Misplaced Pages

talk:Reference desk: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:08, 31 December 2013 edit54.224.206.154 (talk) No reason to hat.← Previous edit Revision as of 02:12, 31 December 2013 edit undoBaseball Bugs (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers126,936 edits →The unbearable crassness of a certain type of response by RD regularsNext edit →
Line 244: Line 244:


:Whats ] have to do with the current issue of your insulting comments? ] (]) 01:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC) :Whats ] have to do with the current issue of your insulting comments? ] (]) 01:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
::Check and see how many of the "no" voters have since been indef'd (of which you are probably one). ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 02:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)



Would it be too much to ask for Bugs and TRM to stop sniping at each other like this? It is, indeed, unbearably crass, and quite contrary to the attitude of professionalism and mutual respect which Misplaced Pages expects of all editors. —] (]) 02:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC) Would it be too much to ask for Bugs and TRM to stop sniping at each other like this? It is, indeed, unbearably crass, and quite contrary to the attitude of professionalism and mutual respect which Misplaced Pages expects of all editors. —] (]) 02:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
:The stuff TRM says is unbecoming of an admin. That's why I say he must have won it in Crackerjack box. He couldn't pass an RFA now. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 02:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


== factional debate closed == == factional debate closed ==

Revision as of 02:12, 31 December 2013

Skip to the bottom Shortcut

To ask a question, use the relevant section of the Reference deskThis page is for discussion of the Reference desk in general.
Please don't post comments here that don't relate to the Reference desk. Other material may be moved.
The guidelines for the Reference desk are at Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Guidelines.
For help using Misplaced Pages, please see Misplaced Pages:Help desk.
Archiving icon
Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133

RD Guidelines

1, 2, 3, 4, 5,


This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.


Another perspective

Years ago, I used to hang around the refdesks (Language, Humanities, Misc) and answer what I could, with wikilinks and page numbers and resource I could find. Now I don't. The attitudes that made me less likely to wish to spend my time here appear to have intensified. You may consider my absence no great loss. That's not for me to say. But I do miss the sense I had back then, of an online equivalent of staffing a library desk, listening to queries, and professionally guiding the stranger to a factual response. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't let the talk page fool you into thinking good work isn't happening. If you dig into each desk, you'll find that generally speaking it still works that way most of the time. We are gradually getting better at dragging the nonsense here. Work still needs to be done, mind, but having read the talk page archives more than once, the current failings are the same as the old ones, generally speaking. Mingmingla (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm glad to hear it, but I was referring to the helpdesks, not this talkpage, which I rarely frequented. BrainyBabe (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I know. So am I. Mingmingla (talk) 22:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
You're missed, BrainyBabe. It's very good to hear an outside opinion. The desks could do with a lot more friendly criticism of what we're getting right and wrong. I watch the same boards that you used to frequent, and these are for natural (or epistemological) reasons, the boards where answers can be subjective and debatable. Whenever I look at Science, it seems to be functioning reasonably well. There are few mentions here of Maths, Entertainment or Computing, either. I'd like, on an experimental basis, for us to try some kind of clerking system, inspired by how Dispute Resolution works. If not clerking, then some sort of independent feedback mechanism. One simple thing we could do with continuous improvement on is how to recognise and deal with trolls. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Verily, Judith. As long as I've been hanging around the ref desks, which is the bulk of my 10 years at Misplaced Pages, individual editors have used their own criteria to identify trolls, and have then done whatever they consider was appropriate in each case. While this is accordance with WP:BOLD, it has led to a HUGE number of disputes, not to mention good faith editors falling out with each other, and I'm sure many good people have left the ref desks, never to return. This is a sad legacy, and we could have done so much better. There has never been an agreed set of guidelines as to how to identify, out, and appropriately deal with suspected trolls, and the piecemeal approach we've been using has just fed into the trolls' deepest desire: to cause as much disruption as possible. As they say, "United we stand, divided we fall". We have to speak with one voice to trolls, and not spend any more time making it up as we individually go along, or any more time fighting World Wars III, IV .... MDXLVIII among ourselves. We should also have a very clear consensus as to when it is and is not appropriate to hat things, and when it is and is not appropriate to delete things. This would feed in to the troll policy, but would also have wider application. -- Jack of Oz 00:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree that we need a much more testable, procedural approach. Like "Here are the steps you go through" - so we can clearly say "You shouldn't have hatted that" - or "We should have deleted that question" - and have that be based on a clear set of guidelines. That way, we'd more often agree on a unified front - and it would be easier to hold people's feet to the fire when they are doing it wrong.
It was in that spirit that I offered my flow chart (above). If we can collect a consensus to follow a simple, stepwise approach like that (recognizing that WP:IAR can apply) then these long debates about whether some editor should or shouldn't have hatted things - or whether humor is or isn't appropriate in some context could be simply resolved by pointing to the rules.
I wouldn't claim that the flow chart I presented is perfect - but I at least hoped we could have a rational debate about it with the goal of ultimately committing something like that to our formal guidelines.
SteveBaker (talk) 01:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
The flowchart is OK except for the part about "Does it violate our guidelines?" which is where most of the arguments arise. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
As an inexperienced editor, I found the flowchart to be a useful reference. I think much of the criticism stems from more "expert" editors not being the target audience...obviously, in creating tools for novices, you want to avoid complicating things too much. There will always be exceptions and nuance to anything as big and complex as the wikipedia, and newer editors can quickly get confused and sucked down rabbit holes all over the place, so it's refreshing to see something simple and generalized. There are dozens of guidelines, so to create a flow chart that explains what to do for each of them would probably require a wiki of its own.Quietmarc (talk) 15:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
@Bugs: I'm not convinced of that. I see a lot of action being taken about questions that are not to people's liking - but without there being a specific section in the RD guidelines that talk about that. SteveBaker (talk) 04:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Ban Everyone!

