rule against it and will not make that mistake again. I would just like to know before I submit a question if it breaks the rules or not, so a list of such topics would be great. Also do I need to put trigger warnings before potentially emotionally distressing topics so that people who might feel upset about them can look away and not read it? Many thanks for your help. CyrilSneer90 (talk) 22:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the issue is that it's a forum-type question. You would be better off seeking a forum that's into those topics, and then you can have a lively debate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about, but the reference desks are WP:NOTCENSORED. At least, not by topic. Meaning, I can ask questions about necrophilia or misogyny or slavery (or any other topic that might be offensive to some readers), and, as long as I'm asking in good faith (e.g. WP:AGF, WP:POINTY), I can expect referenced responses to my questions here. We do have guidelines for questions and responses linked at the front page. Also you might like to read WP:NOT in general, or WP:CRYSTAL, WP:SOAP, and WP:FORUM specifically. SemanticMantis (talk) 05:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I am talking about this. The pages are clearly censored because it was removed. I have read through the rules at the top of the page and it does not break any of them, it is not a forum topic or a request for "opinions" it is a legitimate question asking about a documented social phenomenon to be answered with citations. If I had asked about styles of hats instead of skin color, the question would not have been removed. I respect the censorship and will abide by it, but please don't claim these pages aren't subject to censorship when they are. I would like a list of the banned topics (race being one I now know of). If the list is held by oral tradition could someone write it down for me. Thank you. CyrilSneer90 (talk) 10:44, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

If you had asked the exact same 'question', in the exact same way, about styles of hats, it would also be an attempt to provoke chat and argument, rather than an honest search for references, out of a desire for information. However, you probably would have successfully got the regulars arguing, because it would have been slightly less obvious. 86.146.28.105 (talk) 10:53, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I would have maybe hatted it, or at any rate, made no effort to answer it. Maybe I would have replied by just pointing you to the articles (which is not the same as answering the question, pedants take note). I find Andy's edit summary (in removing the post) pointlessly excessive, but I do not object to the removal. The question just looks too engaging (debate-wise), and simplistic in its summary of the issues involved. Look up multiculturalism, eugenics, and race first, then you will refine your question so it is more useful, and more reference-desk like. IBE (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Race is certainly not a banned topic. Removal of questions that don't conform to our guidelines is not topical censorship. There is no list of banned topics, ans I suspect you know. Your question had a lot of embedded assumptions, many of which are probably not true, and it starts to sound a bit like a conspiracy theory (Really? There are higher powers telling us who to breed with? Where?). You also did not specifically ask for references, and you did not present any documentation of any social phenomenon. If you have a genuine interest in the topic, this question could be asked: "Are there any books or articles about how multiculturalism is valued in different places and times? I am also interested in books about racial mixing and racial purity movements." You could also share any links or documentation that you might have. It's not the topic that caused removal. Especially when a topic might be off-putting or controversial, we (askers and respondents) should endeavor to make our statements WP:NPOV, and steer clear of WP:SOAP. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm closing this thread. Feel free to reopen if you feel there's something worth discussing but note that the editor who started this discussion has been blocked by a CU. Nil Einne (talk) 00:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Missing archive pages

The latest archive page of the Mathematics desk is dated 22 May. The active page has a few empty date headers at the top. Has content been deleted without archiving or is there another problem with the archiving system? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I just did three days' worth of archiving. I saw neither (a) activity on the Mathematics desk nor (b) error messages relating to the Mathematics desk. So I think that desk's just been particularly light on traffic. —Steve Summit (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

halp

Hi why am I banned from the language page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.203.253.237 (talk) 10:40, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The reference-desk pages have recently been subject to an attack of vandalism. To prevent further disruption, the language desk has been semi-protected (no editing by unconfirmed users or users without accounts) until 07:25 UTC on June 3—that is, less than two days from now. You can wait till then, or if you don't want to wait, you can post your question here, and I'll copy it to the language desk. Deor (talk) 11:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The other alternative is to create an account and 'confirm' it by providing your email address and responding to the confirmation email. That unlocks the page and lets you edit it normally. SteveBaker (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

He's already been doing that, and they've all been blocked so far. He's another incarnation of that Venezuelan IP troll. Just in case you hadn't noticed. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Banned user

[8] is a banned user right? Geolocates to Perth, signs with a name just before the IP sig, and [9] looks very familiar. I think the procedure is to just delete the comments and leave an edit summary explaining why, but I can't remember if that is correct. I also don't remember the user's previous name to put it in the summary. Katie R (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Some people believed Floda, Keit, and Wickwack to be the same person, and needed to be banned. I personally felt that that user or users caused less problems here than many account-holding editors with long residence. The Perthians will usually provide solid references if asked, and seldom say anything that is patently false (again, unlike some others here.) So I'm inclined to ignore the ban, unless a specific response is disruptive. Search the archives on the talk page for previous discussions here if you'd like more of the background. See also the 84... IP that some people think represents a person that has been banned in the past. Again, I don't care, as long as they play nice. I personally come here to share references, to learn, and to teach. As long as respondents aren't actively interfering with my ability to do so, I don't care about what they did in the past. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I was around during all that, I just couldn't remember the details, and like you I don't care enough to delete it in most cases. The diff I linked is one of the more problematic ones because of the attitude towards Steve, and is what made me recognize the OP. That sort of attitude rather than friendly corrections gets people into defensive mode and can throw off conversations, but Steve doesn't seem like the sort of contributor to get sucked into that anyways. Katie R (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The general (possibly unofficial, these days?) policy is that if you can tell from the edits that it's a banned user, you can feel free to unsummarily undo any and all edits they make, without even identifying who they are (just say they're a banned user, in your summary: if they push back, you can identify them to an admin). But, if they're not causing any trouble, and don't explicitly identify themselves, you can also choose to let it go, and hope they quietly rehabilitate themselves. So you can absolutely remove any of their edits that you don't like, for whatever reason, no questions asked. I think we'd all support you in that. And you can also quietly leave them be, and not alert the more tendentious editors to their presence. It's entirely up to you. 86.146.28.105 (talk) 18:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with 86. Per WP:DENY, WP:Topic ban and Wikipedia:Editing restrictions, you're free to delete contributions from Wickwack. And yes, it's clearly Wickwack who has been hanging around like a bad smell, replying regularly and even getting help with Japanese translations despite the topic ban. But such deletions aren't required. I think most of us have been ignoring Wickwack because it's clear they're not going away and deleting their contributions wastes more time than it's worth, particularly since they doesn't seem to be troling. (I can't speak for others but I recognise the majority of Wickwacks many contributions before I even reach the signature.)

Although Wickwack seems to be resurrecting one of the historic identities, I haven't seen any sign so far that they are repeating the problems that earned them their topic ban, namely pretending to be different editors and using these different identies to reenforce each other's claim. (Which is a blatant WP:Sock violation, not to mention thorough dishonest, I regularly make jokes about the ethics of Perth or Australian engineers to an engineer I know as a result. I think Wickwack brought up engineering ethics before themselves but I guess those lessons didn't stick.)

In terms of the Steve Baker thing, IIRC one of the reasons Wickwacks blatant socking emerged was because people were concerned about the way they were interacting on the RD. But it wasn't the reason they were banned per se. Either way, I will definitely defend any deletions of Wickwack's contributions if it comes to it. (Just as I will for other banned users who are sticking around like Cuddlyable3.)

Speaking of banned users, if anyone does want to waste a bit of time with that sort of thing, there seems to be a new User:Bowei Huang sock which is probably worth chasing up at some stage (based on their history).

Of course banned users are welcome to actually try and reverse their ban so their contributions aren't randomly deleted. In the specific case of Wickwack, there's been a general feeling since the ban itself that Wickwack would be welcome to register one account and stick to it. Heck even if they were to adopt one identity on the reference desk and stick to it always even without an account, I suspect they may have been able to convince the community to accept them back. I don't know if things have really changed much despite their continual blatant ban evasion, although this could happen if they continue to annoy people. However they've shown no interest even when it was suggested. (As I believe I mentioned before, their comments from before the ban regarding their reasons for not wanting an account suggests they could be a historic or even current problematic editor/account somewhere on en.wikipedia. Although if it was historic, realisticly all the logs would have long since expired and AFAIK no one ever identified them with anyone else so it seems unlikely a CU request would have ever been successful.)

P.S. For clarity, I should mention I'm using the term 'banned users' widely to include those are almost definitely defacto banned based on multiple blocked accounts or whatever.

