Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:08, 18 February 2011

• WT:RD

• Misplaced Pages Reference desks
  • Computing
  • Entertainment
  • Humanities
  • Language
  • Mathematics
  • Science
  • Miscellaneous
  • All
  • Archives

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133

RD Guidelines 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,

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

Add a resolved box on closed cases

This will allow for identification of ones that still need help. Perhaps we add a notice for people to do so? It makes it much easier. General Rommel (talk) 10:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

But who decides that a case (by which I assume you mean a question) is closed? Often only the OP can know if their perplexity has been resolved, and they are the least likely to carry out such a housekeeping task. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 10:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

There have been several previous discussions on this, some I found in the archive; 82.43.92.41 (talk) 10:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

When a OP says anywhere Resolve and anything similar to that word (i.e. resolved, answered satisfactorily, etc), then we proceed to enter the box in. General Rommel (talk) 11:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

How much time does it actually take to read a question and determine if it has been answered? Even the busiest of the Desks might see a dozen questions over the course of a day, and most Desks and most days are rather lighter. What effort are we actually saving by closely monitoring questions and adding additional tags? The previous discussions linked by the IP make good reading on this topic. Here's a quick summary of what I see as the problems with applying such tags.

1. OP's seldom return to tell us that their question is resolved (or to express appreciation for our assistance in any way). Relying on them to return in order for us to apply the flag is an exercise in futility.
2. Even if a question has been answered to the OP's satisfaction, that doesn't mean that other editors aren't interested in further exploration of the question or subsequent discussion. We don't want to inadvertently choke off deeper discussions of a topic.
3. Questions that have an answer don't always have a full and correct answer. A question can appear to be 'resolved' for quite some time before another editor sees a mistake. We don't want to actively discourage review of responses already made.
4. The vast majority of questions already receive a rapid, prompt, reasonably correct answer (in my experience on the Science and Misc Desks; I can't comment on other Desks). We don't generally seem to have difficulty finding the questions which require responses.
5. This will have suboptimal effects on watchlists. Each time someone adds the 'resolved' tag, editors who have watchlisted the Ref Desk will be seeing the subject line for a question already answered. It's more constructive for them to be seeing the edit summaries and thread headers for new questions and for active discussions. (We want to use every tool at our disposal to serendipitously suck in the Ref Desk's occasional volunteers.)

What might be more useful is some means to flag questions which haven't received attention after a set period of time (24 hours, perhaps) because after that length of time has passed they are otherwise likely not to be answered at all. I suspect that the questions that do go unanswered generally do so because we lack the skill, knowledge, or expertise to approach them, rather than because we didn't see them — but I'm just guessing. Someone with more time on his hands might want to go through the archives and to see what we haven't answered. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm opposed to all this stuff. The problem with "Resolved" is that so many of the answers on the RefDesks are wrong. The problem with flagging unanswered questions is that in so many cases the best response to a question is to ignore it. Looie496 (talk) 18:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

That's an excellent point, too. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with ToaT and Looie496. If the OP wants to mark it as resolved, fine, but otherwise it's no big deal. Matt Deres (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay then! General Rommel (talk) 09:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

On some websites that offer a similar service to the RD, the questioner has the option to choose the answer he or she feels best answered his or her question. Maybe there could be a similar template to the {resolved} box that the questioner can use. schyler (talk) 02:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting idea, although it seems that few OP's acknowledge seeing the answer, in any way, shape or form. I wonder if adding such a template might encourage them to do so? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

But that mechanism, along with a points system that rewards people for answering as many questions as possible, is part of why Yahoo answers is such a cesspool compared to here. Why would we try to emulate that? 86.162.68.36 (talk) 18:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

As discussed a bit in the previous suggestion above, it seems OP's just don't bother with putting resolved tags, so why here? General Rommel (talk) 05:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

