Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:36, 16 October 2009

• WT:RD

fixing the shortcut link

{{editprotected}} please delete the lines 3-4 of tis header: I have a neon lightbulb that spells my name , I want to hook it up, what do I need?

These lines create a shortcut link back to the page in question, which overlaps with the edit link if first-section edit links are enabled.

This request is paired with a request on Misplaced Pages talk:Reference desk/header/leftside which adds a conventional shortcut box into the subtemplate. -Us_talk:Ludwigs2|Ludwigs2]] 05:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Let me know if anything needs changing. —  (MSGJ · talk) 13:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Header for the Computing Reference Desk

Can we tell posters to specify their operating system, computer make and model, and web browser in their posts? I just wasted 15 minutes giving advice to someone before I realized he was probably using Firefox (by his use of the word bookmarks instead of favorites). My advice was written for someone using Internet Explorer. This isn't the first time this has happened to me. We're not talking to these people in person. We wait hours for them to respond. We need to know all the details of their problem up front.--Best Dog Ever (talk) 05:48, 12 September 2012(UTC)

mobile accessibility

It was noted on RD:Talk that the refdesk header's floating elements had visual conflict with the iOS browser. Can this be addressed? SamuelRiv (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Removed text from top of Entertainment Desk

I removed this edit which had been made at the top of

Side by side search fields

This may be the wrong place to write this, but I am having difficulty tracing through all the RefDesk Header templates. Recently (noticed 2013-01-13) the header has changed to the RefDesk pages. The Search Misplaced Pages and Search archives fields in (say) RefDeskMaths are now side by side and often cause the page width to exceed 100% requiring sideways scrolling as well as vertical scrolling. Could someone put them one after the other vertically. -- SGBailey (talk) 22:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Add shortcuts to Reference desk Language

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I've add these shortcuts to Reference Desk Language and want it to show in the header:

• WP:Refdesk/Lang & WP:Refdesk/lang
• WP:Refdesk/Language & WP:Refdesk/language
• WP:REFDESK/Lang & WP:REFDESK/lang

--Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 13:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Unprotected. There were only a few transclusions of this template and all of the subtemplates, so I've reduced the protection to semi-protection on all of them. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 13:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

article gripes

Along with the "We will not answer" section, there ought to be a line like "This is not the place to suggest improvements to a Misplaced Pages article; each article has a discussion page for that purpose." —Tamfang (talk) 08:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Removal of question "‎Ideas for what to get a good friend of mine for her birthday"

I hope this is works for justification. The poster is a currently active troll and doxxer on RationalWiki, particularly with the personal details of the person they named in this particular Reference Desk question, and had left several links to this page from a page on RationalWiki. Please let me know if this is not sufficient justification, or if an alternate route must be taken to keep this removed. Thanks. Noir LeSable (talk) 21:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Shoot, wrong talk page. Please disregard. Noir LeSable (talk) 21:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit request (minor); 01:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

First of all, pardon my ignorance if this is not the proper method for requesting the following:
The instruction section of this header states: We'll answer here within a few days -- This might give the wrong impression; it typically takes only a few minutes; an hour or two at the most. Therefore, my request is that this be modified (at the editor's discretion). --107.15.152.93 (talk) 01:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC) (modified:01:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC))

Layout problem

...related to vertical positioning of the "skip to bottom" item in the right column. See Misplaced Pages talk:Reference desk#Protection-template spacing. DMacks (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Topics are not desks

The list below "Choose a topic:" is not a list of topics. The addition of "desk" to each topic should be removed. Additionally, the different sections of the Reference desk are not separate desks; they are different sections of one Reference desk. So unless there are serious objections, I'll proceed to replace "Computing desk" by "Computing", etcetera.  --Lambiam 07:36, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

"Choose" or "Select"?

I think "Select a topic:" is more appropriate terminology for the navigation column. "Choose" would be better for someone not having a concrete question but seeking a chat room to hang out in that suits their interests; here there is already an issue and the question is which section of the RD is appropriate.  --Lambiam 07:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Where are the recent archives???

I've just tried to look for questions archived from early November, and they are nowhere to be found -- the archives only run through October, and there are no recently archived questions here! So what happened, and where are they??? 2601:646:9882:46E0:C195:DC40:D019:40A6 (talk) 07:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean? Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Archives/Science/November 2023 exists, so do others. Which specific page are you having a problem with? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

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 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Joke Room, revisited

Apparently the lengthy discussion above didn't mean a lot to some people: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#mole_removal --LarryMac | Talk 15:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

By my reading, the lengthy discussion above generally said "jokes before legitimate answers should be avoided". That's not the case with this example. — Lomn 15:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

But there doesn't have to be a joke (or thread of "jokes") every frakkin' time. The signal to noise ratio is incredibly low. --LarryMac | Talk 15:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs gave a valid answer. Then Cuddly gave an equally valid answer, coupled with a small joke. Then it devolved into humour (I can't tell if Bugs' water method was realistic or not). I see no problem - OP got two satisfactory answers before the jokes started. Vimescarrot (talk) 16:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The "get out of jail free" card for inappropriate jokes is to actually be funny, but a lot of the clowns here seem to just enjoy seeing their names in print and hit "Edit" before even thinking up their lame crack. --Sean 16:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

That is not a requirement that could ever be policed. What's funny to one person is lame to another; what's funny to me in my good mood today might whizz by me unnoticed, or even piss me off, tomorrow when I'm in a different state. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean it as a policy, just that if even 10% of the jokes caused me to crack a smile, I'd be more forgiving of the rest. But they don't. People should try to keep their real-answer:joke ratio close to 20:1 so that they're only subjecting us to their best material. --Sean 20:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

How about no jokes at all? I don't come here to laugh. If I wanted to laugh I'd read a joke websites or watch a comedy. If I want factual information I look at Misplaced Pages.

Sure, but the people staffing this place are human, and a social community, so some joking is going to happen. It's just that lately the content:crap ratio has approached 1:2 or so, which is far too high IMHO. --Sean 20:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Also drawing your attention to "Misplaced Pages is not your web host, forum etc" Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not#Misplaced Pages is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site as well as other parts of that page - including "Misplaced Pages is not anarchy". etc.83.100.251.196 (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