Nil Einne (talk) 21:46, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Wickwack is from that part of the world. In terms of socking, when it's difficult to demonstrate for sure, sometimes the optimal path is to judge the contribs of a given "suspected but not sure" as standalone. That is, are they outrageous enough on their own that it doesn't really matter whether it's a sock or a new user? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

That's seconded, and thirded, from me. (I'm using the votes of my various sockpuppets ;).) IBE (talk) 04:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Right. >:) Jut to clarify, I'm not saying we shouldn't go after banned users. Only that sometimes the effort can exceed that of simply evaluating a given user's edits and taking standalone action. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of how this is resolved, perhaps all the involved parties could agree to bicker somewhere other than on the actual reference desks? I think it's safe to say that if every answer is followed by a lengthy meta-discussion, then we're just going to confuse/discourage the people who are asking questions in the first place. Allowing all this infighting to spillover from the talkpage is certainly less than desirable. (+)H₃N-Protein\Chemist-CO₂(-) 12:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Question (how to edit an article)

How do I edit article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.243.129.48 (talk) 00:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Answer. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Namely, click the "Edit this page" tab at the top of the article, then make your changes, then click "Preview" to see it's what you wanted to do and haven't made any mistakes, then click "Save". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:42, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I do not see any "Edit this page" tab at top of article, he says "View Source"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.243.129.48 (talk) 00:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

It might be just "Edit", that's how it appears to me. BTW, I added to the question title to make it useful. StuRat (talk) 01:17, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I've corrected the spelling of your allegedly useful addition. Its usefulness is now beyond doubt. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

"View source" is what the tab reads if the article is protected in such a way that the person viewing the article cannot edit it (i.e., semiprotected from IPs and nonconfirmed users or fully protected from everyone who's not an administrator). What article is it that you're trying to edit? (This question is more appropriate for the help desk, by the way.) Deor (talk) 02:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and since the Ref Desk has just been semi-protected, I suspect they were trying to edit that. In this case, they need to register in order to edit. (Is this enough, or do they need a certain number of edits, too ?) StuRat (talk) 02:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The OP here is the Venezuelan IP troll, who knows full well that the pages have been semi'd. Don't encourage him. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Protection

There have been occasions when this very talk page was semi'd. Should we have an unprotected talk page somewhere, to allow for such a circumstance? If you agree, I can set one up quickly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Unprotected talk page

A significant number of recent questions on Language desk seem to have been asked by accounts subsequently blocked for sockpuppetry

At least User:YeastyTrains, User:Bg4u, User:KieraCameron2077, User:Wpytgdp... AnonMoos (talk) 01:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

It might be a good time for a friendly admin here to put a short-term semi on the page. I've also put in a request at WP:RFPP. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

It's been done, but the disease seems to be spreading to other desks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:08, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

It hasn't "spread", they've been doing it unsubtly for a few days across all desks. I figured we were all giving our most boring responses and letting them get quietly blocked, without any of the exciting discussion that they so desperately want to provoke. 86.146.28.105 (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Just to be a little more specific, in case this wasn't obvious: they want people pointing out that they are a sock. They want people pointing out that they are banned. They want that sort of attention. When you do that, especially on the public-facing pages, you are giving them the exact thing they are trying to achieve. There is a reason we have WP:DENY. 86.146.28.105 (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The IP below geolocates to Venezuela, which is one of the sources of recent vandalism and socking. Checkusers won't do anything about IP's, so a friendly admin will have to keep zapping them as they come along. But what about the questions? Some of them are obviously fire-starters, while some others are inane but harmless. So what's the solution? Don't give any answers at all? Or semi the pages for a few days? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

They have failed to get any of the arguments they have aimed for: we have generally given boring answers, and engaged politely with each other. We have all been smart enough to spot them. They have been swiftly blocked as they popped up, and no disruption has been caused. So, if you see questions you want to remove, remove them: that is the policy for blocked users. If you want to leave them up, to receive boring, polite answers that potentially build the wiki, do so. No need for hats at all. This is the same as always. 86.146.28.105 (talk) 18:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

No rants, no hats, no airs, none left unblocked. And that's a winner! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

• Not sure, but I think Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Honkshreader is related to the recent spate of throwaway accounts trolling the ref desks with inane questions. --Jayron32 02:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Those new accounts pretty much stopped once the Venezuela proxy was blocked. And for what it's worth, the recent ref desk troll was operating from there as well. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Alas, it looks like there's a fresh crop; there are lots of new users asking goofy questions across several desks now. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think we need to do it across all desks for a week or two. IBE (talk) 12:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The trouble (at least on the Misc desk) is that the questions (mostly) aren't inane at all...they are actually kinda interesting. It would have been nice to get the boost in question traffic if they'd been posted by a non-blocked non-sock of some evildoer. It's tough to get a response back from CheckUser in time to spot the sock before an answer pops up on the desk. If we are to WP:AGF, then it's going to be difficult to do much more than answer questions efficiently and without rancor...which is what we should be doing anyway! Jumping on every account name that posts to the desk as their very first post is likely to scare off genuine first-time Wikipedia posters...and every one of us was exactly that at some time in our distant past. SteveBaker (talk) 14:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The checkuser(s) must know something we don't, and that's why they keep issuing these blocks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Thankfully the admins have put at edit filter in place to block any new account from editing RD, so we won't be seeing any more of these drive-by trolls. 201.243.206.13 (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Very funny, as you're yet another of those Venezuelan troll accounts. However, as a wise admin once pointed out, there are many of us and only one of you. Knock yourself out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of checkuser, am I the only one who beleives that this poster is a previously banned user engaging in exactly the sort of behavior that got him or her banned? APL (talk) 23:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not a typical drive-by, but it looks fishy enough. It geolocates to Norway. Was there a Norwegian user banned, some months back? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

It certainly sounds like Cuddlyable3. Matt Deres (talk) 00:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Cuddlyable3 was banned for being a grammar Nazi. Was Cuddly based in Norway? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

JustAnotherUploader (talk · contribs) is obviously either Cuddlyable3 or a troll with good knowledge of Cuddlyable3's activities. I've asked for it to be blocked, although any friendly admin who happens to see this could do the honors. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:26, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Matt Deres (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Seven (7) Day Archiving

Can we switch to (a minium) seven-instead of five-day archiving on all desks? I know for a fact that certain users of ours can only get access weekly at cafes. Seems rather odd to archive their questions before they can se the answers. μηδείς (talk) 17:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, though not super strongly. Threads are effectively exhausted anyway after a few days, so they would only be reading, not posting. Still, that seems like a good thing in itself. IBE (talk) 00:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Threads used to be kept visible for up to a week through the transclusion process. Why was that approach abandoned? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

See discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Archive_105#archiving_changes_imminent. I see you may not have been around then, although you are present on what was probably the same page a couple of weeks later. 86.146.28.105 (talk) 20:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I somehow failed to notice that. The thing is, though, I'm pretty sure transclusion was done as a creative alternative to having a week's worth online. It was thought that the page would load faster and you could still get to see a week's worth. Now that the transclusion approach has been trashed, we're back to needing to go the full week online - and some are already getting worried about having too much on the page! Can't have it both ways, y'all! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• I'd just like to clarify that I do have in mind a specific long-time user who can only access the internet weekly at this point. I am sure that must aplly to lots of potential users. An "archived at the end of the eighth day policy would help in that case. Also, I don't think any of the current five-day archival threads are causing paper shortages at this point. μηδείς (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

If there is a good-faith fellow-editor interested in using our assistance and eager to learn (and I think I know whom Medeis meant) to whom an eight day period would be of significant service, then I'd suggest we implement it, unless the greater sizes hamper the desks' usability for other editors, of course. That wouldn't be the case for me, and I'm not very high-tech, but I am ignorant about how it might affect other people interested in using the desks. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Mobile device users might have a problem, although it should not be huge. My China Mobile internet is about as sucky as it gets sometimes (slow and cranky), although I usually use a PC. The mobile is usually only for Google translate. If you used it for WP, it might get very annoying, esp if the mobile site wasn't suitable for some reason. IBE (talk) 00:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Mobile devices (and people on slow connections) are my concern as well. The science desk is usually the outlier; it tends to have longer response and also is more likely to have graphics inserted into it (there are currently three); it's not app-breaking, but a 60% increase in size is probably going to create performance issues for some people. I don't doubt that we have users that can only access us once a week, but I also don't doubt that we have users with slow connections and/or metered downloads. Are there any suggestions for how we can cater to both groups? I've long been partial to total transclusion as is done at places like WP:FPC; we could keep the translcuded days small for dial-up users while less frequent visitors could always visit the transcluded subpage to get their follow-up. It's an awfully large-scale change, though. Matt Deres (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

One suggestion would be to keep the titles up on the "live" page, but not the actual answers. Then at least they can quickly click on the topics. Something would have to alert a casual user like me that I'm going to load a page from the archives if I click a topic from the "live" page, but that shouldn't be hard. It's quicker than looking up the archives for a list of questions, and it's really speed and convenience that we are talking about here. As a side note, I suggested a while back that we should do a single page that contains all the question headings for all the ref desks, so clicking the topic on this "central" page would take you to that page. In the case of an archived question (eg. 7 days old), it would just take you to the archives. This might help a lot of people as well, in terms of convenience. IBE (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The big problem for my friend, about whom Sluzzelin's presumption is most likely correct (but whom we should not even attempt identify for various valid reasons, including policy ones) is an inability to check for answers or followup questions more frequently than once a week whether with my help or alone. I somewhat understand the phone concern. But don't such users have actual computer access at home, work, or school? I have never sent a text myself, so it is hard for me to see how serious a problem mobile internet telephony really is. 02:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

10% of Americans only have broadband access on their phones. That's just Americans. The use of smartphones is taking off in other countries with lower standards of living where people don't have home PCs. I'd pull up those figures too but I'm on my iPad right now and it's not as easy to do the typing and pasting and such. (First world problem) Dismas|^(talk) 03:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I personally really don't know how to address or even look at this. I learned BASIC when I was 12, typeset the college newspaper with Pagemaker on a MAC, had a beeper, spent ten years directly programming people's switch-to-domicile phone service using legacy Bell systems, typeset prestigious magazines on 40 year-old powerhoses, and now in semi-retirement use wikicode fairly well, but feel entirely ignorant of the underlying issues. I am fairly certain I have clarified the position of the user whom I think we should accommodate. I hope people more experienced than I can make a rational decision. μηδείς (talk) 04:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Would going back to the transclusion process fix this problem? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

If you go back to the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Archive_105#archiving_changes_imminent and look at the tables you'll see that, no, it would not.