EDITABLE responses

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

WHEREAS raising the quality of mainspace articles in Misplaced Pages is a shared goal of volunteers who edit in consensus;
AND constructive editing proceeds by critically reviewing what has been posted and making corrections and additions concerned with factual content, its relevance, English prose form, politeness and grammar;
AND questioners at the Ref. Desks can reasonably expect response(s) whose quality exemplifies the quality of Misplaced Pages as a whole;
I PROPOSE THAT
1. When an editor posts a response and can tolerate that it be reviewed by others then he or she may use the word EDITABLE instead of a regular signature at the end;
2. The posting may then be edited by others in the same way as a mainspace article.
PROVIDING
3. Posting an EDITABLE post is optional for anyone;
4. Only EDITABLE posts are freely open to changes, deletions or additions by anyone;
RATIONALISING THAT
5. An EDITABLE response is no more or less anonymous than an ordinarily signed post, because its poster(s) can be located in the page history, but they do serve to depersonalise what an OP is likely to read;
6. Giving an EDITABLE response can shield the OP from subsequent discussion that often arises between editors, and that may still be done collegially on this page or on an individual talk page;
7. An EDITABLE response provides an avenue for editing facts and grammar without causing embarassment or offence to another editor.
PLEASE COMMENT. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Note: I made minor formatting changes to the above for readability WikiDao ☯ 19:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Will anyone think to do this? Personally, if we were just answering questions, well then we can see all the opinions of people. It would get hard to find what the last opinion was. Discussion may also lead to a better answer. And usually we don't mind about punctuation and grammar . And if the person had bad grammar I don't think that person would be a person who would bother and put a 'editable' tag before the 4 tiles (or whatever they are called) What do others think? General Rommel (talk) 09:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

4 tildes, mein general. The heading at ref. desks says "if you need advice or opinions, it's better to ask elsewhere". The proposal says EDITABLE instead of regular signature, see point 1. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Can't see the benefit really. The reference desk isn't about "improving" the language of contributors and it sounds a bit like bureaucracy to me. What's more, I think that it's important to know who created the question, so I'm not keen on "instead of" signature. Worm 10:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean "know who created the answer" which one still does, see point 5 above ? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, I was under the impression that this was aimed at the questioner, rather than the responders, I misread. Either way, I do not feel that point 5 is sufficient. Looking in the page history for an edit is a chore, especially on high traffic articles. What about after archiving, it will be even harder to find the user who responded. I know that there are editors for whom correct spelling/grammar is high on their list of priorities, but I'm afraid I am not one of them. I believe that language is evolving and (in non-article space) it's the meaning which is important, not following archaic rules. Worm 11:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Worm, your apologies are accepted. If point 5 is really insufficient, a poster could declare both an EDITABLE and their normal signature. However that creates a problem as soon as anyone edits the post: do they add their second signature or leave the original signature on a changed post? If the meaning is, as you say, important, why do you attach such importance to finding the user(s)? They can be found using the date filter in the archive. Please see the article Wisdom of the crowd as it may relate to consensus contra anyone's wish to keep published Misplaced Pages material (not on Talk pages) exclusively attached to their name. You make your view about English clear and I suggest you find another forum to denigrate modern educated English (US or British) as bound by "archaic" rules. If that is a sensitive point for you, which is understandable if you sincerely believe you are on the cutting edge of a language revolution, then you may understand why point 7 was needed. It addresses the problem of editors who continue to post responses knowingly in substandard English and protest bitterly at any move to correct, or even notice, their repeating error. That should not be a problem for you. (Please do not make it one here. Misplaced Pages has articles on modern English grammar that you might try to improve if so inclined.) Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The heart of the matter for me is the fact that the reference desk is not article space. It should not be held to the same grammatical standards. I don't believe that I am on the cutting edge of a revolution, I believe that language is constantly evolving and as long as meaning is not lost, I do not see any problem with minor grammatical issues (even if I do want to shout anyone who says "should of"). Whilst attribution is maintainted by the editing history, signing posts allow further discussion with editors, thanking and viewing patterns of editing, should they be needed.

On a personal level, I have no issue with my posts being edited, as long as my meaning isn't lost, but I'm pretty easy going and I understand why people would have an issue. I know my grammatical skills are not up to scratch as my specialism is mathematics and I keep that in mind when I write in the article space. In that article space I actively request copy edits to ensure the articles I write are high quality. However, I would never use an EDITABLE flag as it specifically implies I don't trust myself. Worm 15:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Cuddlyable, once again you fail to understand the purpose that brings us here. Correcting grammar on the ref desk is a waste of effort and should be discouraged rather than encouraged. Bringing the "wisdom of crowds" to bear on finding referenced answers to question is the point. Wasting that roughly finite resource on beautifying the page is not.