No jokes should be a standard, not "some jokes are ok". (Yes, it's lonely out there - use email, the user talkpage, another site, or even this page - not the desks)83.100.251.196 (talk) 21:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll reiterate that IMO humorous comments are OK if they are very limited in quantity (Sean's 20:1 ratio), never reflect on the OP's person or motivation, and are preferably inserted with an initial double-indent and always with <small> tags so that readers have an indication that the comments are not part of the mainstream answer to the OP question. We're all human, and almost all RD'ers are pretty intelligent, so spotting and wishing to point out little quirks in previous answers is natural. It's part of the joy of participating here, there are often at least two different ways to look at any bit of text. As always, self-restraint is the key. Franamax (talk) 01:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I had been wondering about querying in "How did Eskimo or Inuit tribes defend themselves against polar bears before they had guns?" about surely it would be much more difficult after they got guns? Not that I've seen any evidence that they have. I see though from #User Baseball Bugs above that such a query might have been very much unappreciated :) Dmcq (talk) 10:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I liked the occasional funny post - but the level it's risen to recently is getting ridiculous. I have to call out User:Baseball Bugs as being the biggest culprit (and by far the least funny and most disruptive with 'nearly-believable' answers that are downright dangerous) - but others are making it worse. If we can't pull this back to normality voluntarily - we may have to reconsider our guidelines and simply rule humor out altogether. I wouldn't like to see that happen - but I'd rather we did that than allow the RefDesks to degenerate into junk. The 20:1 ratio is about right...but if we can't stay close to that, I'm happy with infinity:1. SteveBaker (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

(An alternative rule that we might consider would be that humor within a useful answer is cromulant - but posting purely for humor's sake is not. That would force off those few who reach first for a funny answer and only occasionally actually help the OP. I'm not sure I like to see this rule imposed either - but it's better than an outright ban if push comes to shove.) SteveBaker (talk) 18:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

SEE! I told you it wasnt just me. evryone likes a joke. Why not here? Its harmless

Who are you? Are you some kind of troll?

Everybody (or, just about everybody) likes a joke. But it's all too easy to overdo it, and we need to (collectively) be careful not to do that. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I look at it this way: Our goal is to get an answer for the OP. Having 90% of responses be jokes obviously hinders that, but so would a total ban on jokes as this would make the Ref Desk a dull place and fewer responders would read and respond to Q's. So, whatever balance results in the most answers is the best balance. StuRat (talk) 20:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree. See point 3 in this essay. —Steve Summit (talk) 18:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree, except I'd phrase it "whatever balance results in the most helpful answers." I like social gatherings where people have a sense of humor and wit. occasionally guests show up at these gatherings impersonating standup-comedians in search of an audience. This kind of frantic humor for humor's sake (or for the lulz) can be intimidating, even tyrannical, like being forced to work with a Harpo Marx impersonator (or David Brent). An overdose of standup comedy routines, puns, and slapstick can also turn away readers, querents, ad answerers. To suggest these people need to get a sense of humor (as someone did earlier) is odd and uses a very shallow definition of humor. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I was using the term "answer", as opposed to "response", to mean a response that answers the Q, and is thus useful. While people's senses of humor do vary, there are also some people who seem to lack a sense of humor entirely. My brother is one, he gets angry if you tell him a joke. StuRat (talk) 20:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

well, the announcement of a joke makes me feel apprehensive and uncomfortable, not angry, but yeah, that could be me.  :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 20:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Humor is often part of scientific discussions. I have been in the room when journal articles were being written and revised, and the submissions to a journal reviewed for suitability to publish and there was more throwing back and forth of gags than there is here. A difference is that the banter was not visible to the ultimate readers. Read a biography of Richard Feynman and see if they were always dead serious. A grim, bitter Ref Desk, with all humor forbidden, would not be a place at which I would want to volunteer my time and effort. It would have all the appeal of a classroom in a Dickens novel, with a stern schoolmaster ready to cane any student who dared to smile. There is no pay other than the enjoyment we get from interacting with others. I agree that legitimate answers must come first, that the original questioner should not be ridiculed, although it is possible to point out in gentle humor that the questioner has used a word or spelling different from what he likely intended before answering the likely intended question. I agree that the signal to noise level must be high, or any factual answers will be lost in banter. Edison (talk) 15:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Removed medical advice

The thread Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Science#trauma is a clear request for medical advice. I didn't remove the thread entirely because Jayron has already offered an appropriate response: a referral to medical professionals.

I did remove this response, as it attempted to outline a specific course of therapy. If someone feels it necessary or appropriate to go whole-hog and remove the whole thread (per our standard protocol), go right ahead. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I did not make any medical recommendation, I merely mentioned that that was one course of treatment a THERAPIST may recommend, and provided the appropriate link. StuRat (talk) 19:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I concur with ToaT that "a therapist may recommend x" is outside the bounds of acceptable responses. A therapist may recommend a great many things; we should not step in for them with backhanded medical advice. — Lomn 20:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Just for background, Botswana (231,000 sq. mi./600,000 sq. km) is slightly smaller than Texas with about a tenth of the population (less than 2 million) for a density of about 8 people per square mile or 3 per square kilometre. Fifteen years ago, the country had 334 doctors and 3,329 nurses (plus 16 hospitals, 1 mental hospital, 200 clinics and 301 "health posts"), many of whom will be fully occupied dealing with AIDS. The original enquirer said that he's in a part of the country that has no counselling available, and the Google link only mentions (so far as I could see at first glance) psychologists in the capital, Gaborone, in the far south-east of the country. If the couple's in the opposite end of Botswana, that would be like referring someone in Amarillo or El Paso, Texas to psychologists in Houston. I don't think he should try desensitization therapy himself (who knows what could go wrong?), but we should probably refer him to whatever medical professionals may be nearby (or visiting one of the country's 700 stops for mobile health teams), plus reputable, professional psychological societies (and other sound authorities) on the web. Otherwise, he'll feel forced to go roaming the wide-open cyberspaces on his own, looking for whatever random help might pop up. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, by posting his question on our Ref Desk, he's already 'roaming the wide-open cyberspaces on his own, looking for whatever random help might pop up'. The notion that the Ref Desk on Misplaced Pages is inherently better or more reliable that some other random source on the web may represent a dangerous amount of hubris. By all means refer the guy to appropriate professional organizations – and remember, he's someplace that has internet access, so he's not totally destitute or disconnected from modern amenities – but we need to take care not to cross the line into giving our own advice. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm uneasy with trying to ban mentions of treatments. StuRat didn't attempt a diagnosis or offer medical advice. Compare with a questioner posting "I think I broke my leg and am wondering what to expect for treatment" and an answerer posting, "The doctor may set the bone." Tempshill (talk) 05:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm uneasy, too. Psychotherapy goes into far more detail of what a therapist might do in any given case than what StuRat said. Should we now delete that article because it's offering "medical advice"? -- JackofOz (talk) 11:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

No no no. The logic here does not hold - the two are not comparable. An article (for example, on heart disease) may include a description of treatment with aspirin and nitroglycerin. If, separately, someone on the RefDesk were to describe their problem and a respondent were to reply, "one course of treatment that a doctor would prescribe would be aspirin and nitroglycerin", the latter would be inappropriate but would not in any way impugn the former mention of these modalities in the heart disease article. It is the mention of diagnoses and/or treatments in reply to a specific situation that may represent medical advice, not the general discussion of them. --Scray (talk) 11:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure everyone here wishes we could help out this OP in some way but, in keeping with our usual response to medical questions, we shouldn't answer this. Notwithstanding the OP's lack of health-care options, "rules" are rules. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we should give as much advice as we can about the best way to find and consult professional help in this enquirer's particular situation. If he goes to (purely for example) the American Psychological Association's site, I doubt that it's going to tell non-practitioners how to initiate desensitisation treatment. If he's lucky enough to be near a registered nurse or the Botswanan equivalent of a physician's assistant or registered nurse-practitioner, of course we should urge that too (and probably first). But the answer that's on the page right now is close enough that I haven't yet felt moved to attempt a refinement. Actually, it's probably archived by now. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice argument from authority rather than logic. StuRat did not offer a medical diagnosis or give medical advice, so his response was fine and should not have been deleted. Tempshill (talk) 06:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

When something's been discussed ad nauseum, referring to established positions is appropriate. StuRat did discuss a "specific course of treatment" (his words, from his initial response above) in the context of what many here feel was clearly a request for medical advice. -- Scray (talk) 09:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Help!