It's been a very long time since any of the desks kept a week's worth of history (transcluded or otherwise). At peak volume, the popular desks would be difficult to use at that size. Today, with volume dropping off, it might be workable.

I hope I don't sound too insensitive, though, when I suggest that before making such a change, I'd really like to hear from the editor who actually needs it. We've got a systen that's evolved over many years to meet the complicated, often contradictory needs of thousands of people, and I'd be reluctant to make a significant change to it just because of what one person claims one other (unnamed) person would like. —Steve Summit (talk) 18:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Not at all insensitive, I also assume many have guessed, but there are very good personal and policy reasons not to out this user. If anyone has any concern they can email me, and I have emailed Steve. As I have tried to emphasize, this is a matter I think we should consider, especially given he declining volume in the 5 day threads. And I realize there may be technical reasons why it would be a bitch to do. μηδείς (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

If there are technical or other concerns about doing this, and if the user does have access to the internet every week, they could also check the archived questions and feel free to re-post the thread, or start a new one, linking back, for follow-ups. As long as it's clear it's no one exploiting our willingness to assume good faith (little ponies and stage fencers come to mind, but this isn't about them) I don't think anyone will mind (and our most ardent censor is already on the side of said user with limited access anyway :-). ---Sluzzelin talk 19:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The reason for stopping transclusion seems to be that some editors found it confusing when they thought they were editing the live page and were actually editing the archive. That confused me too - once. It's not a problem. You should go back to the old way and that should resolve the issue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's consider the Humanities desk. Before transclusion was abandoned in January, the Humanities desk kept 5.5 days of history, on average. Since that change, the Humanities desk keeps 5.5 days of history, on average. As I understand it, Medeis is requesting that all desks keep 7+ days of history. So how does reinstating transclusion address the issue? (Yes, it would be perfectly straightforward to increase the history period to 7 or 8 or more days, but it would be equally straightforward to do so with or without transclusion. Am I missing something?) —Steve Summit (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

It is claimed that too many days visible causes the screen to load too slowly on hand-helds. Is that also true if the data is transcluded? If so, that shoots my theory. How about this alternative? Provide visible links to recent archives. That should fix the page-loading problem and also make it easy to get to recent archives. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Transclusion does not affect the load time when viewing. (I'm sure of this for conventional browsers, and mostly sure for mobile.) Transclusion mostly affects the load time when editing. —Steve Summit (talk) 00:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The user does not necessarily have internet access, let's say, every Saturday. They can go to a cafe, or use, on occasion, a third party to contact me via email for free, and only email. Not internet access. If a question is relayed to me and posted on Saturday the 1st, and a request for clarification is posted in the thread on Thursday the sixth, and relayed by me to the third party email and received by and responded to (not always so quickly possible) on Saturday the 8th, we've got Sunday the 9th as the sole day for users to respond to the clarified question, assuming these questions will be archived on the end of that day. The user is looking at three options: brief free email access to me no more frequently than once a week, email access to me at almost 6 hrs wages per MB, or 1 hour of censored internet access at 9 days wages per hour. I think it is reasonable to make this user's access easier if it is not an actual huge problem for other users, something again upon which it is impossible for me to comment. μηδείς (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal to increase the archive time to 7 days. Especially since the question volume is going down slightly.

However, I would also like to suggest that if it's costing someone two-weeks' salary to ask the Ref Desk a question, they're probably not going to get their money's worth. 74.113.53.42 (talk) 15:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

You misread me somewhat. The user has access to an hour at an internet cafe for the price of 1/3 of a mnths salary. They can also email me at 2 days wages per MB when they have the money. They can also send emails limited to about 600KB for free, but using a friend's access, and only once a week at best, meaning a question refered to me and answered within the week will be useful, but most questions require follow ups, in which case a "archived at the end of the 8th day" setup is all that would really work. Users may have noticed I have posted several questions on this editor's behalf.At this point acess before July will be difficult and infrequent. μηδείς (talk) 22:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• Can we simply institute an "archive at the end of the eighth day" policy? Note the specific user who would benefit from this is active when possible, but won't have regular access until September.

There don't seem to be any real issues. No threads are so long at this point it will proves a difficulty. in fact we are spending much more time blocking trolls. If there's no serious opposition, will someone who can, please make this change? Otherwise, I will gladly post an RfC if necessary. μηδείς (talk) 03:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

We don't need an RFC, but (IMO) we do need a stronger consensus than has been demonstrated by this thread so far. --Steve Summit (talk) 09:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Completely off topic, you were asked in the old thread "What's a 'botherd'?", to which you replied

Shepherds herd sheep, botherds herd...

Would the answer be boots? SpinningSpark 11:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2014

In the section about the hair curler, add the following text after User:Spinningspark's initial reply, complete with link: "The technical term is conductive polymer." 24.5.122.13 (talk) 09:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC) 24.5.122.13 (talk) 09:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

That's not really what I had in mind. That article is about intrinsically conductive polymers, which, according to that article, are not usually thermoplastic. I was thinking of a regular polymer loaded with carbon or silver. But by all means post the information (along with this reply). SpinningSpark 11:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Deor (talk) 13:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protection edit notice points to the wrong place

The semi-protection edit notice still contains a link to the now defunct WP:New contributors' help page. It should surely point to the Teahouse, if anywhere? --ColinFine (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protection defeats entire purpose of "reference desk"

I recently stumbled upon the reference desk seeking to pose a legitimate question on a very arcane topic for which I am unable to find an answer within many other forums.

I understand that this area has experienced vandalism recently but in it's present state very few will succeed in using this feature due to the protection. For example, the protection requires that those who pose a question have a minimum number of edits. I have a small handful of edits and could make a few more edits to meet that minimum but that creates a misguided motivation for editing the Wiki. If a questioner wants an answer bad enough the reader will likely be tempted make trivial or sloppy edits to meet the minimum. I was tempted to do just that myself but resisted.

Allow me to point out the stated mission: "The Wikipedia reference desk works like a library reference desk. Ask a question here and Wikipedia volunteers will try to answer it." As I'm sure you are aware and will agree, the desk works nothing like a library reference desk in its present state.

Rather than just complain I have tried to think of an answer to the current problem. Unfortunately, I lack experience in the Wiki itself and in matters of IT and cyber-vandalism so I cannot be much help except for one suggestion. Just because this reference desk is associated with a Wiki, does the desk itself necessarily need to be a Wiki? Would it help to 'think outside the Wiki?'

I don't imagine I have been much help but I remain motivated because my question festers and I am fairly certain this reference desk is my last hope of finding an answer. At the very least I hope I have presented a new perspective of an outsider with a legitimate question looking in.

Edit: BTW I have read here that users with verified accounts should be free to pose questions but I possess such an account and am still prohibited from posing my question.

Rldioxin (talk) 15:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@Rldioxin: Actually, you do not yet meet the autoconfirmed condition as you only have eight edits. However, I have now manually given you the "confirmed user" permission so you should be able to edit the page. The Ref Desk could be moved outside Wikipedia but that would not solve the vandalism problem. Most sites won't let you post at all until you register and confirm your e-mail. SpinningSpark 16:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the confirmed status.

"The Ref Desk could be moved outside Wikipedia but that would not solve the vandalism problem."

I was thinking more in terms of filtering or screening questions before they appear on the Wiki. Yes, there is great importance and merit in allowing the encyclopedia to be freely, immediately, and publicly edited but it seems to me that the reference desk is something different, is questions about knowledge rather than the encyclopedic knowledge itself. A fine distinction but distinct nonetheless. Where is it written that a reference desk must operate under the same protocol as the encyclopedia? Again, just wondering if there is a solution outside of the box. Rldioxin (talk) 17:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC) Edit:forgot the sig.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rldioxin (talk • contribs) 17:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. The disruption being caused by Baseball Bugs holding the desks hostage in his one man "war against the trolls" far outweighs whatever good he is trying to accomplish. I don't see any discussion or consensus about this page protection. It's kind of scary how little oversight there is to prevent one person summarily deciding to lock out thousands of innocent editors on a whim 190.206.104.192 (talk) 16:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

You caused it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The blame lies anywhere but with the person who actually requested the unnecessary page protection, ie YOU. Your attitude is the Wiki equivalent of blaming an act of rape on the womans outfit instead of on the rapist. 190.206.104.192 (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

You're right that the blame lies anywhere but with me. In this particular case, you and your endless socks are the assailant, Wikipedia and its sincere editors are the victims, and the sincere admins are the policeman trying to rein in the assailant (you). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The block is perfectly appropriate. Bugs has done and can do nothing on his own, and I'd love to see some diffs of how he's ruined the project. Actual researchers are quite likely to have registered acounts. The propblem is just for those poor oppressed trolls who have to keep re-registering after getting blocked. There's been no drop in quality, and the quality control efforts should be commended. μηδείς (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Without intending any offense to Rldioxin, may I ask if the regulars (I'm not sure I count as one any more) have determined whether he's a troll not to be fed, or a reasonable person whose reasonable question may be answered? --Steve Summit (talk) 17:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC) [Retracted; see below. 22:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)]

Yikes. The discord and paranoia around here is scary. Thanks but no thank. I'm out. Rldioxin (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