It is bad enough the Falkland Islands thread degenerated into debate, personal insults, sarcasm, obscenity, tiny comments, and politically incorrect attacks on the Scottish and other disabled people, all within less than eight hours. (We know from the flowchart above this sort of abominable behavior should take a minimum of 48 hours to develop.)

Now we have a thread about "boobpedia" in which the OP asks about how to meet her sister, and some joker using the alias aspro comes and makes comments about bosoms a mere 50 minutes after the thread is posted. As if bosoms were a real word. And why isn't an ass pro commenting on buttocks, instead?

I, for one, do not intend to stand on the sidelines and just watch while such behavior is allowed to continue.

μηδείς (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

That is 'why' I made the comment. It looked trollish and if the OP has a serious question then s/he/or it, would come back with a more focussed question. Second: 'in which the OP asks about how to meet her sister' did you read the threat properly? Forget about going out into the kitchen for some more strong latte or what-ever. Go down to the cellar and pull out a whole amphora of retsina. Sleep, and tomorrow, you with be refreshed and back in Olympic condition. --Aspro (talk) 22:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I initially assumed "Boobpedia" was a synonym for "Misplaced Pages Review". As regards "bosoms", seems to me that Dolly Parton has used that expression in reference to her well-known attributes. Although in her case it might be amply justified. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Oi, Medeis! What's with "the Scottish and other disabled people"? What are the common characteristics of all Scots and all disabled people? HiLo48 (talk) 23:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
No objection to my suggestion that we ban everyone, that it is okay according to the protocol to pick on the disabled after 48 hours, that an aspro should be commenting on buttocks rather than bosoms, or my refusal to refrain from joining in the misbehavior? Now I am sad I didn't actually get in on the Falklands Islands thread before it was hatted. μηδείς (talk) 00:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I can't follow any of that post, Medeis. Can you please just say whatever it is you want to express, using plain declarative sentences devoid of sarcasm, irony, cynicism and whatever else gets in the way of comprehension? -- Jack of Oz 22:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
It seems that Medeis becomes tired quickly and writes such impenetrable posts. Please assume good faith with her. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Medeis's 16 December 22:02 post makes sense if someone had responded to the 15 December 21:37 post to say simply "I'd have no objection". (But I can't see who that was, either.) —Steve Summit (talk) 01:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
My "no objection" question was addressed to the person directly above it (get that indent thingy?) who had objected to my saying Scots and other disabled people. How understanding that is brain surgery--Hilo's "oi, the indent, the temporal sequence--is beyond me. μηδείς (talk) 01:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and given that this thread evidently isn't serious, I guess you don't need to worry about it. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
The statements aren't serious (and I don't know how anyone could have thought otherwise), but the satire does serve a serious point. We've just had this huge lengthy discussion of how horrible joking is, and how everyone should follow this flowchart, and then it gets violated egregiously by many of the same people participating in the discussion. I think there are two lessons. Relax. And focus your ire on the real trolls, the disruptive single-purpose accounts. μηδείς (talk) 01:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
That's like shooting fish in a barrel. It's more fun for certain editors to attack the ones who stand with their usernames. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Speaking of disruptive single purpose accounts, see the closed ANI filed against BB a few hours ago, and this one here against User:54.242.221.254 as well. μηδείς (talk) 03:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. A couple more of those fish taken down. With a double-barrel shotgun. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Isn't there a wiki guideline about posting troll-like comments just to make a point? I think that's just what Medeis has done... Quietmarc (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that would be WP:POINTY. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
This is a talk page. The point of talk pages is to make points (exactly as Quietmarc has just done, unless his remark was pointless). μηδείς (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
This is Misplaced Pages. The point of Misplaced Pages is to create an encyclopaedia, not use the talk pages and reference desks as a version of Facebook. (many of your posts are pointless) The Rambling Man (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
More like Twitter, actually. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:23, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Would that it was. At least it'd restrict some of the nonsense to 140 characters. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:00, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
That's a good point, although I concede that many of the drive-bys achieve their damage in well under 140 characters at a time. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 10:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Worse, many of the "regulars" are effectively spamming the encyclopaedia with junk. A Twitter ruling would be good all round... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
A key difference is that "regulars" stand by their accounts. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:15, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Makes no difference. A 140-word limit would certainly curtail some of the more unhelpful postings by the chat room regs. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Feel free to limit your own entries to 140 characters, and we'll see how things work out. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I'd rather you applied it yourself, as would many others. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

unhelpful edit

I am not interested in snowden jokes nor commercials for pc world, but literal answers to my questions, with refs if avail. μηδείς (talk) 22:04, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