It has been explained to you again and again that the consensus is that correct grammar is nice, but unnecessary on the ref-desks. That is what the wisdom of this crowd has settled on as most efficient. If you really believe in using the 'power of crowds' to solve issues you will concede that this decision has been made and it's time to move on. APL (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

As I've noted elsewhere, this entire discussion is a waste of time, but I can't resist asking: Cuddlyable, if you believe in the wisdom of the crowd, why can you not respect that crowd's right and ability to evolve language? —Steve Summit (talk) 03:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

NO. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 10:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The Reference Desk generally follows the conventions and rules of talk pages. See Help:Using talk pages for information on the established norms. Nimur (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Solution in search of a problem. Ref desk answers may be used to improve article space, but there not supposed to just be copied too articles without any additional thought. --LarryMac | Talk 15:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Absofuckinglutely not. This is a blatant backdoor attempt by Cuddlyable3 to return to This total bullshit from last year. Please lets not go back to that again. Don't open up mechanisms to allow Cuddlyable3 to correct people's grammar again. It is just likely to lead to more drama and heartache as it did last time. We should continue the current practice. We ignore bad grammar and spelling when it does not affect the understandability of the response, we ask for clarification when it does (however, we do not stray into WP:POINT when clarification really isn't needed), we correct factual errors with further posts and references. That is how it works now, and how it should work. This is a ludicrously misguided and selfserving proposal. --Jayron32 16:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

This is stupid. It achieves nothing useful. It introduces new rules and procedures, and it will almost certainly reduce the accuracy of the reference desk. All so cuddlyable can get a thrill from correcting someone's use of "it's" to "its".

Cuddlyable, if you've got such an unhealthy obsession with fixing homonyms, why not join Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors? At least that way you'll be editing in a situation where correcting people's homonyms is a good thing and therefore you won't make an ass of yourself while feeding your homonym-correction urges. APL (talk) 17:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

My vote is NO. No further comments are needed. Aaronite (talk) 17:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

<shrugs> OK by me I guess if others want to say "EDIT this response if you want to" at the end of their response, though I'd still prefer they sign, too. If others want to state such "permission" at the end of each response, who's to stop them? No one has to do anything per this proposal. I agree though that it is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, and I can't imagine it catching on. But it does not seem to warrant such strong -- or such foully expressed -- opposition it seems to have provoked in some... WikiDao ☯ 18:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC) p.s. I am going to format your original post with some <br />'s, if you don't mind, Cuddlyable3

The reason why it has provoked such a strong negative response is because Cuddlyable3 was involved a few months ago in a very disruptive and distracting campaign to correct other editors' grammar and spelling. This latest proposal appears to be an attempt to resurrect that conduct through an elaborate bureaucratic procedure.

This is a reference desk, no more and no less. We attempt to put people with questions in touch with sources that contain answers. It isn't an experiment in new forms of talk page interaction, nor is it the Misplaced Pages School of Grammar. Cuddlyable3's proposal doesn't aid us in achieving our aim here; instead, it is a recipe for conflict and confusion. (If two editors disagree about the correctness of an 'editable' post, then we invite an edit war, instead of the threaded discussion through which we usually handle such situations. If someone silently 'corrects' or adjusts a post at the head of a threaded discussion, it may render subsequent posts nonsensical. Without laborious tracing through the page history, it becomes difficult to determine who said what, when in any given post.) The Reference Desk is an interactive service where unique individuals participate in a discussion and exchange information. It makes no sense to try to format a conversation as an article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with all of that. At first I saw no reason to actually oppose it, though: if people wanted to actually state "feel free to edit my response" I didn't see where the harm would be in that (not that I can really see that happening much). On further reflection, though, that really shouldn't be permitted, as it may easily result in confusion about who was responding to what version and so on. Best that things be left as they are, or else struck-out with a clear notice that a change has been made, should that be necessary or helpful, by the editor him-or-herself who made the response that might require such a change. WikiDao ☯ 19:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

No. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I will repeat my statement from a post last week. Cuddlyable3, you have been around Misplaced Pages long enough to have read WP:POINT. Please stop disrupting the reference desk. Your point has been made, and you are clearly in the minority. The consensus of other editors is very clear: the reference desk currently works fine; we do not need major changes in our operational policy, because the current model is very effective at providing references; and we do not want our signed posts to be edited, per the talk page guidelines. Nimur (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

No. For the reasons stated above (esp the WP:POINT issue), and because this proposal would undermine one of the little rewards I perceive when reading the RD: the sense of community. Signatures are a big part of that. -- Scray (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

No. Who has responded is often important to me as a user/reader of the encyclopedia. Some responders I will read even when I have no other interest in the question. Some responders are just better than others -more informative and more entertaining. I would hate to lose signatures that quickly show me where I won't be wasting my time. And I would equally hate to find their answers were being messed about, especially by others who may be just plain wrong. (Even if the proposer of this new practice never errs, there are many, many others who will "correct" what wasn't wrong in the first place.) Bielle (talk) 20:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

One possible concession: Cuddly could post his own responses to questions with a tag that says, "Other editors are free to edit my comments." Then we can see if his proposed experiment has legs. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Harmless enough. It's not like we're deciding a policy. Watch Cuddly do it, link to an essay page, and see if people pick up on it - it's way better than arguing this. It'll make everyone feel better that they all have some recognition in this issue. SamuelRiv (talk) 02:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Me, I'm just idly wondering

a. how much time (that could have been spent answering questions or improving the encyclopedia) has been wasted vehemently commenting on cuddlyable's proposal here, and

b. to the extent the waste is a problem, whose fault it is. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Just seen this. At the risk of wasting even more of our collective time, I'd like to say no, no, no, for the love of God, no. If anyone has the urge to correct other people's spelling and grammar, they have 6,940,236 articles at their disposal. We deal with inaccurate or incomplete refdesk answers by civilly offering a better response, properly explained and sourced. I cannot see how pre-sanctioned refactoring of others' comments, by any passing user who feels like it, will produce a simpler or more effective refdesk. -- Karenjc 10:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment. At present, any edit of another user's comment is considered vandalism and can be reverted quickly. If we permit the proposal, we will have to vigilantly guard every edit of another user's comment to manually monitor which edits are acceptable, and which are malicious. That would be prohibitively difficult. Nimur (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

No. Although Cuddlyable3's intent is to improve the grammar on the Reference Desk, the improvement to the Reference Desk as a result of grammar corrections to others' posts would be tiny, and the unintended consequences of this proposal would drown out the tiny improvement with a river of problems. If SteveBaker were here and hadn't been chased off the Reference Desk by Cuddlyable3 in the first place, he would point out that somebody might correct his use of "automagically" to "automatically" which changes the content of his answer, which of course is unacceptable. Content changes would sometimes happen even though Cuddlyable3's proposal is that this be optional. No. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Resources

I propose copying the contents of User:Wavelength/About Internet & WWW/Ask an expert to a new page to be called Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Resources, with a shortcut WP:RD/R, or Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Ask an expert, with a shortcut WP:RD/K. It can be listed under "See also" at Misplaced Pages:Reference desk. (There can be additional pages for "Search engines", "Web directories", and "Databases".) It can have a number of uses.

• as a list of alternative places for visitors to ask questions
• as a list of resources to help respondents to find answers to questions
• as a means to assist Wikipedians and others in comparing the quality of service provided in different places

The new page can be revised by the Misplaced Pages community, but I prefer to be the only editor editing the original page.
—Wavelength (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

This proposal is prompted by my recent reply at Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Miscellaneous, although I have for some time considered starting such a page.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support the general concept with details such as name of page and exact scope to be hammered out later. This seems like a pretty good idea. --Jayron32 20:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support, as above. Some ideas for formatting: we could structure the page as a "Comparison of Online Reference Services" and use a sortable wikitable for the list, with separate columns for various features, subject-areas, and so on. Take a look at articles in Category:Comparisons, or the tables of our Web Browser feature-comparisons, for ideas about the sort of formatting I think would be useful. Nimur (talk) 21:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Jayron32 and Nimur, for your support. I have given the matter some more thought, and I now deem the name "Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Resources" to be too general and vague. I am now considering the following names.