We can all say whether we think a user is a troll. Action requires admin judgment, and while that's usually too slow in the eyes of some of us it works. What really strikes me is a continued permanent ban on the ref desks, but no ban on registered users here, regardless of autoconfirm. That allows real people to take one simple step, which will eventually bore and tire trolls. And it will mean a heck of a lot less arguing between regulars over troll questions on the ref desks themselves, which is the real problem. In other words shift the trollground from realspace to metaspace. μηδείς (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Unlike some others, I have no desire to go through other users' edit histories before I respond to a question. Rldioxin seems to have asked a very reasonable question here [10], which I have started to provide refs for. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Based on behavior, I don't think Rldioxin is part of the sock farm. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Many people ask many questions here. Many of them get reasonable answers from reasonable editors. The idea of protecting the reference desk is absurd. Super high profile articles like Obama or 9/11 or whatever are clearly candidates but since the reference desk isn't normally exposed to our mainspace readers (thankfully), there's little-to-no reason to protect it, undermining the entire purpose of it. If people don't like the questions that some people pose, those people don't need to try to provide answers, or could work elsewhere. If a question is so patently absurd that it's obviously disruptive, it should be removed or hatted. If a question has already generated reasonable discussion then it should be allowed to continue. Arbitrary censorship is exactly what Wikipedia is not about. Don't forget, this chat board isn't the mainspace. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

To anyone who might wonder... according to the admins, the recent flare-up is the work of a user who is banned from Wikipedia altogether. Site-banned users are not allowed to edit anywhere on Wikipedia, regardless of any alleged quality of their comments. We had this very same discussion a year or two ago, about a (presumably) different banned user. If the editor is sincere and wants to get un-banned, there are proper channels he can go through. If not, he will continue to sock and IP-hop, and derive endless glee out of watching the ants scramble here. I don't care for socks, but I have to admit it was kind of morbidly funny yesterday when he posted something under one user ID and then reverted it under another ID, thus tricking a sincere user into re-reverting, i.e. re-installing the troll's original entry. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I really do hope the semi-protection is lifted in the next few hours. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree Judith. For what it's worth, in the mainspace this kind of protection is only afforded to the higher profile pages which are likely to have regular readers of encyclopaedic articles stumbling across, not a chat board where, seemingly, anything including humorous and often offensive discussions take place. It's worthwhile that all remember that this is a page which depends on questions and answers and nothing more. It's not an encyclopaedic article which 99.995% of our readers will even randomly stumble upon, let alone go looking for. The hyperbolic reaction to this kind of trolling has done nothing beyond exacerbating the situation, after all, we have WP:RBI for a reason, should any particular post genuinely be considered vandalism, most of which of the latest spate is not, it's just juvenile ramblings (ironically). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The admin who semi-protected all the ref desk pages set it to expire on the 14th, and told me that "if it continues, we'll continue the semi'ing for a while." So if the troll ceases his activities, it can be unprotected. It's up to the troll. It's the troll who's holding the ref desk pages hostage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaving the fate of the desks in the hands of a known troublemaker hardly seems like a logical course of action. 201.243.96.209 (talk) 20:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) Why are we giving the trolls such power? I thought the idea was to deprive them of power. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

You know the best way, don't you Jack? It's to ignore them. Not pander to them by creating a disruption to this "service" which anyone should be entitled to use. It's like giving in to terrorists. Very weak. Of course an IP can just create a bunch of accounts whenever they like, or grab a new IP by reseting their router, so the idea that this "semi-protection" will somehow "protect" the ref desk is absurd. The best course of action is to take the high ground, revert, block, ignore, and get back to offering the "service" this desk was intended to deliver to all editors, both registered and anonymous IPs. Any other approach is a wilful disruption to the desk and deeply unhelpful to the project. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

201, just above Jack, is of course that same troll. The idea of semi-protection is to choke off the site-banned user, and it's worked to some extent, as the troll has had to try harder. He creates a new user ID, creates a series of bogus updates via his various IP socks, then gets autoconfirmed by having his new ID revert those bogus IP entries. So at least he has to make a greater effort. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I should also point out that it was various admins who first brought this problem to light, a week or two ago, as a bunch of newly-created users were being blocked as being socks of a banned user. Since the time-honored RBI axiom did not work, the next step was semi-protection. I have no authority to either impose or revoke bans or protections. Anyone with any complaints about the handling of the persistent troll can bring those admins into the discussion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) So what about the 99% of IP users who are not trolls, such as Rldioxon? Why should they, and even some registered users with low usage, suffer for the sins of the 1%? These ways of dealing with the perceived problem always produce the very disruption the trolls are seeking, by way of interminable debates here that never, ever produce a solution that actually works for the greater good. Far better to do nothing at all, i.e. just ignore them (to the extent possible), as TRM says, than this cure that's a lot worse than the condition it's supposedly treating. Can we at least just try that approach for, say, a month and see what happens? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the debates feed the troll. If everyone would strictly enforce the rule that banned editors are not allowed to edit, there would be little or no debate. Meanwhile, we have so far had ONE sincere request here for a question at the ref desk. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Up above I wrote a poorly-conceived comment which I have now retracted.

In answer to Rldioxin (to whom I have since apologized), and in agreement with several other posters here, yes, semi-protection absolutely defeats the purpose of these desks. It should only be used as a last, desparate resort, on rare occasions, and for durations measured in hours. Is the current protection really for a week or so? That's terrible. If that's truly the best we can do, we should shut the desks down and admit defeat.

Someone said something to the effect of, "it's not our fault it's protected, the admins did it." False. The admins did it because someone here called the situation to their attention and requested it. Or because no one has said, "a week is way too long. Let's shorten it." (I'll do that now, if necessary.)

In a post which most of you probably didn't see (because Bugs deleted it, because it may well have been from a troll), the question was asked, "Are the desks in decline?" And the answer is, yes, they clearly are, and part of the problem is, as Rldioxin put it, all the preposterous discord and paranoia.

I'd say more, but I have some work I have to do, and also half of what I'd say would involve mentioning the names of some editors who would then get all huffy and defensive and sidetrack the discussion with their recriminations. But I will say this: the problem is unquestionably us. Trolls, like terrorists, successfully exploit the autoimmune disorders which typically lurk in organisms like this one. The actual damage caused by the troll is comparatively minor; what's far worse is the damage we willfully inflict on ourselves in response. This is not an easy problem to fix, but we are currently not doing a good job of it. --Steve Summit (talk) 22:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that comment was from the troll, and is irrelevant to the discussion. And you're bringing it up again counters the RBI theory. This problem will continue as long as banned editors are enabled. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

And, to no surprise, the troll has followed Summit to the page of the admin who protected the pages. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I haven't followed closely enough here to be certain, but I think in general that the choice of protection is very unfortunate and an extreme measure for the reference desk to take. It's indeed a place intended to be an open to ask research questions, which new and unregistered users will undoubtedly have. Some amount of vandalism is inevitable on this project, and even when frustrating, shouldn't result in this kind of draconian measure unless the vandalism is extremely disruptive. Otherwise, we can just monitor, moderate, and delete it. I would recommend unprotecting this page, as even 4 days of SP seems like going too far. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 00:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

No one has been inconvenienced except the troll. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Now, Bugs, that's patently false. --Steve Summit (talk) 06:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Right, if everyone who's commented here wants to keep a lookout, I am happy to unprotect. So folks, I'll do that and everyone can keep a close watch and see how we go, and if any unwanted stuff lasts longer than a minute or two we can rediscuss. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the consensus here that the semi-protection is giving the troll exactly what he wants, the power to block many others from the Ref Desk. In this way it's a Denial Of Service attack, and we are helping him out when we semi-protect. This is not a case where semi-protection should be used. Where should it be used ? Let's say a troll was using a bot to log in under constantly changing IP's and replace the Desks with a picture of his penis. That's a case for semi-protection. This is not. StuRat (talk) 04:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I completely agree with StuRat.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 09:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

How to handle this going forward

Consensus seems clear here. Thanks for the input! --Jayron32 19:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The only way to stop the troll is if we all agree to delete his questions and all responses as soon as anyone figures out its him, even if the responses are in good faith. It does no bit of good to let our pride get in the way here. If we want him to go away, we can't leave up memorials to the times he successfully suckered people in. If someone deletes a question and good faith responses, please don't put it back simply because you thought you came up with a really well-crafted good faith answer. If we want the troll to go away, we need to make a concerted effort to agree to stop making it worth his while. --Jayron32 00:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC) I don't understand this. Even if this is a "troll", if the questions being asked aren't utterly unreasonable and answers provided are helpful, what's the issue? Censoring the troll will simply make it continue, that's obvious, because it will know it's disrupting Wikipedia. And I keep seeing people asserting that the user in question is "banned", can someone point me to that discussion/decision please? Don't forget "Love your enemies. Be kind to those who hate you." The Rambling Man (talk) 07:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC) The trolling is just something we have to put up with and some of them are quite entertaining. Better here than in the articles. (Don't tell them that). Britmax (talk) 07:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC) Definitely true, this is an encyclopedia and the vast majority of our visitors are here to look at articles, not to use the reference desks, keeping trolls away from mainspace is actually very good for Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC) I agree with TRM and disagree with Jayron here. If someone with ill intent asks a reasonable question and gets good faith answers with references -- why should anyone care if somewhere a troll is snickering in delight? Part of why I respond here is that the archives can be useful to many people outside of the OP and regular readers. We can never really know intent of anyone, anywhere. I also think that deletion can encourage some trolls to try again; it creates a nice adversarial atmosphere. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC) Have fun with this one then. You asked for it, and you got it... --Jayron32 18:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC) Why not do something useful Jayron and answer the question or do something else constructive around Wikipedia? There certainly seems to be an element of censorship going on here, first there's the "Venezuela troll" who is allegedly "banned" (but I have yet to see any evidence of this "ban"), then an IP editor from the US has a post removed, then an IP editor from China is responded to with an emoticon. None of this is good, good for editors, good for people asking questions, good for Wikipedia. Is it time to bring the Reference Desk to a close if this is how it operates? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC) Let me quote: "If someone with ill intent asks a reasonable question [...]" (emphasis mine). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC) I agree. I had a very level-headed conversation relating to this topic just today loosely related to how Iran may have stolen Israeli military equipment, retro-engineered it and then used it against Israel. The question deserves more than a pathetic emoticon answer. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC) I also disagree with Jayron. Removing good-faith answers may make the contributors who see their efforts deleted decide to no longer contribute, and it deprives others with similar questions from seeing the answers. Our purpose here is not to punish trolls, it's to provide useful answers. Jayron seems to have forgotten that. StuRat (talk) 04:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Better protection on RD templates