But you are interested in using Misplaced Pages as Facebook, right? "It was the blonde alien kids who effed with the signature, not me"? Helpful. Not. PC World can help you with PC problems, just as the Apple store can help you with Mac issues. To attempt to claim some moral high ground on joking around on ref desks is pure irony of the highest order. Try again. Perhaps another go at AN/I? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't doubt either of you, but do you think you guys could stay away from one another at the reference desk and its talk page? Lame edit wars, snarks, hatting, vague references, come on ... ---Sluzzelin talk 22:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Sure, as soon as the a$$hole is redacted and apologised for, i.e. the direct personal attack, all can get back to normal. Come on. Having said that, being threatened with AN/I for the fourth time, I'm happy to go there too. Look forward to it. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Medeis, will you please do as requested. I don't believe in forced apologies, but I believe in peace at the desks, and if your apology can improve that, I ask you do it. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I think this one is resolved now diff :-) We all understand that he was born a ramblin' man. Congratulations, Rambling Man and Family! ---Sluzzelin talk 22:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Not really, it would have been ideal if User:Medeis had the guts to admit she made a personal attack, albeit in a sly way, and asking for it to be deleted after being read. And then had the guts to redact the personal attack. But no, not a bean, not that I'm surprised. I guess I look forward to yet another bout at AN/I, because she thinks she owns the ref desks and thinks lodging personal attacks is fine. All I've done is rid myself of the trash she continually deals out. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
If this brouhaha is about your comments in the section "Restore friend's computer from my disk image", then it appears you went to that section strictly to attack the user rather than to try to answer the question. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Wow, in what world does suggesting you take broken computer equipment to PC World constitute an "attack"? And since when does Med have carte blanche to remove comments she simply "dislikes"? And where do you live were it seems acceptable to call other people asshole? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I've managed to irritate a number of editors from time to time, yet I hardly get obscenities thrown at me. So if you are, then you might want to first examine your own behavior. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
(You didn't answer any of the three questions....) but... the point is she didn't throw them "at me", she threw them via another editor's talk page. I don't need to examine my own behaviour, I pride myself on improving articles in Misplaced Pages. Secondly, calling someone an asshole is not what we do here, or have you forgotten that? With your experience, I'm a little surprised you think it's cool. Some editors, her and perhaps a few others who just hang out at ref desks chatting and making stuff up, then censoring people because they don't like responses, do not improve Misplaced Pages. Facebook/Twitter/Vine is elsewhere. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
When someone calls you a bad name, it doesn't reflect on you, it reflects on them. In short, it's not worth reporting, unless somehow the name-caller is also acting to obstruct your edits. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you've discovered irony, or you already knew about it. But yes, Medeis is "acting to obstruct my edits". She also continually threatens me with "ani" despite having been there.... three times (?) with nothing but a sincere waste of community time. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Another open-and-shut case of "Bailiff, kick these two nuts in the butt." —Steve Summit (talk) 05:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I would agree if Medeis could apologise for the direct personal attack she's posted on another editor's page. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I think both of you need to take a deep breath and relax. Medeis, the comment wasn't that bad, if not particularly in depth, certainly not worth an "asshole". You've added plenty of unhelpful edits in your time, too. The Rambling Man, sometimes you need to be the bigger man, so to speak, and let it slide. This is the Internet: you've never met Medeis and never will. It seems like you are fixin' for a fight (even if you aren't): a change in tone may be in order, even as you make valid points. If it seems to aggressive, your point may be lost and people will turn on you instead. Nobody wants that. Mingmingla (talk) 17:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Medeis doesn't get a pass, by the way (I don't see any links to it here). Show us the name calling and I'm sure we'll all have a word on that, too. That's not cool. Mingmingla (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Medeis never apologises for anything. She called me an asshole like a snake on somebody else's talk page and requested its immediate deletion upon reading. That's sly. I couldn't care less about who Medeis is or pretends to be but she's the first to threaten to take me to WP:ANI but yet I've never resorted to the direct personal attacks (hidden away, particularly). Now she decides that she can censor my suggestions because she doesn't like them. She needs to work it out for herself, as she's clearly of mature years given her posts, she should know even better. But until she starts actually improving Misplaced Pages, I couldn't really care less what she has to say or think, although I will correct her many errors. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Mingmingla is right. Everyone should drop this.
TRM, I'm glad you realize Medeis is not going to apologize. You're right. (I'm not sure what outcome you expect, then.)
I hesitate to do this, because I'm annoyed I've gotten sucked in to wasting time on this little tempest and I don't think anyone else should, but this (I think) is the "asshole" comment TRM is complaining about, and this and this are the Computing desk answers Medeis is complaining about (which there has since been a certain amount of edit warring over, hatting and unhatting.) —Steve Summit (talk) 20:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
No tempest. Perhaps Medeis was "under the influence" or "tired" when editing, she's never normally behaved in such an irrational and directly abusive manner. Here's hoping she and I can move on from it and she can start to improve Misplaced Pages instead of using it as a chat forum. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that. When I first read this discussion when it started, I came to the conclusion that despite being on the RD talk page it was actually intended for someone's talk page since there was no real explaination in the form of links or at least direct quotes to what people were referring to. At least now I know. Nil Einne (talk) 04:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I have no clue what Medeis thought process is (or anyone else's here, for that matter) but suggesting someone was inebriated is highly offensive. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Too many sherries Bugs? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Ha. The amount of alcohol I consume over the course of a given year would maybe fill a small juice glass. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ —Preceding undated comment added 10:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Google Translate