Can someone take a look at this Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Science#Science_Lab_Cleaner - basically the person who is teaching your kids (not mine hopefully) doesn't even know how to wash a ....... beaker.

I'm thinking that the same reasons we don't give medical advice may apply here. In you hands please.83.100.251.196 (talk) 15:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I find this (and a few of the responses) to be overly pessimistic. The question isn't "how do I wash a beaker", it's "what are some good cleaning agents". No particular paranoia is required. — Lomn 19:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

ok I'm over it now.83.100.251.196 (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It is a particularly good question. You can't use just any cleaner for science beakers. Many leave a residue on the beakers that could potentially react with the chemicals being used in lab experiments. If you get a degree, even a PhD, in some form of science, you may not necessarily ever pay attention to the type of cleaner being used in the lab. -- kainaw™ 14:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Spam?

it's not really a question is it.83.100.251.196 (talk) 18:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Since the URL doesn't make it obvious, Warning: that site is pornographic obscene Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

"youngthroats" isn't obvious porn? Vimescarrot (talk) 18:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You never know. It could be about tonsilectomies. →Baseball Bugs carrots 19:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

In any case, it's just pornographic, not obscene. Obscenity is illegal, technically. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Depends on how you define "obscenity". Did you ever see any of Richard Pryor or Eddie Murphy's concert films? →Baseball Bugs carrots 07:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you're confusing obscenity with profanity. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

So, apparently, were the cops who used to arrest guys like Lenny Bruce and George Carlin. So just what is "obscenity", then? →Baseball Bugs carrots 00:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

There's an article on it Obscenity, as an example of pornography that was sufficiently obscene to result in a prosecution see Max Hardcore.83.100.251.196 (talk) 12:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Deja vu spam at that. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 14:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Archive timing?

On perhaps half-a-dozen recent occasions, I've accessed a current reference desk question and contributed to one of the ongoing answers, and on exiting have found that the question is now archived. Are the archiving transfers manual - and if so, who decides when to do them and on what grounds - or are they automated - and if so, what are the timing criteria? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 15:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The archiving is semiautomatic. There is a program that does all the work, but I invoke it manually, so that I can follow up on any anomalies that it might occasionally report. I generally kick it off between 0030 and 0100 UTC, or sometimes a few hours later, or sometimes not at all if I'm on vacation or otherwise nowhere near a network connection. —Steve Summit (talk) 17:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Steve; that explains it, as I'm a night owl and often work (OK, it's not "work", exactly) at this sort of time if not later. (It just happened again, prompting me to come and see if there had been a reply yet!) 87.81.230.195 (talk) 02:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

And thanks for handling the archiving administrivia for all of us. --Sean 19:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Swallowing chewing gum

This asks for advice about what to do after swallowing chewing gum. The old wives tale that it "sticks to your lungs" or does other untold damage seems to be at play here. I'd happily tell them that it's perfectly safe (I've been swallowing chewing gum all my life, and look at me .... well, maybe not) - but I fear it would be construed as "medical advice". -- JackofOz (talk) 21:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

As we're a reference desk, would it be safe to give this reference? Vimescarrot (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I think in the cases where it is really obviously just a fear of an urban myth, we can certainly point them in the direction of the copious references to it being an urban myth. It's totally irrational to do otherwise, or to refer him to a doctor or etc. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Snopes is well-known for investigating urban myths, and this one is covered: I would guess that a doctor would tell a patient the same thing, only at greater expense and with less detail. →Baseball Bugs carrots 15:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Doctors in the UK are free. Did Opie mention his country of origin? Vimescarrot (talk) 18:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

He's an IP address that geolocates to Serbia. It's good to know they allow chewing gum in Serbia. (Or maybe they don't - maybe that's why he swallowed it.) →Baseball Bugs carrots 18:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Either way, the time and stress is a legitimate "cost", no matter what health care system you are in. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I just think it would gum up your works.

I'm amazed - "What is this problem!!"

You guys confuse me. We discuss whether telling someone that swallowing gum is safe constitutes medical advice but when a person basically asks if they need therapy, we happily tell them that they're normal and not to worry about it. Dismas| 01:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Until Deborahjay came along, I don't think it occurred to anyone that this might be a problem warranting medical intervention. Vimescarrot (talk) 09:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Plus, re your confusion, it's always a lot easier to interpret physical problems as medical ones than psychological ones. Vimescarrot (talk) 09:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

WoW! free counselling! I'm gonna tell my friends. <end of sarcasm> I think this needs to be avoided in future. Not a good precedent.83.100.251.196 (talk) 12:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

People are pretty bad about this. The problem is the line between "oh, everyone feels that way" and "this is something that needs to be clinically treated" is not just blurry, but formally contested. Add to it the fact that everyone has their own home bromides about mild conditions, and it's really just a mess. That being said, I do feel for those people who point out that in their country, there isn't really an option for real therapy. But we shouldn't deal with this sort of thing on here. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Baseball bugs

Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Humanities#Why the U.S. didn't use the Atomic Bomb on Nazi Germany?

...Without the atomic bomb and just with the other conventional weaponry, wich could have been the outcome of the war in the pacific? MBelgrano (talk) 01:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
...
the reference desk is not for debates, to seek opinions, or for general discussions. Or a magical crystal ball.83.100.251.196 (talk) 01:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
He asked a question, and people are trying to answer it. Either offer a possible answer, or cease your nannyism and go somewhere else. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I just left a message after a follow up question seeking an opinion on a possible alternate history, and get this personal attack.