Could Wikipedia:Reference_desk/header/nav be locked down better? Our troll has started editing it. Any other templates used here that aren't changed often should probably be protected too. Katie R (talk) 12:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

They've edited Wikipedia:Reference desk/header too, although they seem to have reverted the changes. Katie R (talk) 12:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

For oldies like me surprised that these templates aren't already fully protected (since I thought they were all locked down before the Avril troll reformed), it seems they were unprotected at the end of May last year. (To be clear, this is intended as a comment, not a criticism. They do seem to have lasted over a year and actually there may have been a discussion on it before I seem to have vague recollections of something.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

If the admins and/or checkusers were sufficiently interested, they might look into that reincarnated troll (last edited four years ago) and maybe finally put a stop to its war on the ref desk. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

wow, just wow

Cruised by the ref desk to ask a question and met your new face for non-members and got say I'm disappointed but not surprised. I always liked the comparison to a library's ref desk but was mistaken in assuming you meant like a public library. Best of luck with your private club. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.64.124.142 (talk) 03:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I assume he's run into the semi-protection and wasn't able to ask his Q without registering. This is a good reason not to semi-protect. StuRat (talk) 04:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The troll has declared war on the ref desk. Maybe you can persuade him to stop it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

It's ridiculous and truly shows what a boys-only club Wikipedia has become. "Anyone can edit, so long as you jump through all these hoops for our amusement first" 112.44.251.44 (talk) 11:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Usually pages are protected when a lot of people in a certain class of user (say, non-autoconfirmed, which includes unregistered) are vandalizing the page. Usually the issues are weighed and when protection is chosen, it is because the risk of damage is worse than the unfortunate prevention of legitimate question and edits. - Purplewowies (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

As discussed above, the page protection is exactly the result the troll wanted, so the page then becomes ridiculous because it is not accessible to all editors, just the many RD lurkers who spend their entire wiki-lives at the RD and nothing else, chatting like a club room, like some kind of self-perpetuating prophecy. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if a checkuser has taken a look at this person's edits lately. If not, if someone would send me an e-mail with links to a few of them, I will forward it appropriately. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you should appraise yourself of the situation before offering such "assistance". The editor being discussed uses various IP addresses, mainly based in Venezuela. What would your check user offer accomplish here? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Your best bet might be to check Carllica4 (talk · contribs). That ID was created four years ago and then sat idle until today, when the troll did the same thing the others have recently: Latched on to random ID's around the world (by some obscure trick), not just Venezuela; made trivial edits to random articles; then used the old registered ID Carllica4 to revert those edits, thus attaining autoconfirmation. Maybe a checkuser can figure out who that editor Carllica4 really is, and see if anything can be done to stifle his war against the ref desks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Yesterday, 190.73.3.113 (talk · contribs), one of those Venezuelan IP's, went berserk, slashing entire ref desk pages. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

One darkly amusing incident happened on Sunday, where Lastwine123 (talk · contribs) and Minky543 (talk · contribs) went through that same autoconfirm process I mentioned earlier. Lastwine123 created the entries, and then Minky543 deleted them, thus tricking StuRat into restoring them. Those are a couple of users you could look into. Both indef'd now, of course. Those user ID's were created in 2008 and 2010 respectively, so that's some serious advance planning by the troll. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Overone2 (talk · contribs) and TalipTaste (talk · contribs) are a couple of other recent ones using the same autoconfirmation M.O. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of the other actions taken, perhaps it would be a good idea to make the templates that appear during semi-protection more friendly? What happens right now for an unregistered user is this:

1. You see the normal reference desk header on the subpage (eg Humanities or Science), with the welcome and tips on how to get a question answered. You click on "Ready? Ask a new question!" and...

2. You get taken to a page titled "Permission error", followed by a large padlock and a notice that the page can only be edited by "established registered users". Then there is a long wall of text with technical jargon about semiprotection, vandalism, a protection log, requested moves, talk pages, etc. At the bottom is a bright blue button named "Submit an edit request" which is the next likely move for the visitor still trying to ask their question.

3. Next you see a page titled "Editing Wikipedia talk:Reference desk (new section)". There are TWO jargon-filled boxes at the top full of complicated instructions about articles, reliable sources, sandboxes, etc. You are also told this page is not for asking for help (which is confusing considering how you got here), and right before the typing box there is a big yellow banner saying "Please do not ask knowledge questions on this page. This talk page is where the reference desk itself is discussed. To choose an appropriate reference desk to visit, click here."

I can understand how the frustrated person 148.64.124.142 trying to ask a question feels they are getting the runaround. Is there any way to remove these standard templates and use ones directly appropriate to the reference desk? For example, if the desk page is protected, could the "Ready? Ask a new question!" button lead directly to the page for submitting an edit request without the intermediate "Permission error" page? And could the templates on that page be simplified to something much more friendly and simple such as "Type your question here. A volunteer will transfer it to the main reference desk later today."? 184.147.135.33 (talk) 21:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. Keep in mind that protection of the ref desks is pretty unusual. It's been triggered by a persistent troll whose assault on the ref desks has accelerated recently. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2014

Please add to the Humanities desk, section "children's books" Many thanks to everyone for the helpful answers. (same person, IP just changed after a power out) 184.147.135.33 (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC) 184.147.135.33 (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Done Regards, Older and ... well older (talk) 00:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! 184.147.135.33 (talk) 02:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Will this question be rejected?

I want to ask why some people like European Spanish but not Latin American Spanish. Will this question be removed if I ask it? --66.190.99.112 (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It would be pretty hard to answer. First, who says they do? Second, how likely is there to be some kind of survey of which version of Spanish people "like" or don't? Also, is there really only one dialect of "European" Spanish? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

So is that a yes or a no? 200.84.141.43 (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The question requires neither. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Post your q at WP:RD/L and see what happens. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Um, no. Please don't. It calls for speculation regarding an assertion backed up by no evidence. It isn't appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with people asking questions based on false assumptions. How else do we expect people to correct those false assumptions if they don't ask? It is preferable that they tells us where the assumption came from, but it isn't required. I know lots of things that I have no idea where I heard it the first time. Mingmingla (talk) 23:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

There's a difference between us actually removing a question (reasons include vandalism, obvious trolling etc), and us simply choosing not to answer a question because it falls outside our scope (medical, legal, speculation etc) but leaving it in place. The former happens now and then, as required. The latter hardly ever happens at all; it should happen a lot more, certainly more than outright removal, but there almost always seems to be at least one editor who feels the need to give us the benefit of their opinions.

I can't see any reason why your proposed question would be removed; but equally, I can't see any way it could be answered - with a reference, that is (opinions are always at bargain basement prices, and I'm sure you wouldn't be coming here just to get the unsupported opinions of anonymous jerks on the internet, as I'm sure you have much better things to spend your time on). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with people asking questions based on false assumptions. How else do we expect people to correct those false assumptions if they don't ask? It is preferable that they tells us where the assumption came from, but it isn't required. I know lots of things that I have no idea where I heard it the first time. Mingmingla (talk) 23:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Jack and Mingmingla. Question is hard to answer with references, but is otherwise a valid question for here. For example, I'm sure there are some academic studies on accent preferences. These would not explicitly answer the question, but could be useful and interesting for a variety of readers. It is not a problem that the question may have an incorrect assumption. But it could conceivably be removed if interpreted as an invitation to debate or WP:SOAP. The thing about removal here, is it depends a bit on look. Who's patrolling that day, and are they feeling tolerant or restrictive? Such is the inherent difficulty with a community of volunteer editors. If you really want to ask it, I say go for it, but make sure to say that you are interested in references, and perhaps read up on accents a bit so that you know what's already in our related articles. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Think about it this way, folks. If someone asked this question at a real library reference desk, would they expect to get told not to waste their time with such a question, or would they be politely told, "we don't know how to answer that" ? IBE (talk) 06:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Is This the Talk Page for all of the parts of the WP:Reference Desk?

Is this the talk page for all of the parts of the WP:Reference Desk? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes. --Jayron32 23:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeed; it has more than 500 incoming redirects. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Every archive page -- that's one per desk per day, going back many years -- has its talk page redirected to this one. --Steve Summit (talk) 19:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

(Well, almost every. Over the past month or so, creation of those redirects has been sporadic, because I was traveling with a different laptop which was missing the redirect page creation script. --Steve Summit (talk) 11:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC))

Abuse filter

To help control trolling from IPs on the ref desks I have created an abuse filter. It is currently logging only and not taking any actions in order to check that it is not going to do anything crazy. It is being tested with the IP ranges of the "Venezuala" troll but can easily be extended to other IP ranges, or even edits from logged in users if some kind of pattern can be defined. It is limited to ref desk pages, but again, can easily be extended to other desks if needed.