• "Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/List of online reference desks"
• "Misplaced Pages:List of online reference desks"
• "List of online reference desks"
• "Comparison of online reference services"

A page with either of those last two names would be in the article namespace, and it might be more prone to deletion or to stringent requirements of notability for its listings. The new page can be listed under "See also" at Misplaced Pages:Reference desk, along with the following pages.

• Library reference desk
• List of online databases
• List of search engines
• List of web directories
• List of wikis
• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Resource Exchange

I have considered columns for various features, and I have deemed the following features to be useful.

• Registration (yes/no)
• E-mail (yes/no)
• Active (yes/no)
• Archives (yes/no)
• Payment (yes/no)
• Language (English/...)

Unfortunately, I am not ready to spend the time in setting up a table and in researching data for populating its cells. If I start the page, is someone else ready to format the information in a table?

—Wavelength (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Unfotunately, I'm not much of a coding guy. I'm a prose kinda guy. Tables are a chore for me, and I'm not very good at it. As for you other proposals, I think either of the links in the Misplaced Pages namespace would be good. Since it isn't actually a reference desk (where you may ask questions), it probably shouldn't be a subpage. But it could have a prominent link in either the main refdesk entry page WP:RD and/or in the generic refdesk header on each of the actual ref desks. --Jayron32 03:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I may be able to find a little time to help out, you could start it out of article space and I'll certainly fiddle with it bit by bit. Would the word "other" be useful in the title? "List of other online reference services" - that way not implying they are from wikipedia. Worm 08:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea. To my mind, it would be better to keep this out of article space, so as to allow us to include links to less-notable sites and also to allow critical commentary, if needed. I'd be happy to help out with the tables. I've only had limited experience with making tables, but they turned out alright and I'd actually like to learn more. Matt Deres (talk) 12:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I've created an initial table based on Wavelength's sub page. Needs a little tidying and a fair amount of research. User:Worm That Turned/List of reference desks. Will do some more tomorrow, but if anyone fancies a fiddle, feel free. Worm 15:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I have just started Misplaced Pages:List of online reference desks, and I have just listed it with 6 other internal links under a heading "See also" at Misplaced Pages:Reference desk. Editors are invited to transform Misplaced Pages:List of online reference desks into a table. If the Misplaced Pages Reference Desk is included in the table, then the word "other" is unnecessary. This is not meant to dissuade editors from revising the new page just started by Worm. We can adopt the best features of each one.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the Misplaced Pages Resource Exchange should be in any general lists as it is designed specifically for Misplaced Pages editors, not for "public" use as a way to circumvent copyright restrictions. It is justifiable for editors, since access to copyrighted materials to write an encyclopedia can be claimed as a fair use. Franamax (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I have removed that link from the list of internal links.

—Wavelength (talk) 23:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Question removed

Question asking for opinion about a living person removed here. A previous editor has commented on the OP's talk page.--Shantavira| 09:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Good call. Utterly inappropriate for the refdesk; a potential magnet for BLP violations. Karenjc 10:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

109.128.101.244

Is anyone else getting increasingly irritated by this user's contributions? APL (talk) 20:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, it sounds like it may be the same person as the ethical card-shark from awhile back (whose "sincerity" on that one I ended up doubting myself at the time).

91.183.62.45 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

109.128.101.244 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

(Both locate to Brussels). I thought the question about the "smarter self" was a good one, though. Clearly the person is intelligent, even if they may be inclined to trouble-making somewhat. But I haven't looked too much at any of the other contribs, so I don't have too much of an opinion yet. WikiDao ☯ 21:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, my (possibly mistaken) impression is that there is an element of "Stump the RefDeskers" being played. However, while a proportion of the questions thus far verge towards opinion-fishing or debate-provoking and might be deletable if and when they clearly cross those lines, others seem to fall within acceptable parameters. I think it would be dangerous to start deleting or blocking questions on the grounds of assumed motive rather than content, and a permissable interesting question (plus answers) is interesting to other readers (including ourselves) regardless of how much the OP really wants to know. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 07:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC).