And the same user is still posting nonsense. 83.100.251.196 (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It's generally not helpful to jump in and say "not for debates! not a soapbox!", especially when someone asks what is considered to be a genuine historical question (one which has been written on by real-deal historians at length). It's especially unhelpful if other people are actually giving fairly thought-out responses. I'm not sure if I'd call it "nannyism," but it is annoying. When gripped with the urge to tell people to stop talking about something because it involves "opinions", I suggest just moving along to another question. I do it all the time, nobody suffers, life goes on. (The Question about Science V Religion thread has spiraled out of control a long time ago, for example. But if we ignore it, it will, in fact, go away on its own!) --Mr.98 (talk) 16:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. We don't accept questions that ask for opinions or speculation. That's right up there at the top of every RefDesk page: "The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events. Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead.". Sometimes answers to acceptable questions that were requesting solid fact do require opinions in order to provide a fully fleshed-out answer where those solid facts do not exist - or are controversial. But hopefully sufficient fact gets into the answer in the end that the OP can go away satisfied. 83.100.251.196 was correct in telling our OP that this was not an acceptable question and Baseball Bugs should not have replied so offensively to the only correct response to that question. "Alternate history" questions are not things we can or should answer. SteveBaker (talk) 13:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The exception being: "Has there been historical research on what would have happened if..." That is a blatant request for references. Unfortunately, it will certainly spark a debate. -- kainaw™ 13:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with both of the above on a few points.

1. Counterfactuals are not inherently unanswerable questions. Historians use them all the time as ways to think about the contingency of history and the factors involved in any given outcome. The atomic bombings of Japan are probably one of the most classic ones engaged in by professionals and amateurs all the time (and have been since they happened). There are lots of good answers. It's not a bad question.

2. We have these methodological rules regarding "debates" mainly as a way of maintaining good conversational hygiene on this forum. We don't want to become Yahoo! Answers and we don't want it to be a flood of partisan arguing. It is not a debate forum. Our way of getting towards this goal is by setting up these methodological rules—rules regarding what kinds of questions we will answer. They are just heuristics. We have seen time and time again that questions that are totally allowable by the "rules" can devolve into debate, and we have seen time and time again that questions that skirt the edges of the rules can be answered sensibly and calmly by all involved. Personally I think in many cases the debate about whether the rules should be enforced in a particular instance generates more ill-will and bad feeling that just taking a less stringent view of the rules would. We have to use our judgment here. We are smart, friendly, generally open-minded individuals with similar goals. If a question is going well and producing useful, RefDesk-worthy answers, just leave it alone. If it is devolving into name-calling and long diatribes, perhaps then step in.

3. Whenever we find ourselves expecting that the questioner will do verbal contortions in order to make the question "correct", we have probably erred. Let's not take the endless bureaucracy that infects most of Misplaced Pages and expand it here needlessly. Let's take a results-based approach, focusing on what the rules are meant to accomplish, not the letter by which they are written. If the same question is legitimate when phrased slightly differently, it's a sign that our rules are getting out of hand, and that we are becoming way too in-crowd.

One of my main complaints with Misplaced Pages as a whole (and why I no longer generally edit it) is because it quickly becomes a game of "who knows the rules best", which is sociologically understandable (much of academia is the same way, I can attest!), but makes for a deliberately isolated social environment. If we expect our questioners to read and make sense every nuance at the top of the page before they are allowed to ask something quite innocuous (or something that would be taken as a legitimate question in the broader world of ideas, like the question of using the bomb against Germany), then we have probably gone too far in creating our labyrinth of regulations. The rules are meant to serve us, not the other way around. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

83.100.251.196 - for the avoidance of doubt it would have been helpful if you had clearly shown that your post was specifically a response to MBelgrano, and not aimed at the original anon questioner, who had asked a legitimate historical question about US military and political thinking at the end of WWII. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

BB has reined himself in enormously since the conflagration above and has been making numerous valuable contributions. I think we should cut him some slack on occasional lapses. --Sean 14:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be that being a just a little bit of a disruptor is akin to being just a little bit pregnant. --LarryMac | Talk 11:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Megatrip

Had to restore a question 83.100.251.196 (talk) 23:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Non productive remarks at the Reference desk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questions lead to other questions, and many editors besides me expand the discussion beyond the original question. →Baseball Bugs carrots 12:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I could do that too. →Baseball Bugs carrots 23:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Non answers removed - both starting with an insult.

Two unrelated questions, in both the OP is insulted. Any further discussion should have taken place on the talk page. I haven't bothered contacting anyone involved, cos I imagine it's a waste of time.83.100.251.196 (talk) 17:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Please contact us if you feel the need to remove our comments from the reference desk in the future. It is not a waste of time; it brings our attention to the issue, which we may or may not agree with. Nimur (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, please pay careful attention when using the word "insult." Many people on Misplaced Pages are too liberal with the use of the word "insult." They consider simply saying that they are too liberal with their usage of a word to be an insult. The reason it is important to have a clear and undeniable insult is because directly insulting others is something that a user may be blocked or banned for. If someone is simply rude or stupid, claiming that they insulted the OP is out of place. In the first deletion, the only thing I see rationalizing as an insult is the comment: "The OP didn't even make an attempt to answer the question". That is an accusation, not an insult. It may or may not be true. In my opinion, an insult would be "The OP is too stupid to answer the question." -- kainaw™ 04:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there needs to be a clear distinction between criticism of a user's actions and criticism of the user personally. The former is almost always ok; the latter is almost always not ok. But you need to word your criticisms carefully; even "The OP didn't even make an attempt to answer the question", while on the face of it a criticism of the user's actions (or non-actions), is skating too close to personal criticism for my liking. Without explicitly saying so, it suggests a laziness or carelessness on the part of the user personally. A more neutral criticism might be simply "The OP did not answer the question". -- JackofOz (talk) 07:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I prefer "We still don't know the answer to XXXX." (where "XXXX" is whatever followup question we asked of the OP). That leaves out any possible criticism - while hopefully still nudging the OP into telling us what we need to know. However, long experience with the RefDesk says that well under half of all followup questions to our OP's are ever answered - which is kinda depressing. SteveBaker (talk) 20:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Even better. Tks, Steve, -- JackofOz (talk) 20:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thread at the Reference Desk

I sincerely regret to do this, not only because it is non-productive, but also because it may unnecessarily be on the forefront of some important contributors' minds, but I think that it is necessary. Dr. Dec is an important contributor to the reference desk who we do appreciate. However, he has made a couple of serious accusations recently, against other editors, based on this thread at the RD/M - Mathematics_reference_desk#The_answer_to_this_system_of_equations.3F. I should explain the details behind this dispute but only for the sake of understanding it and not for any other means (that is, I do not believe that any action should be taken against any editor involved (including Dr. Dec)). I should also note that I am not supporting the full series of events with diffs - the relevant pages are User_talk:Dr_Dec/Archives/2009/10 (his archives), User talk:PMajer and User talk:Bo Jacoby, if it is necessary. I just wish to note, per repeated request (), that on several occassions (including this one), Dr Dec has failed to understand the consequences of his actions.