I think it would be a good idea if we stop directing people to Google Translate as often as we do on the Language Desk, as we did for example here. It has its place, but if we are not proficient enough in the target and original languages to confidently verify it, I don't think that it is something that we should be providing as a reference in most cases. If I don't know anything about the languages being discussed, I usually don't comment - it's that simple. I do not think that using it is necessarily going to be helpful, and it could be very misleading.

Just as an example, I could say in French, "J'avais onze ans quand j'ai commencé la collège," which Google Translate gives as "I was eleven when I started college." The statement in French is true and reasonable (I did start Middle School around that age), while the statement in English is not (but it makes me seem like a child prodigy).
If you put "I am really excited by my friend's offer" into Google Translate, you get this: "Je suis vraiment excité par l'offre de mon ami." People who speak French well would probably attest to the fact that the French translation is incredibly dirty/sexual, while the English is not inherently so.

In this particular case, this might have been more valuable: (an actual bilingual dictionary), but really what the question needed was attention from a Portuguese speaker.

My suggestion is that we don't use online translation services as a replacement for human expertise. If you don't speak the language, that's fine - nobody expects you to speak all human languages, and you won't be faulted for not commenting. Machine translation can be a useful aid, but only if you already have a good idea of what you are doing in the specific instance that you use it. Falconus 05:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the general point of avoiding the usage of Google translate (although I don't know if I'd go so far as to say it should never be used on RDL if you can't comment on the results). But on the example you have, I don't know if it's correct to say an 11 year old attending or starting college would be a child prodigy. As seems to be somewhat the focus of the discussion that started this, college means different things in different areas. Unless the speaker is American, I don't think it's wise to assume college means university or some other form of tertiary education even if it's perhaps rarer for it to be used in such a context as you mentioned to mean secondary school. (When you know the speaker is not a native speaker, there's even more reason to be cautious.) Nil Einne (talk) 06:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I didn't think that college in any dialect of English of English would refer to school for people between 11-13 - I thought it was always 14+. I apologize if I am wrong about that. Falconus 16:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
As it happens, the UK school I attended from age 11 (to 18) was called K—— College: this caused some confusion when US tourists visiting the town asked us about our schooling (our uniform included a straw boater, so they were prone to striking up conversations in the street with such quaintly dressed locals). The discussions on the Main Desk (in which I was too late to participate, having just returned home from several days with computerless elderly relatives) focussed largely on official State-system terminology, to which Private or semi-Private (in the UK confusingly called "Public") institutions may not adhere, and I would have thought the same might apply in other countries. For the record, I thought the OP's question was perfectly sensible, and some of the Regulars' answers needlessly obfuscatory. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.204.16.14 (talk) 17:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Well I don't know how many people would call someone attending something at 14 they normally attend at 11 a 'child prodigy'. Gifted perhaps. Prodigy normally implies something extremely different from the norm. An 11 year old starting university may be a prodigy. An 11 year old starting secondary school (high school if you prefer) even if the normal starting age is a year or two or three later? Not so much...
And to be clear, college commonly simply refers to secondary school in New Zealand. Intermediate school or middle school (which don't necessarily mean the same thing) aren't universal so some students still go straight from primary school to secondary school or high school. Secondary schools commonly accept year 9 onwards (~12-13) but some still accept year 7 onwards. And I'm not clear and our article Education in New Zealand doesn't make clear if this used to be more common, but my guess would be yes, since it's similar to the system in England which the system partially derives from. (Definitely I believe the practice of a secondary school catering for Year 7 onwards is more common among private schools.)
Most people would probably say they attended/started high school or secondary school, but as plenty of secondary schools are called colleges in fact the number is probably increasing because of the belief it helps perceptions of the school for the international student marked so some people definitely say they started college when they mean they started secondary/high school e.g. plenty of the results here . So yes, I'm pretty sure there are people here who when they say they attended college they aren't even implying they are gifted let alone a prodigy. (As the results may somewhat attest, college may also refer to some non university tertiary institutes, but it would generally not refer to university except if you went to one in the US or Canada or perhaps are speaking for such an audience.)
Nil Einne (talk) 06:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
The origin of the term "college" makes it easy to understand how its meaning could diverge over time and places. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 10:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Google Translate is a useful guideline. It's not gospel, by any means, but it's better than nothing. A dictionary is insufficient. You can get a potential result much faster by using Google Translate. With Spanish, for example, you would have to find the infinitive and then study the grammar rules to see which person and tense to use. Way too tedious. Use Google Translate to get most of it, then fine-tune as needed. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Right, as I said Google Translate can be useful as an aide in some situations, but not a substitute for understanding what you are doing. Falconus 16:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
The language ref desk should always be able to do better than Google Translate. If anyone needs French to English translation, contact me on my talk page. There are other translators around too. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I can help too... I'm not perfect when it comes to French (you can see my mistake in the translation that I just did yesterday...), but I am fairly proficient. Falconus 16:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • The issue is, we should always be able to do better than Google anything. We need to assume that people who find this page can type their questions into google, and unless and until we see evidence that they blatantly didn't try that, we should be able to do better, or at the least, make it ABUNDANTLY CLEAR how we used Google. --Jayron32 15:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • There are at least two silly premises here. The first is that google translate or any reference "speaks for itself". Refernces require minds to read and interpret them. In the case of the Brazilian using the word college in some unspecified language and context, I immediately thought, well, colegio can mean high school or college, and the OP wouldn't be asking what the Brazilian meant by college if he meant what college means in English, so he must have been referring to high school. So I linked to google translate's defining colegio to show this sense of the word in the user's native language.
Any other on-line source I could have chosen would have given the exact same possible meanings. So this has nothing whatsover to do with google translate. I certainly didn't type into google translate "what does a Brazilian mean when he says college?" and get the answer "high school". That was based on my interpretation of the given context: Brazilian speaker, uncertainty over what a rather plain word means, the likelihood there's a false friend at work.
  • The second silly premise is that the OP has asked a clear question, or even wants an answer. That there was a certain amount of guesswork was going on was given. The OP never clarified anything. We don't know if the Brazilian had an American or a British accent. We don't know if the Brazilian said "After I graduated college I went to university" or "I got a masters in education from a teaching college in New Jersey". The OP presumably has this information, but he's chosen to withhold it even after being told his question was lacking vital clues. Oh well, μηδείς (talk) 18:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Pointless edits