Based on , I'm pretty sure 217.136.92.148 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) is the same as 109 (also 109.128.65.7 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)) Nil Einne (talk) 10:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

These are damn-interesting questions! How can you be irritated by such things? They have stimulated a lot of thought for me - I've really enjoyed reading people's answers to them, and IP has never been disruptive or inappropriate in such questions. Removing or reverting such a question just because you find it "annoying" probably means you should take a step back from the Ref Desk for a day or two, or at least try to put the notion of "annoying questions" into the context of easily-ignorable hypertext. SamuelRiv (talk) 19:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that this is not the "Interesting Discussion Desk". This is the "Reference Desk". There are thousands of forums for interesting discussion. -- kainaw™ 21:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say "interesting discussions". I said "interesting questions" with interesting responses that in their intrigue further the cause of widening the scope of education for both ends of the academic spectrum. That said, we aren't robots - there is a holistic element to answering a question that makes it, by some semantics, a "discussion", so I would suggest your comment is pedantic were it relevant. SamuelRiv (talk) 22:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. If a question can be answered, troll or not, it should be. Remember my rant a few sections above? These questions and answers serve as much as an ad for our service as anything else, so if new users see us blasting stuff for from their perspective no reason, they won't post at all. What use is that? Again. Tired of a particular OP? Don't answer.

Besides, if we are to use the archive to keep these questions for future reference (see what I did there), then maybe someone someday who is not a troll does want an answer to that question. Aaronite (talk) 17:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with SamuelRiv and Aaronite. I see nothing particularly wrong with this user's questions so far; they certainly do not "annoy" me. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Also agree with SR, Aaron, Gandalf. This is someone who can be worked with, and may be drawn eventually into contributing to WP in useful, constructive, valuable-to-WP ways. Many quite competent and intelligent people may also be "annoying" in various ways at various times, especially when they're younger. These people need to be tolerated, corrected when necessary, but otherwise drawn further whenever and however possible into the WP community. WikiDao ☯ 11:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

section removed

I just removed a section because it speaks about the death of a specific person without any evidence that the person is dead or died in the way indicated. And it wouldn't be acceptable to discuss a specific non-notable person in that way in any case. Looie496 (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal. The link given goes to the person's Facebook page. From that, it's pretty clear the person is dead. You can confirm this if you enter his name into Google News. Given that, I fail to see how BLP is relevant. The removal also removes the main point of the question, i.e. is there any solid scriptural basis for saying that suicides go to hell. --Viennese Waltz 19:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

It's perfectly possible to ask that question without naming a specific person, especially if the person is not notable and he is named in a way that would cause distress to anybody who knew him. Looie496 (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, which is why what you did – blanking the section – was wrong and what Egg Centric did – anonymising it – was right. --Viennese Waltz 19:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The 'L' in BLP remains important because the original question didn't provide reliable sources confirming the individual was deceased (Facebook isn't generally a reliable source, and an account could have been created or hijacked as a malicious prank); and because speculation and unsubstantiated discussion about the deceased – particularly the recently deceased – can have real and detrimental effects on the decedent's still-living friends and family. We further hold ourselves to a higher standard when we discuss people who are not public figures regularly subject to broad media coverage (that is, not celebrities or politicians), in part because it is all to easy for our casual on-wiki ramblings to become the top Google hit for those individuals. It is not Looie's responsibility to seek out additional references to support unsourced and poorly-sourced biographical claims before he removes them, nor is it his responsibility to attempt to rephrase and anonymize the content; it is up to the person who wants to post the material to do so. Both Looie496 and Egg Centric took actions that were correct and within policy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