After the thread at RD/M, Dr Dec warned User:PMajer for quoting the bible, and using latin, on an English Misplaced Pages - . Subsequently, PMajer replied to Dr Dec on his talk page, which he archived. However, Dr Dec continued to warn pma on pma's talk page. This lead to further comments on pma's talk page, further comments on Dr Dec's talk page (now archived), further comments on Bo Jacoby's talk page, as well as (most recently) the accusation on Dr Dec's part, that Bo Jacoby was "trolling his page" (after Dr Dec requested Bo Jacoby to explain his comments on Dr Dec's talk page). At this point, I had lost my patience, since it was clear that Dr Dec wished to continue the dispute, after making further comments on Bo Jacoby's talk page.

Quite a selective version of events PST. All of the edit histories show that I explained my problems to him calmly (1), that he continued to attack me in the edit summary (2), that I used Misplaced Pages procedure to caution him (3), and that he continued to attack me (4). ~~Dr Dec (Talk)~~ 11:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You are right - I did mention that I did not give the complete picture with my post. I also agree that your tone was calm, but I am concerned about the attitude you displayed towards the matter. --PST 14:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Here I will emphasize a few things, which I consider to be an important part of this post. Firstly, despite me saying so (in the dispute), I do not believe that action should be taken against any editor. Secondly, I do not intend to start a major debate here on the issue. My main concern is that, if my understanding of the matter is correct, Dr Dec still cannot see why his actions were not appropriate (again, this is my opinion; I would like other editors to confirm this). I fear that this may lead to a similar dispute and waste the time of other editors (as well as Dr. Dec). Therefore, I thought that even though this post may waste time, it will save possible future time lost, if Dr Dec is able to understand the circumstances. In fact, the dispute I have mentioned appears to be in progress despite 4-5 days of arguing. Finally, let me add that I understand Dr. Dec to be an important contributor to the reference desk, we all believe that he is trying hard, but I just want to clarify that his actions were not appropriate (and quite serious) in this particular incident. --PST 00:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Guys (and girls) - and not just the ones involved in this topic - can we please cut out the unnecessary drama on the reference desk? We're here to enjoy ourselves, learn from other people's expertise, and help the OPs. If you find yourself becoming involved in wikidrama, take a five minute break - go read a different website, forget the particular thread, and move on with life. WP:BREAK, WP:TEA, WP:COOL, and all that. Nimur (talk) 01:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The Latin quote referenced is "aut quomodo dicis fratri tuo sine eiciam festucam de oculo tuo" which translates as "Or how sayest thou to thy brother: Let me cast the mote out of thy eye; and behold a beam is in thy own eye?" What's the Latin for "condescending remark"? →Baseball Bugs carrots 01:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

First of all, PST does not "sincerely regret to do this", he's be threatening to "take action" against me for days. This is quite funny given that he is defending someone who has made a string of personal attacks (see my links below). I have followed Misplaced Pages procedure all the while and commented on "contributions" and not "contributors". PST seems to be presenting a rather skewed version of events. I would ask anyone interested to read the pages linked above by PST and myself. I was subjected to a string of personal attacks by pma. I then cautioned pma about personal attacks, at which point PST and BoJacoby decided to join in the discussion. I tried to reason with PST and BoJacoby, but to no avail, they can clearly be seen to be bias. (Especially BoJacoby). I would ask that some of you take the time to read through the sections relating to this and leave your opinion. I have tried to use Misplaced Pages policy to defend myself instead of resorting to name calling. Although if no-one does then I won't mind, pma has already apologised and I now consider the matter closed. Quite why PST has appealed to Misplaced Pages's formal procedure is beyond me, especially when he thinks that "90% of administrators are clueless tyrants".~~Dr Dec (Talk)~~ 12:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Copied from above: I explained my problems to pma calmly (1), that he continued to attack me in the edit summary (2), that I used Misplaced Pages procedure to caution him (3), and that he continued to attack me (4). ~~Dr Dec (Talk)~~ 11:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The fact is that you provoked those attacks by expressing a negative attitude towards the matter. I still maintain my stance about some administrators, but that is irrelevant to the discussion, and in some sense, childish to point out. --PST 14:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

So it's childish to point out your contempt for the very system to which you appeal? By exposing your duplicity I show that your comments need to be taken with a pinch of salt. ~~Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 16:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not a regular at all, but I've seen the whole dispute. It's mushroomed out of nothing and is completely without basis. The reference desks represent the best of Misplaced Pages in that they bring together a collection of editors who voluntarily and freely dispense information to those who ask. It's a shame to get bogged down in personal dispute and drama here. For the record, I thought Dr. Dec's objection to PST's reply to this question was perfectly valid. Simple questions should be met with simple answers. Mathematical rigour and the enforcement of the need for precision are important, but answering in a way people can understand and learn from is more important. Just my 2 cents' worth. —Anonymous Dissident 13:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The point is not the actual dispute (which we are all happy to close, but as I said, appears to continue with Dr. Dec on Bo Jacoby's talk page); it is with Dr. Dec's behaviour. Also, the aspect of the dispute which I am considering does not actually concern Dr. Dec's objection to my first remark (to the OP), but rather roots on Dr. Dec's repeated insistance that using Latin, or quoting the bible on an English Misplaced Pages are inappropriate. That he called Bo Jacoby a troll (in an edit summary in his talk page history), is an accusation which I feel should not be ignored lightly. The purpose here is to clarify that Dr. Dec should not repeat this behaviour in the future (or, if his behaviour was appropriate, to obtain a consensus on this). I am just concerned about the productivity of RD/M - this incident is not the first time Dr. Dec has engaged in a dispute with other editors here (I should emphasize, that it is Dr. Dec's subsequent posting on others' talk pages that is most concerning, and not the merely opinion-based matter on whether one's post is appropriate or not). --PST 14:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

So you're moving the goal posts now? PST, if you're going to make a complaint on here you need to let the community deal with it and discuss it. You can't keep moulding your objection to fit each successive comment made. That way you monopolise the discussion, no-one writes anything, and if you mould your objections too much they'll fall apart. Pma and I have moved on but you don't seem able to. So you turn your attention to discussions between Bo Jacoby and myself. Again, all of these discussions are available for everyone to read. Moreover, they will be able to see Bo Jacoby's clear bias. His behaviour has become somewhat troll like. Take a look at this thread, and this thread. He seems to ignore all of the facts and evidence and remains fixed on his course of anti-me-ism. Furthermore, both pma and Bo Jacoby have called me an "advanced troll" for using Misplaced Pages procedure to defend myself. I know it might sound like a case of "He started it first", but it does highlight PST's bias in this matter; I don't see PST on here complaining about pma and Bo Jacoby calling me a troll! Now, pma has apologised and I have accepted. The matter is now closed. I have told Bo Jacoby that I won't be replying to his posts on his talk page any more because we're going round and around in circles. This is becoming an annoying distraction. Also PST has taken to following me around and commenting on my comments on other users' talk pages. He is clearly becoming obsessed. ~~Dr Dec (Talk)~~ 14:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to post text in the English language Misplaced Pages in languages other than English without providing a translation. There is no exemption for Latin, for Greek, or for any other language. The "public side" of the Reference Desk was an inappropriate venue for the entire sequence of back and forth meta-comments. Someone asked a reasonable question, in a form which implied they were not at an advanced level of study in the field. Someone gave an answer as to how to solve the problem much as any math instructor I had would have done. Then there was a scolding by PST about lack of precision with the intent to "leave an indelible mark on the OP's mind." PST wrote "..politely speaking, you should reword your question in a precise manner and present it again.." That seemed to be going a bit far. I generally oppose responses which scold the questioner for not being as highly educated and precise in terminology as the responder. Edison (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Right on all counts. In addition, PST's self-righteous quoting of the Bible was also seen by Dec as a personal attack, as the quotation talks about removing the beam from one's one eye; a point which PST conviently omitted when bringing that up. He also claimed Dec "provoked" him. That's called the "look what you made me do" game. →Baseball Bugs carrots 15:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a factual correction: It was user pma, not user PST, who started quoting the Bible in Latin. --NorwegianBlue 17:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. It was PST who mis-characterized the situation. →Baseball Bugs carrots 18:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