concern about hasty answers which very quickly degenerated into utterly unhelpful back-and-forth and name calling
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


I got cross about this one, a gratuitous shoving in of potentially very contentious politics.

And this one, why? The answer is immediately clear in the OP's question.

We're starting to have a real problem with "ref desk regulars". It's not a good concept anyway, because no-one is an expert on everything. I don't want to be part of this problem any more and am taking the ref desks off my watch list for a month or two. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

In the first one, the guy said food is a weapon. No. Withholding food is a weapon. As for the second one, how do you get a long "o" from "ou"? Since I'm obviously a lot dumber than you are, maybe you could explain that one. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
The general opinion in Ireland was nothing like you described even before the declaration of independence in 1916. Attributing ideas to others is always a bad idea without doing a bit of checking. Dmcq (talk) 16:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Silly me for believing the artice. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Which article? Dmcq (talk) 23:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
The one about the potato famine. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
It does not say the Irish hate or hated Britain, it says many blamed Britain, that is quite a different thing entirely. You might also be interested in the genocide question bit at the end, the writers on it are all American or British except for Cormac Ó Gráda from Dublin who says it was not genocide. That Gorta Mór business is mainly for American tourists and brings in good money. Dmcq (talk) 00:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I guess the million Irish who died, just had it coming to them. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:11, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
No, for instance Poland did things much better with the famine there. And it helped with nationalist propaganda. But what you said was simply wrong. There was no great hate of Britain like people hate Assad, in fact people asked before 1916 about why they wanted to separate from Britain simply said they wished to govern themselves even if they did a worse job of it than Britain, they wanted to express their own values and identity. Dmcq (talk) 00:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure there were people who hated Britain since there always is. I say this primarily because you said 'like people hate Assad' but as anyone following the Syrian civil war knows, it's entirely unclear how many Syrians actually hate him. Nil Einne (talk) 06:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Of course but I said no great hate like many groups do. There is a difference between thinking a government is stupid and corrupt and thinking it is hateful. Sometimes I wonder if Americans have forgotten this with the way the Democrats and Republicans attack each other and destroy the place, there seems to be some real hate in the Tea Party for instance. Dmcq (talk) 11:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't really understand what you're trying to say. I'm sure there were plenty of people who thought the government was stupid and corrupt, and a smaller but not nonzero number who hated it. Whether or not this number is enough to be called 'great' is unanswerable without knowing the numbers and a definition of 'great'. In any case, more importantly as I said in my earlier post, we don't know how many Syrians hate the Assad government, which combined with the fact we also don't know how many people hated the British government, there's no way the comparison you made can be meaningful since for all we know more Irish people hated the British government than Syrian people hate the Assad government. If we start to include other groups like the Tea Party or Democrats and Republicans in the US, there's similarly no way we can make meaningful comparisons about the level of hate of these groups vs the level of hate of the British government. As for your latest point about hateful government, well I'm sure there were some people who thought the government was hateful as well although I'm even more confused about the relevance of this. Nil Einne (talk) 14:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
In some cases it is difficult to say if a sofa will go through a door but in most cases it is pretty evident. We don't need exact figures here as it is pretty evident from what's written down. Dmcq (talk) 15:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it's evident at all from what's written down. (And you've provided no sources for what's 'written down' other than what BB already provided. And having read and heard a lot about the Syrian conflict, I can say this is a highly contentious area with the evidence unsurprisingly considering the hellhole that Syria is at the moment rather limited. But it's totally unclear whether even a majority of Syrians want Assad to go let alone whether they hate although of course not wanting him to go doesn't necessarily imply they don't hate him. This is of course largely distinct from the war crimes and other horrific crimes against humanity taking place in Syria at the moment, many of which Assad seems to have a hand in, because our personal feelings of a person are often quite different from how others may feel, particularly if they have different information correct or incorrect, and experiences and desires, ethics, feelings, histories etc. The presence of a some highly motivated people who do clearly hate Assad doesn't change any of this, since we're talking about population level phenomenon. If this still confuses you, consider that in a related fashion, despite the horror that is North Korea for the past many years, it's not totally clear how many people there actually realise this let alone blame the Kim family and other key leaders who it's clear are share most of the responsibility. I would note I don't know much about how Irish people felt in those years and never intended to say anything to suggest I did, but nothing you've said has really demonstrated that hate was that rare that we can completely dismiss it out of hand as irrelevant. And I would note that in such matters we have to be very careful to avoid conflating to more recent opinion with how people felt at a certain time as opinions can change very rapidly. I mean heck, there's a fair chance the answer has changed in the past year since the 'level of hate' towards Assad could easily have changed that much in a year, whether for or against. And I won't even get in to the Tea Party or Republican/Democrat angle.)