"and an account could have been created or hijacked as a malicious prank" is a good point. You can use an official Facebook if you are positive that it belongs to the person and that it wasn't compromised. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You are losing sight of the fact that as well as the (admittedly dubious) material about a named individual, the OP asked a perfectly allowable question. Blanking the whole section removed that question, which is unacceptable in my view. It's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If an editor wants to remove the BLP stuff then fine, but it is their responsibility to retain what was a perfectly valid question. --Viennese Waltz 09:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP doesn't place a burden on editors enforcing that policy to attempt to salvage useful residue before removing inappropriate content, particularly when the bulk of a post is gratuitous and irrelevant discussion of a private individual. (And don't forget that substantially modifying the signed comments of another editor is a minefield all its own; the latitude we have to modify other people's writing on the Ref Desks and on talk pages is quite a bit different than that we have in article space.) Looie even immediately notified both the original poster of the question (on the IP's talk page) and the other editors of the Ref Desk (through this thread) so that anyone who was interested could provide a revised version of the post—he probably went above and beyond the call of duty there. If you're not convinced that Looie's application of WP:BLP was correct, then I recommend that you seek a third opinion at WP:BLP/N or WP:AN. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

My, you are obsessed with policy, aren't you. I'm not particularly interested in BLP enforcement, I'm interested in a user's reasonable expectation not to have a legitimate question removed just because some other part of their post fell foul of BLP. In my view the only person who should be responsible for "provid a revised version of the post" is the editor who removed it in the first place. --Viennese Waltz 14:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. My very first response to your misplaced outrage provided a detailed, reasoned explanation for why it was appropriate for Looie to take the action he did, since you expressed sarcastic ignorance as to why we would remove comments about a purportedly deceased individual. My most recent comment addressed some of the reasons why removing the entire post makes sense, rather than attempting to dissect and redact it. I mentioned WP:BLP partly because some people prefer to fall back on the comfort of written policy (though my statements and reasoning hold up equally well in light of WP:IAR), partly because Looie mentioned it first and you seemed intent on framing the discussion in its terms, and partly because it's actually not a bad document to sit down and read.

Someone posted a question that was needlessly callous and insensitive towards a (possibly) recently-deceased individual's friends and family; that question was removed with a polite explanation to the editor involved. There were no threats, no blocks, no bans, no scarlet letters. The question was reposted in a suitably modified form within minutes. Why are you obsessed with pillorying Looie over this? I don't believe there's anything I can do at this point to persuade you myself, so if the issue is important to you then I recommend that you seek broader consultation in a venue with more experience in handling this sort of thing. The relevant noticeboards may be able to guide you on what our community's expectations are (not merely the letter of policy) regarding an editor's obligations. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The editor's comment, "I'm not particularly interested in BLP enforcement", does not sound promising. BLP is one area that overrides nearly all other considerations in wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

But not all Misplaced Pages editors agree 100% with the way Misplaced Pages functions, and there is no requirement to agree with Misplaced Pages's policies to edit Misplaced Pages. Buddy431 (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Certain policies are given high priority by the folks who own wikipedia, as being the most likely areas that could hurt wikipedia legally. These include BLP violations and copyright violations. There is no compromise. If someone doesn't agree with those rules, and continually violates those rules, they will be sent to the phantom zone. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with ToAT here. Looie's response was entirely appropriate. And I don't care whether you Viennese Waltz don't care about BLP, if you aren't going to enforce it that's up to you (although bear in mind depending on what you do you could be blocked for it) but you have no right to get in a huff here about someone correctly enforcing BLP. And I would note the RD has problems here in the past, drawing unneeded attention to the RD by a refusal to enforce BLP or excessive arguments when someone correctly enforces BLP isn't likely to be a good thing for us. As I've said in the past, gaining an image of not enforcing BLP is not likely to end well for the RD, believe me... In particular, while Looie is a regular, it is entirely likely and has happened in the past non regulars have had BLP vios pointed out to them. And it's entirely unresonable to expect them to be aware of any nuasences of the RD or preferences of certain editors. Getting up in their throats for correctly enforcing BLP is not going to encourage them to stick around or think much of the RD.

As ToAT said, there is no and has never been any requirement for people to fix someone's contributions to the RD which clearly violate very important parts of policy, removing those outright is completely appropriate even fi they arguably could be fixed. This may sometimes be done in articles, if the contributions advance the article but also have flawed parts but for signed contribs it's quite a different matter. In fact I would go as far to say it's a bad idea for Looie to try and remove the BLP violating parts.