If you re-read my post, you may notice that I never mentioned myself, PST. I also think that my involvement in the matter was never direct, but that is irrelevant. --PST 00:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You mischaracterized the complaint about the Bible quote, leaving out the part about it being a personal attack. →Baseball Bugs carrots 00:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The saddest part of the story, is that PMA has decided to retire from Misplaced Pages, because s/he felt that s/he by overreacting had set a bad example. Dr. Dec and PMA seem to have buried the hatchet, but nevetheless, PMA appears to feel that the outburst towards Dr. Dec. was more damaging to Misplaced Pages than his/her positive contributions (something with which I totally disagree). --NorwegianBlue 19:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree! The only person with a problem here seems to be PST. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 20:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Although, having read the post that you made on pma's talk page ("learn how to interact with other, possibly immature, editors in a mature way."). Are you suggesting that I have acted immaturely? Are you suggesting that using Misplaced Pages policy to defend myself (1) is an immature thing to do? Are you suggesting that making personal attacks is more mature?(2) ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 20:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't find it constructive to identify whether anyone here has a "problem", or to rate individual editors on a "maturity scale". As I see it, PST wanted to bring the conflict (which has since been resolved), and the consequence (PMA leaving, which has not been resolved), to the attention of the refdesk regulars (in my mind, those of us who want to contribute at the desks, because we believe that the refdesk is a valuable source of information for passers-by, and at the same time a low-threshold introduction to wikipedia editing). I cannot see how that should imply that PST has a "problem", it is a concern, which I share. In my opinion, we should all take heed to Nimur's initial reply in this thread: <quote> can we please cut out the unnecessary drama on the reference desk? We're here to enjoy ourselves, learn from other people's expertise, and help the OPs. If you find yourself becoming involved in wikidrama, take a five minute break - go read a different website, forget the particular thread, and move on with life. WP:BREAK, WP:TEA, WP:COOL, and all that. <endquote> --NorwegianBlue 20:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

If you don't "rate individual editors on a maturity scale" then why make a comment about "learn how to interact with other, possibly immature, editors in a mature way."? Any way, I agree with you latter comments about WP:BREAK, WP:TEA and WP:COOL. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 20:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't quote parts of a post out of context. The items you quoted were not directed against you. --NorwegianBlue 21:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I apologise! I really thought that they were directed at me. I've had a pretty hard time at the hands of pma, PST and Bo Jacoby over the last view days. I've started to become ultra-defensive. Sorry! ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 21:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem! So let's all take a deep breath, and try to stay WP:COOL for the next hundred keystrokes! --NorwegianBlue 21:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou all for your responses, and in particular, I should thank User:NorwegianBlue for attempting to convince pma out of retirement. I think that we have all explained too much, and that it is time to put an end to this matter (I have placed a "resolved tag" at the top of this thread, but if anyone wishes to make further constructive comments, feel free). Although I still feel that Dr. Dec has not completely learnt why he has not acted completely appropriately (an analogy - suppose your best friend did the same thing pma did; would you go and warn him in the same manner if he did not agree with what you said?), I have confidence that he will be more wary of his actions in the future. If Dr. Dec believes that I have a problem, then I apologize, but I feel that I have made an effort to maintain calmness throughout the dispute. I only made a note of the dispute here because I believed this place to have the most friendly atmosphere. There were never going to be any consequences of this thread - only lessons to be learnt (and I admit that I have learnt something from this thread, and from the dispute). In effect, whenever you make a comment on WP, pretend that it is directed towards a friend (or an elder). Would you write in the same way? If not, how would you change your comment? In WP there are no "supporters" or "enemies" - just "friends", and I think the whole dispute is rooted on a misinterpretation of this idea. --PST 11:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Creating/Translating An Article

I have no idea where to place this question, as I spend most of my time on the RefDesks and don't explore the inner workings of Misplaced Pages, but I'll place it here anyway, and if it gets moved I'll follow it there. Anyway, the question is, how do I translate an article from English Misplaced Pages into Japanese? Of course, this will mean that the new article will need to be placed on JP Misplaced Pages. As I have had considerable trouble in the past in linking my two accounts (and still haven't managed to do it!) I cannot understand how it will work. Also, what about internal links on the original article? As those links will point to article on EN Misplaced Pages (many of which have no equivalent on JP Misplaced Pages) would I be linking back to the relevant articles on EN Misplaced Pages, and if so, how is that done? Simply placing '' and '' around the links would obviously not work. Lots of questions here, I apologize, and there will obviously be more when I start on the particular article which I have in mind at the moment, so if there is a tutorial-like article anywhere it might save you time to just point me in that direction. TIA! --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 16:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Questions about the workings of Misplaced Pages belong on the Help Desk, so's ya know. Vimescarrot (talk) 17:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. I'll move it myself, then, eh? --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 18:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Vimescarrot is correct. Anyway, I have never done what you're going to do with any language edition of Misplaced Pages, but it seems to me that (a) your two accounts need not be linked. Just create a new "KageTora" account over on jp and create the article with that account. Or create it as an anon — doesn't matter. (b) Your links should point to articles on jp, not to articles on en. Just create them and let them remain as red links until another editor (or possibly you yourself) creates the new articles. (c) Be sure to point, at the bottom of your article on jp, to the en article with the ] syntax (look at the bottom of a popular article like Barack Obama for examples). Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

If someone has a problem and I recommend Ubuntu: is that trolling?