And yes, I've seen so many things which people claim are 'evident' which were totally wrong (including plenty of things which are far easier to determine), often because people took their own biases and preconceptions in to account rather than trying to look at it from the outside and based on evidence. In other words, it seems to me while criticising others, you've made even worse mistakes. Since unlike Bugs it sound like you actually have no real evidence (Bugs may have misunderstood what he was reading but at least he was going on something) and are seem to insist you are correct even after it's pointed out to you that you have no evidence and so could easily be wrong instead continuing to make unsupported claims whereas Bugs seems to have largely left the discussion (others may have continued, but you can't blame Bugs for their actions). While this is not the RD, since it's a discussion surrouding stuff going on in the RD's resonable to expect the same standards to apply.
Frankly I found the whole Irish famine thing which started this boring from the small bits I read, although I understand why this is a sensitive issue to many. But I find this discussion here sad. Particularly since, it's unclear to me why you needed to make such unsupported comparisons, and then to insist on them when challenged to make your point. As it's not only distracted from whatever point you were trying to make, it's damaged the credibility of any of the stuff you were trying to say (like the more general point about the lack of hate of the Irish towards the British which I would not have challenged or even concerned myself much with were it not for the fact you continually insisted to make other unsupported comparisons). And this is the sort of thing which makes me wonder if people may have a point about the problems with RD nowadays although if I'm realistic I'm pretty sure I've seen similar stuff many times before, it's just that it infrutiates me every time. (And to be clear, I'm not saying that there was 'great hate' of the British by the Irish whatever you want to mean by that or that there isn't 'great hate' towards Assad, or that the 'hate' however you quantify that towards Assad is lesser or that the 'hate' toward the British was more; rather that we do not know, and are unlikely to ever really know the answer to those questions. Since we can never hope to obtain statistics which will answer such a question particularly since even if we could ask everyone alive at the time and they would answer truthfully, any statistics will depend significantly on what you ask anyway and it's not really meaningful to quantify 'hate'. Not to mention we can't actually do that, in the ongoing Assad case let alone 100 years or so ago and plenty of people wouldn't answer truthfully.)
Nil Einne (talk) 16:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Condescending about my faults too. Great. Well I'll not bother you more about something that bores you. Dmcq (talk) 17:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
  • How is Bug's asking what is meant by ouv problematic? In IPA, which should be between brackets /ouv/ or , it is clear the sound is that of drove. But without specification, an American is normally going to assume ou has the sound of loud or house. μηδείς (talk) 18:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
The problematic bit is feeling the need to answer when you know nothing at all about the topic. "Withholding food is a weapon". OK, fair point. See the work of Amartya Sen. But then you follow up with saying that "the Irish" hate "the British" which is as accurate as saying that African-Americans hate Anglo-Americans because of slavery, and just as offensive. On the pronunciation, the OP gave examples and people gave further examples before Bugs chipped in. As a prolific WP editor he has come across the IPA before. Bugs, since you think I'm smarter than you, and you may be right, say a long oh, then segue into ooh. Oh-ooh. Then try it in "dove" as in "dove into the lake". Doh-oov. Now say it more quickly. Doesn't it sound like your own usual General American accent? (Not like my received pronunciation/Estuary English.) That's the sound we're talking about. Can you see why it's spelt the way it is? Not rocket science. You could have worked it out on your own. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Doh-oov??? I've never heard anyone say it that way, be hey Yanks or Brits. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I'll refrain from commenting on the Irish comments, not because I know them to be wrong, but because they are OR. The question about vowels, however, is exactly what I'd expect from any American who's not been trained in the IPA, which is about 99% of them. See the entry for /au/ at Pronunciation respelling for English. This sound (of loud and ow) is almost universally depicted with an ou or ow in American dictionary respellings. The IPA is manifestly superior, but unless you get a degree in linguistics or a post-graduate degree in a language you are unlikely ever to encounter it in the United States. μηδείς (talk) 21:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Ref desks are frequently used by "ref desk regulars" as some kind of outlet for their version of humour or Facebook. It's a common problem. Many contributors to the ref desks make no real mainspace contributions to the encyclopaedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Kindly stop suggesting that this is some sort of lesser calling. I don't contribute much to the mainspace, but I do support helping people with improving their knowledge, which is why I'm here. I agree with you (to some extent), but please don't misidentify the problem as people like me. Mingmingla (talk) 00:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
and for the "ref desk regular" in question, this is a good thing, as his few mainspace edits are not helpful contributions.66.87.82.173 (talk) 22:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Rambling Man should substantiate his accusations via objective analysis of someone's contributions, or apologize and stop his contentious posts. Edison (talk) 05:17, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