If you wish to make use of this filter you will need to point to a discussion that confirms that the ref desk community wish to ban a particular IP range or type of edit and then contact someone with "edit filter manager" rights (such as me). Since this only affects the ref desks, we can be much more aggressive in using this filter in terms of size of range and indefinite blocks. Alternatively, the edits can be allowed, but tagged so they are easy to find and, if necessary, actioned from the page histories.

Another thing I have done is make a suggestion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 14#IP disruption proposal that would make it easier to track IP hopping trolls and vandals. Comments are welcome from here, but it is getting a lot of technical criticism at WP:VPT so might not get anywhere, at least in its current form. SpinningSpark 11:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Interesting idea. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:28, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Travel desk

What is the reason, that the travel reference desk is "outsourced"? --112.198.79.226 (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 97#Wikivoyage Tourist Office (February 2013)

and Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 98#Travel Desk links (March 2013)

and Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 98#Wikivoyage Tourist Office Link (March 2013)

and Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 99#Misplaced question (May 2013)

—Wavelength (talk) 21:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Occasionally we get travel-related questions. Shouldn't those questioners be directed to the travel desk? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

If I see a travel-related question on WP:RD/M, then I prefer to answer it there instead of answering it on Wikivoyage, which is not on my Wikipedia watchlist.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Nor mine. The whole thing is kind of bizarre, actually. Someone from that site came here asking for it to be added to the links on the ref desk. So there was some discussion and it was added. But there are no other wiki projects with icons on the main page, and when someone asks a question like what's the best route to get from point A to point B, or what's a good hotel in point C, editors here try to answer it, ignoring that link. So, of what value is that link, if any? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't forget you're only seeing one side of it; we don't know how many people decide to click the link and not ask here. For that matter, who knows how many people start there somehow and follow one of the their links to us to ask a question? As for me, I could take it or leave it. I only just checked it out today, but it seems like a decent resource, if not actually very busy. If Wiktionary had a more centralized analog to the RefDesk, I suppose we could put a link to it on the landing page as well, rather than as the list on the Language Desk. Matt Deres (talk) 02:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

For the refdesker regulars

I'm sure this violates WP:ELNO or something, but this should probably be our motto. Actually, the pic is from Commons, so the link should be okay. Matt Deres (talk) 02:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Very good!

Incidentally, we do actually already have a motto...it's on the barnstar and it's in latin and everything. SteveBaker (talk) 19:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Scaly know-it-alls do good? Good enough for me.... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Does the Latin Wikipedia have a motto in English?

Also, one would think the motto would be "verifiability, not truth". In Latin, that works out to something like "Ut Verum, Non Verum". Oops. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I think Matt's point was that we are far better at jumping on, dissecting and refuting errors our colleagues here may have posted than we are at actually answering the ƒ*&X% question. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Correcting others' errors is not the problem. It's the attendant "you're an idiot" commentary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, if it's verifiable....Duck --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

It's hard to verify facts about an alias. Actually, it's got nothing to do with the target of such abuse - it's simply the standard approach of certain editors, regardless of who they're "correcting". At some time in the past, believe it or not, calling a fellow editor an idiot was a blockable offense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Invitation for Language Refdesk regulars and other interested Wikipedians

I have just begun an effort to start a WikiProject about the English language. Please see Draft:WikiProject English and feel free to participate in the process. So far I have put down just the barest of skeletons so any and all constructive contributions are very welcome. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

These categories of WikiProjects might provide some ideas.

• en:Category:WikiProject Languages
• es:Categoría:Wikiproyecto:Lenguas del mundo
• fr:Catégorie:Projet:Langues
• it:Categoria:Progetti lingue
• pt:Categoria:!WikiProjeto:Línguas
• ru:Категория:Проекты:Языки

—Wavelength (talk) 22:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC) and 23:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:58, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Floating nav box

The Help Desk has recently acquired a handy floating nav box (bottom left of the screen) for quick navigation to the top, TOC, today's questions, and bottom. Any chance this could be implemented on the ref desks?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I hope not. I hate floating thingies; they're like giant globs of half-chewed food someone's coughed onto my computer monitor. Scrolling doesn't help, and, with these, neither does Windex. They're programmed right in there. Deor (talk) 10:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The one at help desk is mostly hidden behind the interlanguage links, so you need to scroll down to get to the clickable parts. But I can tell that it's there without scrolling down, because it's wider than the sidebar and so it spills over the main part of the page. Not good. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Not only not good, but very likely in conflict with MoS and I rather suspect the one at the help desk will not last long. Snow talk 19:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't seem necessary. I have several keys on my keyboard which are labeled "Home", "End", "Page Up" and "Page Down", and which seem to work pretty well. There's also the browers item "Edit | Find on this page" which comes in handy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The example there works fine for me (OSX/Firefox), though the 'hide' link partially overlaps the 'top of page' link. I even tried many different font and window sizes, and it always worked fine...

I do like the idea of a quick link to "today's questions" -- that's usually what I want to read, and scrolling to the bottom then up until I see something I've read before is a bit tedious (this feature cannot be replaced with "home", "end", etc.) It could be done on RD with a float (properly tested/formatted) or a just a nice hand link at the top SemanticMantis (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

In the history of the ref desks or any article, new entries are tagged in green, so I can see quickly what has been worked on recently. Then, for ref desks, I can go to the bottom and work my way up, as needed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Where is the military?

Does military stuff fall under humanities? --112.198.90.229 (talk) 09:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

When in doubt, post under Miscellaneous. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Military history, even recent military history, comes under humanities. Asking about the command structure or procedures of some military outfit falls under humanities. Asking why military forces of a country are doing a particular thing this week, or what they might do next week, also falls under humanities. Asking for additional explanations of how reactive armour works, or why certain types of missile are effective in certain situations, or how effective nuclear weapons are against particular structures, all come under science. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:29, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

And if in doubt, post under Miscellaneous. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

If in doubt, post where you want to, because the rules are not strict. Precise debates about what belongs where would never end. The fact that you are asking this question shows that you are acting in good faith with concern for the project, which should be sufficient. IBE (talk) 05:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

If it's about real warfare, hopefully they wouldn't post in "Entertainment". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

But if it's about Real Warfare 2: Northern Crusades, that's 70% entertaining, according to MetaCritic. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

We could also include the other desks. Some examples::

• Computer Desk: For computers and electronics used by the military.

• Math Desk: For discussions of the paths of projectiles.

• Language Desk: For attribution of military quotations or translations to other languages. StuRat (talk) 15:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

We really only need one desk. I suspect they were split out for load balancing purposes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

If a language expert had to wade through hundreds of Q's on topics they know nothing about to get to the language Q's they could answer, they might not bother. StuRat (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

How many questions in total do we get on an average day? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Enough that when a handful of them grow to be on the longer side (and there's usually a few at any given time that have), it can be a chug to scroll through and locate those questions which one is qualified/capable of contributing a useful answer to. Snow talk 19:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Not a problem if you start from the bottom up and/or look at the green items in the history. I still think this must have been done primarily in order to improve load times. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Scsbot problems? WP:Reference desk/Mathematics

On Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics , there are a number of days, presently with no entries. It presently has:

• June 19 (empty)
• June 21 (empty)
• June 22 (empty)
• June 23 (non-empty)
• June 24 (non-empty)
• June 25 (empty)
• June 27 (non-empty)

It's a bit complicated, but I believe the bot either failed to create some days (June 20, June 26), or is only partially archiving. I see no reason that the bot could not archive (or delete) empty sections after 24 full hours, but it might make it more complicated. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Seems to be the latter; there was no archiving for the 19th, in any event, while the 18th and 20th were achived. I will drop a line to Scs, who maintains the bot. Snow talk 06:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, is there a reason that empty days cannot be "prematurely" archived? (That is, after 1 day after the day closes, rather than the 4–6 (depending on the subject) for "normal" days? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

In theory, it's not infeasible to accomplish this, and possibly it's designed to operate in that fashion usually; if I'm parsing some comments on similar issues with other bots on Scs's talk page correctly, the bot applies separate algorithms to recognize the header and the comments (the comments are recognized by the date in the signings and presumably the headers are recognized by their syntax and limited vocabulary). Why the latter isn't be searched for and responded to by the bot when comments and their signatures are absent, I don't know, but it should be possible to have the bot detect whether anything aside from nul characters (signatures or otherwise) exists between the headers and act accordingly. I'm not exactly familiar with the way the bots operate though, so I may be missing something obvious. I expect Scs will look into it when he becomes aware of the matter in any event. Snow talk 11:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

There are a number of different issues here, as others have already begun to explain:

• Yes, the bot will delete a date header (if at all) only when that day's content is or would have been archived. I agree it might make sense to delete empty date headers after a day, and I've thought about it, but at the moment, the bot simply isn't programmed to do that.
• There's an obscure bug somewhere in the bot in the case that (a) there's a day without content and (b) I don't run the bot on a day. Even though I (thought I) designed it otherwise, on a day when (due to not running it the day before) it would ordinarily have two days' worth of older content to archive, if one of those days happens to be empty, instead of just archiving the other one, somehow the bot gets confused and decides it has no work to do on that desk at all. But then the next day it straightens itself out.
• Back when we were transcluding a few days' worth of archived content, one of the bot's tasks was to rotate the aging transclusion links, and when there were various glitches having to do with stray empty date headers that it couldn't deal with, it warned me, and I cleaned them up by hand. But now that the bot is not maintaining the transclusion links, it has no occasion to warn me, so I have no occasion to clean them up, so those glitches may persist longer until someone else notices and cleans them up.