I often recommend installing Ubuntu (or using the live-CD or live-USB version) to all who are having the typical troubles with Windows. That means less virus, more stability, more free programs, and much more. If I recommend it on the Ref. Desk, is that trolling?--Quest09 (talk) 17:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Moved from Computing -- Coneslayer (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a humanities question rather than a computing one. But yes it could often be. When you see someone with a car not working do you stop and tell them it is rubbish and they should buy xyz? Dmcq (talk) 18:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You are not trolling unless you try to distract or whatever. To an outsider it seems the ones who fail to ignore one sentence mentions are. --194.197.235.240 (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we've all agreed a long time ago that if someone says, "my program is crashing" and you reply with "get Linux", that is not helpful and, depending on your persistence, can be just trolling. If someone asks, "what OS should I use?", then of course suggesting Linux is fine. Answering "use Linux" to "all who are having the typical troubles with Windows" is unhelpful. (For those who want the specific background of this query, see here and here and here.) --Mr.98 (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

(EC) I endorse Mr.98's view. In most cases, I think the recommendation is unhelpful. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

(EC x 2) A person seeking help in solving a specific problem with a program, is not likely to want to change OS just to get it working. We all have our OS preferences, and changing OS will obviously have a great impact on everything else the user uses their PC for. Thus, answering by saying, "just switch to <insert favorite OS>" is unlikely to be helpful to the questioner. That said, I would certainly not regard it as trolling, just inappropriate OS-advocacy. If it were part of a detailed post that suggested various diagnostic steps, e.g. "and to check whether hardware issues are involved, you could also try if the program runs without this problem from a Linux live CD such as ]", it would be fine by me. But if it were the only suggestion offered, I would consider it unhelpful, but certainly not trolling. --NorwegianBlue 18:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with Mr.98. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with most of the sentiments above except that I call unhelpful advertising of an OS that may not be relevant to the OP spamming rather than trolling. Trolling is just being destructive. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Fine, whichever. In the past we've labeled people who did this repeatedly as engaging in trolling behavior, because it becomes a baiting mechanism to get into a debate about the merits of Windows/Linux/whatever. (For the record: I don't actually use Windows!) I consider behavior that is calculated to get a distracting response to be a form of trolling. Anyway, if you look at the exchange above, what I was responding to regarding "trolling" was his post on my user page. (In response to me saying that he was being unhelpful to suggest that the OP switch to Linux, he replied by suggesting I switch to Linux. I consider that a trolling response.) --Mr.98 (talk) 21:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Previously, users here have complained if someone were to ask "What OS are you using?" The argument is that almost everyone uses Windows, so assume that every questioner uses Windows unless they state otherwise. Therefore, they are claiming that asking which OS a person uses is not acceptable. From that standpoint, telling a user to use a different OS is not acceptable.

It is my opinion that telling a user who is not capable of using Windows to use Linux is unacceptable. If a person is struggling with Windows, that person will certainly struggle with Linux. Then, they have a new problem. They can't ask their friends for help. They have to hunt down some Linux people - who, usually, will be far less than helpful. The problem is not Windows. So, swapping it out doesn't fix the problem. The problem is the user. You may as well tell them to quit using the computer and give it to someone else. It is the same advice. -- kainaw™ 19:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Mr.98's basic point; whether it's technically trolling or simply unhelpful is mostly semantics; either way, it should stop. Matt Deres (talk) 03:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Informing them that alternatives exist is NOT trolling. No one is shoving Ubuntu down any OP's throat. If you think 09 is trolling, why don't you do the "right" thing and answer the question that the OP raises? On a related note, if you think this is trolling, why do you tell 09 that he is trolling? Don't you know you are not supposed to feed trolls? Kushal (talk) 22:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Saying "use Ubuntu" is not an alternative. A user says he or she is having problems with the video driver and Sims 3. The response "use Ubuntu" is pathetic. Sims 3 does not run reasonably well on Ubuntu. Just to get it run at all requires a hell of a lot more knowledge about computers than it takes to run it on Windows. Even then, the video driver in Ubuntu may still be screwed up, so the problem isn't solved. Keep in mind - there are many many many Windows problems that are not solved in any way by using Ubuntu. Therefore, it is not a valid answer. -- kainaw™ 23:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Very well put, Kainaw. You are correct. Based on what the OP wants to accomplish, suggesting Linux can be considered trolling. Especially in the video driver and Sims 3 case, I disapprove of the use linux answer as much as I dislike the random slapping of homework templates without reading the OP's whole comment. A small voice in me keeps saying that suggesting Linux may be appropriate in some (or many) scenarios but not all. Kushal (talk) 07:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Because there is simple bad-faith trolling and there is unconscious or unintentional trolling, where a person doesn't realize the full ramifications of what they are doing. We always WP:AGF unless given evidence to the contrary. Regardless, when someone is asking for clarification, ignoring them would be unhelpful. Matt Deres (talk) 02:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider "install Ubuntu" as trolling, unless it appeared everywhere. However, it is usually very unhelpful. I've noticed for many technical problems with PCs there is always someone who unhelpfully chips in with "Use linux" or with "Reinstall Windows" - another equally unhelpful answer.

In the same way that if your car doesn't start, the mechanic rarely suggests you need a new car or you should replace the engine without trying lots of other things first, then we should not be suggesting other OSes or reinstalling windows as the first thing to do. Astronaut (talk) 06:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I would side with the not-trolling group, though it is quite insensitive and unhelpful to suggest when not specifically asked about linux or alternatives to the current OS. My particular view on this subject is that unless I'm asked specifically about the OS I choose, whether it's "better" or "worse" than another OS, or any benefits or disadvantages of using one OS over another it is quite inappropriate to suggest that someone switch to any OS. In my case, I tend to use (and advocate) using OS X, but with the exception of a period of time in high school I only suggest people choose OS X when I'm specifically asked for opinions on new computers without the "I want windows" stipulation AND when OS X seems like it will fit their needs better. On the other hand, recomending use of a LiveCD to diagnose a problem with hardware or even software seems perfectly acceptable, but it would need to come with accurate instructions on their specific problem in order to be a useful tool in resolving the question as many people who are used to windows would have no idea where to start when seeing an interface that contains no familiar names and some significantly diffrent methods of interface design. Caltsar (talk) 16:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a matter of context - and the frequency with which a particular person does it. We most certainly can't start labelling people who mention Linux as trolls. But - if someone monotonously uses this answer to every single Windows question, then clearly it's gotten out of control. SteveBaker (talk) 03:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of questions to which this is pretty much the ideal answer. For instance: "I have a new netbook. I'd like to surf sleazy porn sites on it without worrying about getting spyware. What should I do?" Turns out that Ubuntu is a pretty good answer there. Same with "I run the computer lab for a high school with no funding. We have a lot of machines that run Windows ME and are full of viruses. I don't want to pirate XP and they're way too weak to run Vista. What should I do?" --FOo (talk) 04:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Those questions ask specifically about alternatives to an operating system, and reccomending Linux in that case is valid, but the issue this question poses is involving problems where reccomending Linux may not only be unhelpful, but also counterproductive. I could say "Have you thought about buying a Mac" if the question is "I'm sick of X annoyance with windows and I play WoW sometimes but I'm not a big gamer" and it would be an acceptable though perhaps not totally helpful answer. The response would be totally inappropriate in the case of "I'm sick of X annoyance in windows, how do I fix it?" or "I'm sick of X annoyance in windows, but I still want to play my huge library of PC games." Each question has a context and while Linux is a perfectly acceptable OS for many people, recomending they switch for all their problems is not helpful for many questions asked on the ref desk. I find that a general rule to follow when answering computer questions anywhere is to not recomend an alternate software package or an alterante OS unless specifically asked for one or if the current OS/software package truely is unable to meet their needs. Caltsar (talk) 16:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Digital broadcasting

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

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

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

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

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

Copyvio on RD/Ent?