It seems unnecessary considering the number of issues raised by various editors here. Apologies are few and far between on this website, as many regulars here know. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Prove your mettle and apologize for painting ref-deskers who don't edit mainspace with teh same brush. Mingmingla (talk) 16:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
No thanks, but thanks for the offer. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I'm shocked. Mingmingla (talk) 18:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Don't mind the Rambler. He's got nothin'. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
No, sure I don't. Just a few FAs and FLs to actively help improve the main content of Misplaced Pages. And several chat room editors who have done nothing but .... well, chat. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Are they still FA / FL quality? Probably not, unless you watch them like a hawk and spend all your time reverting the drive-bys. Which, by the way, is something I got tired of doing, which is why I mostly work on the ref desks now. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
And that is what is technically known as a "cop out"! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Who are you? And why would I care if you're shocked?! How bizarre. Back to the chat fora I guess. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
In an effort to "fix" wikipedia and deal with all the "chatting" that you (rightfully, to some extent) object to, you are participating quite a bit in it. But please note that you have complained about a lack civility and politeness in this very thread and now refuse to do the very thing you complain about. If you want to maintain credibility in your arguments and actually accomplish what you set out to do, don't piss off the people you need support from. You can't make these changes alone. I will willingly support your efforts to tone down the chattiness of the Ref Desks if you acknowledge that you need to adjust your tone to get support for your position. Being right is rarely good enough; you need to be a politician, too. Mingmingla (talk) 20:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't need any support, I'm not fussed at all about the chat desks. It's a shame that the energy expended here giving funny/ironic/rude answers to mundane and esoteric questions isn't spent improving the encyclopaedia. If the people who do nothing but chat here can't see that, then they should expect no support outside their comfort blanket of chat desks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
That's technically known as a "cop-out". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
And none of this is technically improving the content of Misplaced Pages. Well done again for all the chat room work though. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Your own contributions to this "chat room" are indispensable. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Truth hurts I guess. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages is about verification, not "truth". But if I do see something resembling either verification or "truth" emanating from your keyboard, I'll be sure and get back to you. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, are you accusing me of lying? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Typical useless (and inaccurate) comment by a cowardly drive-by. Specifically, a Baltimoron. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
do you have any supporting diffs that the statement by TRM and myself are false? Insults tend to make a poor foundation for your opinion. 66.87.82.173 (talk) 00:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't see you denying that you're a cowardly drive-by. Although you could perhaps provide some diffs to demonstrate otherwise? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:11, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
thanks, but I will pass on your trolling question. Your personal insults of "cowardly" and "Baltimoron" confirm the subject header and comments from other editors. You might want to stop throwing jabs and take a moment to look at what you are accomplishing here on the encyclopedia. Peace. 66.87.82.173 (talk) 00:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
You have like 3 edits, all of them personal attacks. That is trolling. While you were formulating your next drive-by shot, I was answering a couple of questions on a ref desk. So you might ask yourself what you're accomplishing here. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh my, I started this pointless thread. Would people do their very best not to try and supply answers to questions when they have no expertise of any kind to contribute? Could respondents at least attempt to stay on topic? And could we remember that generalisations about race, nationality and ethnicity may be offensive? It's very tempting to use the ref desks as an invitation to a conversation. I've fallen for that myself on more than one occasion. But it doesn't show WP in the best light. It would be great to set up some kind of feedback and quality improvement mechanism. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I hear your pain, Its. -- Jack of Oz 10:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Feel free to box the entire section. Just be sure you get Rambler's permission first. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Permission granted. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
For "feedback and quality improvement mechanism", we can and do comment on the quality of contributions to these desks, in fact, we have done so above in regards to Bugs' posts. I've nothing to add to that discussion though, but my diva meter has been getting slammed lately. -Modocc (talk) 16:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
An "interesting" post, but what does it mean? We're all divas, one way or another, hopefully you're over it by now!! Happy New Year to you. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Happy New Year to you too and to everyone. -Modocc (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, and may it really be a new year, not just a repeat of things past. For last year's words belong to last year's language / And next year's words await another voice. (T. S. Eliot). -- Jack of Oz 20:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The unbearable crassness of a certain type of response by RD regulars