—Steve Summit (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Deletion Discussion Question

Is it permitted to post a notice of a deletion discussion that is in progress at one of the Reference Desks? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how a deletion discussion would be germane at one of the desks, though we could obviously help with finding references if that's the issue at hand with the deletion. Just be careful you don't run afoul of forum shopping guidelines. You could post something here first to see what consensus says. Matt Deres (talk) 02:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

When you post such a notice, do it in a way that avoids WP:CANVASSING. A neutral notice is better than one which advocates to keep or delete the article in question. A request for help finding refs about a subject under discussion could be appropriate, as when an article is unreferenced, or poorly referenced, or when someone in AFD is making unsourced "expert claims" that the subject is a hoax and you suspect it might be real and notable, or contrariwise. Edison (talk) 13:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Why do you let trolls annoy you so much?

There’s a lot of paranoia around concerning trolls, to the point where almost anybody can be troll. I find this all rather intimidating and discouraging. Why do you let trolls annoy you so much? Wouldn’t it just be better for everyone if we tried to relax more? Joke more? Maybe even fight fire with fire? Is there something wrong with having fun with (supposed) trolls? I know that you take this project seriously, but I can’t see what being completely seriously (almost) all the time would accomplish. I find the atmosphere here to be generally cold and uncomfortable. Whether my opinion means anything to you is your decision, but there could certainly be others who feel the same way. If you want to disprove me, you are more than welcomed to. --66.190.99.112 (talk) 15:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Irreverent tomfoolery 190.204.174.32 (talk · contribs)

The only thing I find more annoying than trolls is Texans. >:) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC) I should sue you for racism. --66.190.99.112 (talk) 15:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC) That would be a race to the bottom. >:) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:41, 28 June 2014 (UTC) I expect you to be in court, nine o’ clock sharp, with ¤500,000 and a written apology to the people of Texas, who are world renown for their incredible intelligence. You may have to read it to us, though. --66.190.99.112 (talk) 15:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC) Before I take any action of any kind, I always have to ask myself, "Is it in the best interests of baseball?" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:08, 28 June 2014 (UTC) I’m not sure how popular baseball is over here, to be honest. Probably not as much as American football (which I’m assuming is the most popular here). So if you like American football, you are set for life. --66.190.99.112 (talk) 16:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC) Any Texan who does not know that "renown" is a noun and the corresponding verb/gerund is "renowned" is not worth the ten-gallon hat he's wearing. Obviously a ring-in from New Texas. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC) renowned is an adjective. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 11:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC) ... derived from the past participle of the verb "to renown". -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 11:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

We should all strive for relevance. Respect is good too. But asking for reverence, even towards Texans, is over the top. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 23:16, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

To comply with Wikipedia rules, facts should be reliably reverenced. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not paranoid about trolls. I just think of them as one of them as one of those problems one has on the web like people sending spam or trying to get access to ones bank account or take over ones computer. With seven billion people in the world there must be millions of people like that. It's just how the world is and hopefully better defences can be built against them in the future, after all one doesn't expect salesmen to stick their foot in the door nowadays or throw eggs or paint at ones house and the police take action to stop burglars.

As to trolls and fighting fire with fire, that seems to be a bad idea. Too many of them thrive on attention and just do more which doesn't help keep the articles okay.

I can see you would like a more social side on Wikipedia and it would help with some things. However there is the opposite side in that social groups tend to form cliques and defend strange ideas. It is hard for anyone to avoid taking on the values of a social group they belong to. I think most of the problems can be avoided in Wikipedia by being careful to always warn any interested party about anything a group starts discussing, but unfortunately in-groups tend to defend themselves against inspection and resist doing anything like that. As to just horsing around the general idea is that there's lots other places on the web for that. I think you would need to propose something specific and point to where there was evidence it would be a good idea to get any change in this. Dmcq (talk) 22:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Mostly based my own perception of what works and what doesn't, trollfoolery (the annoying kind) ist most likely to go away when ignored. There are, however, occasionally questions not necessarily asked in good faith, yet still interesting and possible to answer within the scope of what we're supposed to deliver here. I don't think such examples need to be removed, nor do we need to discuss these threads here, or protect the desks, or bring things to ANI because, once again, this is giving negative attention. Giving mostly no attention (and occasionally positive productive attention) works best, in my view. I realize there is no consensus on this. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:52, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

"A more social side" would add to editor retention. Wikipedia is the very least socially rewarding way I spend my time. One can work any number of hours a week fixing vandalism, improving articles, or Wikignoming, and get zero positive feedback, but make one mistake or disagree with some self-appointed expert and the floodgates of denunciation open. Edison (talk) 14:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Disparaging Comments

Comments that disparage or insult another editor may be removed. If they are re-inserted, then they may be re-removed. Do we need to turn semi-protection back on? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Which comment is giving you trouble? --Jayron32 23:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Not one that you can see. It was deleted by another editor, then re-inserted by an IP, then deleted again by an administrator. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

What? The comment about Baseball Bugs having few mainspace contributions? I don't see how that is "disparaging", it's a statement of fact. He wasn't attacked personally, his contributions were simply commented on, which is allowed otherwise Wikipedia would cease to function. 186.90.121.214 (talk) 23:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Unless it was done to somehow cast BB in a poor light, as if there's some unwritten rule that one has to earn the right to answer questions here by first making a large number of edits to the encyclopedia. Commenting on BB's other activities would seem to have no other purpose. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

A similar accusation was recently levelled at me. Bugs naturally has my full and unfeigned support on this one: no-one has to earn the right to participate in Refdesk by making a certain proportion of mainspace edits. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It's darkly funny when coming from an IP-hopper with no known useful contributions anywhere on Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Isn't it just? I do wonder if this means the troll is a regular who ought to know better, though. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• The two IP addresses doing this have been blocked. If they return, we can try protection for a short time. --Jayron32 23:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• I have already reprotected. Protection had only just expired and already it is getting out of hand again. SpinningSpark 00:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• I agree that many comments on the Ref Desk seem solely aimed at insulting other editors, not at providing an answer to the Q. And I agree that such comments should be removed. But what do we do when they first insult another editor, and then include an answer ? StuRat (talk) 04:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• • Delete the useless part. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem is a lot of us don't really know what a "personal attack" is. And "insulting" is just too broad and vague of a notion. If I tell e.g. Jayron that his answer is useless, I'm being rude, but not making ad hominem attacks. We absolutely have the right to critique and attack eachother's content here, preferably in a civil manner. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

If someone says, "That's incorrect" and provides a correct answer, that's not an attack. If someone says something that equates to "Your words are garbage", that's an attack. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

A common one here seems to be some variation on "Your answer is wrong, as always". That's a personal attack. I would also soften it from "wrong" and "incorrect" to "I disagree", as that at least admits to the possibility that the answer was partially correct, or misunderstood. StuRat (talk) 15:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

If editors offer just opinion or a joke or nothing to actually improve Wikipedia, improve the thread, improve the environment, those posts should be called out. It's become all too frequent to see threads deteriorate into in-jokes and childish banter. Little wonder the ref desks are frequented mostly by ref desk editors to chat to one another, and not people seeking help. By the way, we should never "attack eachother's content here" (or lack of it), but it should be encouraged to point out where and when threads have become nothing more than playground antics. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

No, I think if you post a response here that has factual errors, someone should point that out. Maybe "attack" isn't the right word, but surely critique is admissible? (So many of our metaphors for discourse are based on war...) In matters of simple fact, this helps us all arrive at the right answer. I have corrected others here, and others have corrected me. As long as there are references and civility, this should make it a better place for everyone. It is anathema to science at least, to not be allowed to question claims, critique methods, etc. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, to whom are you posting "No"? It's not clear at all to what or to whom you're objecting. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I was replying to you. Specifically the phrase 'we should never "attack eachother's content here"', which itself seemed to be referencing me. Anyway. I was just trying to explain my claim that it's ok to "attack eachother's content". Perhaps a poor word choice, but I believe it is critical to our mission to allow for respondent's claims to be criticized and challenged by other respondents. (I am a bit of a stickler for indent style WP:INDENT, I think if we all used it correctly we'd have an easier time with discussions . I put in one indent to reply to your non-indent. It would have perhaps been more clear if you had added one indent to your comment, so that I could add two to mine. Usually the custom is that only the top-level question has no indents at all.) SemanticMantis (talk) 16:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Ref desk answers or questions which make disparaging inferences about people from some country should be hatted, but what if they say "The answer to the OPs question is such and such, as shown by Reliable Source X, and people from country Y are violent thugs" as was recently the case. How would one leave the useful information and remove the slam? I thought we were basically not supposed to edit someone else's post. I have never seen it to be effective to ask the offender to strike the offending part of their post. Do we just hat the entire comment even ithas a portion which is useful? Edison (talk) 14:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Multiple pinging

Editors are invited to see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 127#Multiple pinging (version of 20:18, 1 July 2014).
—Wavelength (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I found some of the replies difficult to understand, but other editors might be able to understand them well enough to use them.
—Wavelength (talk) 19:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Please help out

Trolling
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Unfortunately Baseball Bugs will not be able to work the reference desk for a couple of days [11]. If everyone else could give a little extra effort, it would be appreciated. 170.24.134.38 (talk) 23:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC) That call to arms is really not necessary. The ref desks do not depend on the involvement of any one editor. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC) And exactly how many witless jokes will I need to post per hour to make up the shortfall? 186.88.202.76 (talk) 23:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC) Well, that's one. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Cutting and pasting while editing Ref Desk