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

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

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

RefDesk front page

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

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

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

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

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

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

So how would you tackle this one? →Baseball Bugs carrots 04:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don't single me out, please. And assume some good faith yourself. →Baseball Bugs carrots 14:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

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

I was commenting on the sarcasm of others. You got a problem with their sarcasm, take it to them. →Baseball Bugs carrots 17:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

User:68.244.107.246

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe you'd like "troll with hundreds of socks" better? →Baseball Bugs carrots 04:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

And I say you've got it wrong. →Baseball Bugs carrots 22:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

About "Resolved" tags

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Be careful when reverting trolls

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

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

Unresolvable collateral damage discussion, hidden as it's drawing attention away from op topic

This is LightCurrent right? Idiot got me banned WHEN I DID NOTHING WRONG because he's on the same ip range as me. I can't even have an account any more because they just get banned as soon as I make one. I'm venting here, sorry, I've already been though this entire situation at wp:an/i and they were as helpful as a moldy loaf of bread. I just think you should know that there is collateral damage here due to him (or, imo the incompetence of the checkusers) -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.124 (talk • contribs) --NorwegianBlue 19:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC) And the sad thing is, that particular troll's reputation is such that I find myself wondering if you might be him. However, I should AGF, so... It's too bad about the collateral damage; it's one of the prices we pay for an open net and a 💕 (almost) anyone can edit. I encourage you to complain to Tivoli. Misplaced Pages's big enough by now that they may have heard of us, and if no one who subscribes to Tivoli can edit Misplaced Pages, they might be able to do something about it. With that said, I'm surprised you're having so much trouble. It's true that LC has gobs of socks, but they only get blocked when he uses them and acts like Light Current. If you're editing noncontroversially, I'm surprised you're attracting such attention. (Can you point me to the AN/I thread you referred to?) —Steve Summit (talk) 20:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC) Here it is. The above user used to vandalise the refdesks heavily with various socks so the checkusers are understandably paranoid. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC) As I've begun to learn from dealing with my own troll nemesis, it doesn't pay to get obsessed with whether a user is a sock of such-and-such. That only feeds the troll. Forget about the socking stuff, and block based on behavior. That's a good way to keep your headaches to a minimum and also to apply WP:DENY to the extent possible. →Baseball Bugs carrots 20:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC) Thanks, Zain. And... oh, wonderful, he's not LC, he's a different notorious former troll. —Steve Summit (talk) 23:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC) Note the "former" in that sentence. Does it serve a purpose to punish someone who wants to contribute constructively for things done over a year ago? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.55.2 (talk • contribs) There are two issues here, as far as I'm concerned: The observable behavior of a reformed former troll is, in general, indistinguishable from the behavior of a former troll who is claiming to be reformed and is begging to be reinstated so that he can say "ha-ha, suckers, got you again". Many people (myself currently included) would much rather spend their limited Misplaced Pages time actually contributing to the encyclopedia, rather than wasting time on dubious rehabilitation efforts that, all too often, only end in further tears. As far as I know, the best (and perhaps the only) way for a notorious former troll to reenter the project is to adopt a brand-new username and a brand-new persona, and start completely from scratch. We'll never know how many former trolls manage to do this, of course. The only ones we know about are the ones who insist on coyly identifying themselves (it seems they can't help it; it's part of the pathology), and once so identified, it's well-nigh impossible for the rest of us not to be gravely suspicious of the real motives. We're not punishing a person; we're punishing -- by banning -- a persona (which is generally the only thing we really know). If our ban of that persona was permanent, what we meant by that was that it was permanent; we decided that we could never trust this persona again, no matter how sincere-sounding their claims to be reformed. (We wouldn't have permanently banned a persona unless they'd reneged on such promises multiple times already.) We did not mean, "We're banning this persona permanently, unless they come back a year later and make really sincere-sounding claims, when there's nobody around to remember how much those claims can be trusted" (which, last time, was "not at all"). Let me turn your question on its head: From the point of view of an ordinary Wikipedian, what purpose is it likely to serve to spend time trying to rehabilitate a troll who, last we knew, did nothing but unrepentantly waste people's time? —Steve Summit (talk) 15:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC) I'm not asking to be rehabilitated or for anyone to spend any time on me at all. I think the fact that I've not done ANY vandalism or trolling since last September, now over a year ago, and that with ever edit since then I have been helpful at the Ref Desks is proof I want to contribute constructively. All I wanted was to have an account to answer questions at the Ref Desk. I did exactly what you suggested Steve Summit, I created a new account (after several months of anon editing here) and within a month it was blocked due to light current. Anyway, I wasn't expecting this much discussion to come of angry comment I posted yesterday. There's nothing anyone here can do, the Checkusers don't believe me and they'll just block any new account I make to edit constructively with, so any more discussion on this is pointless. As I said above, I was just venting. The advice I was given by a wise admin was to assume that there is, in fact, only one troll out there who causes all this trouble. You can't stop the socks, because the troll has figured out how to IP-hop; so you just whack them as they turn up and be done with it. That's the "RBI" principle. →Baseball Bugs carrots 23:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC) I think that we could solve two major issues here. First of all, trolls are a real pain in the you-know-where and as such they need to be removed. Second, the US, Russia, China, the UK and France have stockpiles of nuclear weapons that they have all signed treaties to remove. (Let's not mention India, Pakistan and Israel) So here's an idea: why don't we nuke trolls?! We could get a pretty good fix on their approximate location via their IP addresses, and what's a bit of collateral damage when we can take out a troll? ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 23:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC) ← There goes one now. →Baseball Bugs carrots 00:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC) Problem with nukes in general is that they take out a lot of things other than the intended military target. What we want here are precision strikes on trolls, if possible. Because if in the process of minimizing trolling we actually cut into the lifeblood of the Ref Desk, then the trolls have won, and all that. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC) The best "precision strike" is a bounty. If everyone with interest donated money to a bounty account, we'd be able to pay someone who "ensured that the troll would never use Misplaced Pages again." We won't be promoting anything illegal. If the bounty hunter did an illegal action, it would be the bounty hunter's fault. We'd just be paying a reward for the end result, one which would be limited to a single person. -- kainaw™ 12:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Medical Advice Removed

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

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

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

strange thing happened

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

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

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

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

Not again

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

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

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

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