e.g.

I'd probably rather lose my retirement than be shot in a carjacking and left a quadriplegic. μηδείς (talk) 16:30, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Either way, you'd soon be dead. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:40, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Could it ever occur to these two "frequent flyers" that what they wrote is an insult to people who have actually lost their retirement or are quadriplegic (whatever the cause)? I don't know where this kind of writing belongs, but certainly not in anything I'd choose to read. IMO responses of this type are a disgrace to the Ref Desk purpose to provide serious, objective, and helpful content. μηδείς and Baseball Bugs- how about some respect for the rest of us? Or at least bracket such blather with <small> and </small> ? -- Deborahjay (talk) 14:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The reason Medeis would soon be dead is that Medeis is a tea partyist and hence doesn't believe in any kind of social safety net - hence, either dying of starvation from having no money for food; or dying from any number of possible things due to lack of medical attention - again due to lack of money. Try reading the context of things instead of zeroing in on specific comments. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid this is standard Twittery from these two "assistants" here. Hence the numerous threads on this talk page from several people sick and tired of it. People have finally had enough, these complaints are now a regular event. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
The complaints seem to occur regularly, but nothing ever happens. Are we to assume that the RD's resident Statler and Waldorf are somehow immune from any sanctions against their disruptive behaviour? AlexTiefling (talk) 01:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of crassness, if you look at Rambler's contribs you'll see an unrelenting snippiness, attitude, and vulgarity. If he were to run for admin now, it's unlikely he'd get it, in fact he might get indef'd instead. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Whats running for admin have to do with the current issue of your insulting comments? 54.224.206.154 (talk) 01:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Check and see how many of the "no" voters have since been indef'd (of which you are probably one). ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Would it be too much to ask for Bugs and TRM to stop sniping at each other like this? It is, indeed, unbearably crass, and quite contrary to the attitude of professionalism and mutual respect which Misplaced Pages expects of all editors. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The stuff TRM says is unbecoming of an admin. That's why I say he must have won it in Crackerjack box. He couldn't pass an RFA now. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

factional debate closed

I suspect the entire Ayn Rand thread should be closed as an invitation to debate, but I have tried to steer it towards referring to her works. Unfortunately, this subject brings out the debaters. The two last questions have made critical references to the ARI, one of the two main sects of Randianism to appear since Rand's death (assuming you've never heard of ARI, think of the Trotskyites versus the Stalinists), and asserted that Rand "opposed paved public roads" as premises for further debate. Next will come the Trilateral Commission, and the New World Order and so forth. So I have closed those two "questions" as inviting debate. μηδείς (talk) 18:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

An old colleague of mine, who was a card-carrying libertarian, actually did argue against public roads. Whether he got that from Rand or not, I couldn't say. I don't recall him ever mentioning Rand. He seemed to talk mostly about Milton Friedman. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Not to open up the discussion again here, but yes, Rand was in favor of privatizing highways (which has historical precedent) and other public utilities as an abstract long-term goal. She had no programmatic plan as to how to do it, and she considered it of the least priority. (Her biggest goals were ending the military draft and returning to the gold standard.) To imply that Rand was against paved roads is about as rhetorically honest as saying atheists are devil worshippers, and there's no way to address such matters at a reference desk--there are at least half-a-dozen well-populated fora that discuss and argue about Rand. μηδείς (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Hard telling where the "paved" part of it comes from. In fact, the US Constitution specifically provides for public roads, so this is pretty much of a non-issue, just a theory. I recall my colleague also being against the draft because "it's a waste of resources." In short, the only ones who serve should be the poor and the ignorant, who are pretty much expendable. I didn't see much of a high road in that part of the theory. As regards atheists being devil-worshippers, that would be self-contradictory, as the devil is a supernatural being, and atheists don't believe in supernatural beings. However, that's bringing too much logic into the debate. You probably should, in fact, box up that section if you haven't already. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)