Lately when I get an edit conflict, and hit the back button to go back and cut my text, so I can then paste it when I try to edit again, something odd happens. The text does not disappear when I cut it, which is why I normally use Control X (cut) instead of Control C (copy), so I can verify that something happened. However, it does seem to go into the paste buffer, as I can paste it back. So, then, my question is why cut acts like copy lately ? I'm using Google Chrome on Windows 7. (I asked here, rather than on the Computer Desk, as this problem appears to be limited to the Ref Desk itself.) StuRat (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems unlikely that this has something to do with Wikipedia or the Refdesk. I'm think Chrome is your culprit here. Does it do the same thing in any text pane? For example, I just cut and pasted the sentences above and they behaved normally (I'm on Firefox, Windows XP). Have you tried it at other websites? Matt Deres (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't trust the back button and avoid using it wherever possible. I always Ctrl-C my text before I click Save Page in case something goes wrong. Also, you don't need to hit the back button when you get an edit conflict, you can go to the bottom of the page and Ctrl-X or Ctrl-C your text from there. --Viennese Waltz 21:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

That's what I do also. It works well. I think there have been occasions when I hit the back button and my added text was still there, but that's not at all reliable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem with that method is that I get the entire Ref Desk page there, not just the section I was editing, and what I just added isn't always at the bottom, making it hard to find. I agree that copying it to the paste buffer before clicking Save is the best option, but sometimes I forget. StuRat (talk) 05:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

If you're making a new post you should be able to trivially find any contributions by searching for ~~~~ in nearly all cases when you signed (exceptions would be if someone mentioned four tildes for some reason like here). If you're editing an old post there are various other ways, such as remembering something of what you typed, the section name, or simply searching for your name (presuming you signed before). Of course it helps if you don't controversially reply to nearly every single section. If you didn't sign, tough luck.... Nil Einne (talk) 21:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Some browsers (or possibly add-on modules for them) allow you to click "submit" to a new window/tab rather than reloading in the current one. DMacks (talk) 05:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Yea, but then I tend to get lots of old junk filling old windows. I can go back and close the old windows, but that's more work. If I get edit conflicts 1/10th of the time, that would mean 10 new windows to fix one edit conflict. StuRat (talk) 12:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

On Mac OSX I keep an open TextEdit window of horizontal proportions available to paste into. Its horizontal orientation makes it easy to make active by clicking on it because it protrudes from other windows of normal proportions. If you want to “verify that something happened”, that is accomplished by pasting into that TextEdit (or other word processing) window. Bus stop (talk) 12:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I can confirm that I see the same problem in Chrome. I usually copy instead of cut, but otherwise my edit conflict workflow matches yours. I tried cut recently because I rememebred this post, and my text stayed behind as well. I haven't done more looking into why that happens, but at least we know it's not specific to your computer. Katie R (talk) 17:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Glad it's not just me. StuRat (talk) 22:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

This Talk Page

Responding to multiple points from above, various sections: we do not seem to average even 8 questions a day per desk, which would be 56 questions. Given the number of regulars and the ease at which one can parse 56 (probably quite less) questions (especially avoiding desks they don't know the subject matter well, for me, Language, for example), it doesn't tax the system even if people are asking "not allowed" questions, phrasing poorly, not clarifying, etc. At worst, it is an annoyance for a person trying to answer a question and finding it hatted, or to be left hanging, but it is by no means clogging up the place, or putting a strain on resources. Most of the "problem" behaviour around here, on part of ops, really isn't that major given the low volume of questions asked here - if you scaled everything up by a factor of 5, or so, then the various issues would be a major problem, but as it is now, it is the most minor of inconveniences, and I can't see any reason to worry over policy, and who reads the header, and etc. Personally, the biggest problem here seems to be that we are all very eager to contribute to a section that doesn't have a lot of volume and, as such, are nit picking policy and each other. For such a small number of actual questions, it is staggering the number of random pointless disputes that seem to go on over minutiae (and I most certainly have wrapped myself up in it too, obviously). Anyways, I'm not trying to sound like a dick (yet, I do), but I think, in general, that the number of policy suggestions, debates, etc. that take place on this page are way way too elaborate and involved given the traffic that we see here. If anything, I feel we should restrict as little as possible and encourage as much as we can for the time being - if you take away questions from regulars (answerer and asker kinds both), then the number of people actually participating here is extremely scant, and should be easily managed. In a certain sense, it reminds me of this [12]. --I'm not offering up any specific suggestions, I realize, but just pointing out something that has been bugging me for a while; feel free to agree, or disagree, but I really do like participating here and it saddens me to see so little genuine activity here - I wish I knew what would constitute a "solution", but I don't. Sorry to go on at such length:-)Phoenixia1177 (talk) 01:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Activity was much higher a few years ago, in my estimation. It will likely go up again in the fall when many schools start regular sessions. I have also wondered what we could to do increase our readership/userbase; the math desk in particular is really dead these days. But other than advertizing off-wiki, I'm stumped. I suspect part of the "problem" is that there are so many similar services these days, e.g. ask yahoo, ask reddit, ask reddit science, Quora, and many others. As for the discussions here at the talk page, I think it's mostly harmless, as long as people aren't getting too mean. If people enjoy debating minutia of policy here, that doesn't stop me from my efforts elsewhere. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

(As an aside, this was neither directed, nor inspired, by your comments in the above section). That said, I remember the math desk having much higher volume, and all of the desks having a large number of questions asked by outsiders. I don't have anything against policy discussions in general as pertains to how regulars are acting, but when it results in behaviour that hats/deletes, accuses ops of trolling, or otherwise makes us look harsh (or stupid), it is a little aggravating since we are driving away the few new folk we get coming here - I'm a semiregular contributor here and some of the aforementioned made me leave for half a year, I imagine someone less interested would be driven off completely. From life experience in my work (and pointing out the obvious), when there are a number of other competing services and switching cost is cheap, it takes very very little to drive off new comers - which is the line of thought leading to my gripe. -- On the topic of attracting people here, I do know that it was a long time using Wikipedia before I knew we had a ref desk. Indeed, the only direct link I know to it is towards the bottom section of the main page, since many many people are probably searching Google for a topic, then going to the Wikipedia link, it is likely that many many people have no idea we exist here - I know very few people in my personal life are aware that we have reference desk and are wondering what I'm talking about if I mention it.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 15:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we should start an informal awareness campaign, and mention the WP ref desks other places like facebook, twitter, IRL or wherever we care to... I've had the same experience. I've met many reference librarians who are very familiar with WP who don't know about the ref desks here! SemanticMantis (talk) 16:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Editors can choose to promote awareness by means of Wikipedia:RD regulars/box.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Is there anyway we can get it added under either of the first two sections on the left pane? -Where it says, "Main page", "Contents", "Featured content", etc. I see no reason a link wouldn't fit there, it would certainly help to generate traffic, and the Reference Desk is a part of Wikipedia, there's no reason it shouldn't get a little advertisement here.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 22:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

That link is intended for user space. Talk:Main Page and Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) are probably more suitable than this page for discussing whether to add a link in the left pane. Many things inside and outside Wikipedia compete for readers' attention, so I am inclined to consider this one to be of lesser importance. Everyone can develop a habit of exploring pages more before clicking. (Please see wikt:anyway and wikt:any way and http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/anyways.html.)

—Wavelength (talk) 00:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC) and 00:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I suppose I'll bring it up on one of those pages - though, my general point still stands. Thank you for the links/suggestions. Of lesser importance, while I'm sure the final few links were meant politely, I'm not really interested in links to improve my writing, especially when the suggestion is based off of a paragraph that will disappear into an archive in a few days; this is also why I stick to random hyphens, weak structure, and middle/low vocabulary, rereading most of what I write, I highly doubt it is inhibiting communication.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 02:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

(Soon after I posted my message, I decided to remove the portion in parentheses, but my circumstances prevented me from removing it before you replied to it.) I too wish that more editors would not only know about the reference desks but also watchlist them, as I indicated at User:Wavelength/About Wikipedia/Strategic watchlist.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

No problem, I understand where you were coming from. I do wish we had more traffic, especially in the form of questions. I know this has come up before, but I, unfortunately, don't participate much beyond the ref desks, so I lack any real suggestions - however, if anyone else has any, I'd be more than willing to help out in making them reality.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 07:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

People are savvier about the internet than they were 10 years ago, and there is plenty of competition. I've seen questions asked here which Google reveals were already answered some time back at another site (albeit often without a reference). In fact, if our sincere questioners used Google more thoroughly, the number of questions here could plummet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Drop, sure. I wouldn't say "plummet". Those (near) synonyms and (near) homonyms are gradually getting (Did I mean "being"?) zanier on Google, and depending how well users avoid (or assist) the "personalization", they can get stuck in certain bubbles. A human (or ten) really helps understand the essence of a question from other bubbles, even if the OP doesn't know the proper terms or phrases to put in quotation marks.

We still have a few more (Did I mean "some most"?) product cycles before we're obsolete (humans in general, I mean). In the meantime, Google's still a rather helpful partner. I just asked "How do I answer a reference desk question?" (quoteless) and found this near the top. If that book works, at least one of us should read it. And if nobody reads it, how will we know? I nominate someone with disposable money (not necessarily income; try excluding the word from a search for that, and note the drastic change in answers). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I happen to think Wikipedia's ref desk is superior to the types which give an answer from some anonymous soul but don't necessarily help the questioner understand or follow up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. It is when it does, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Not every sincere question is easily answerable - here or anywhere else necessarily. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)