In the past I did suggest removing the bad bits is sometimes a good way to reduce people yelling 'censorship' (not because I believe such claims have any merit but because it's a potential reduced drama solution) but considering the history of the RD and even though SteveBaker is gone, I believe most of the time it's far better to just remove whole post and let the original contributor fix it if they so desire rather then getting into a long argument about 'modifying posts'. The only real consensus we have for modifying posts is for removal of email addresses and fixing formatting problems (including large images). I would note that although when we had the whole 'modifying posts' drama in the past I did suggest something like this as an example of when I felt modifying posts was acceptable and useful, I never claimed it should be compulsory (rather it was something I may do and which is sometimes done on talk pages).

BTW, as a regular at BLP/N I can say there is no way we'd accept solely a Facebook post in an article as evidence that someone is dead (the info would be removed until RS pick it up) so yes it was a BLP vio. And you'd find people don't take too kindly to those who yell at someone else for correctly removing BLP vios simply because someone wanted to do it differently.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Just glancing at this issue (I am still technically on a "wikibreak") but I wonder if it might not have gone differently, and have benefited from, a bit of further research into whatever the issue may have actually been before it got removed?

Just a thought; don't know enough about the case to have an opinion on its full removal. (Apologies btw if this just is not relevant right now;).

But: I have myself found many times that actions that make sense to me when I am relatively "uninformed" often make much less sense to me once I have become better informed -- seems perhaps like that might possibly have been a case of that sort of thing going on here. WikiDao ☯ 11:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Wait: Looie's original post said the whole question was removed. But, it seems to be back on the Hum desk now with the names redacted: WP:RD/Humanities#Does suicide send them to Hell? Mom told me this, but where in religious text does it say so? (By EggCentric, it seems?) That is definitely the way to go in a case like this, instead of complete removal, it seems to me ... WikiDao ☯ 12:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Well that's what I think too, but we seem to be in a minority. --Viennese Waltz 12:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, no -- the "clean" question seems to have gotten some good responses from about 10 or so RD regulars! :) Well done. WikiDao ☯ 13:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure – I meant a minority in this discussion here. Thanks, --Viennese Waltz 13:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Score minus one point, WikiDao, for not reading the rest of the discussion here before adding your comment.

I'll add one more reason why we permit and encourage the immediate removal of material that runs afoul of WP:BLP, and why it's so important in this particular case. (Yes, yes—I'm mentioning a policy again. Please try to think about why we have policies, and where they come from on Misplaced Pages. The rules exist, by and large, because large numbers of editors have discussed them extensively and tried to codify our best practices, so that we don't have to have the same conversations and arguments over and over again every time the same situation arises. They aren't there just because Jimbo's mean, or because some editors are on a power trip.) The short version is this: Google.

Search engines regularly crawl Misplaced Pages in order to index our content and to make information in our pages easier for the world at large to find. This is very handy for us when we're trying to find an old answer to a question on the Ref Desk, but it can also spawn some unintended consequences. If Google crawls the Ref Desk while we have "John Doe committed suicide in such-and-such a way, is he going to go to Hell?" that's what goes into their index, at least until their spider comes around again (could be hours, could be days, could be weeks). That's what comes up when someone searches for John Doe. It is both a blessing and a curse that Misplaced Pages is regarded by Google's (and other engines') algorithms as a generally highly-credible, high-priority source; our mention of John Doe, with a link to his Facebook profile, suddenly becomes a highly-ranked search result – possibly the highest – whenever someone looks for his name online. In the case of a recent suicide, John Doe's friends and family members are going to see our question about whether or not he's going to Hell at the top of their page. The longer we leave a post like this in place, the greater the likelihood that it will be cached and appear in Google search results, even some time after we take it down on our site. The situation is made even worse by mirror sites: web sites entirely unrelated to Misplaced Pages which duplicate and republish our content, generally in order to bump their ranking in search engines in order to generate ad revenue. They tend to update their copies infrequently and unreliably.

Increasing the barrier to removal of this sort of content by imposing greater obligations on the editors who remove it means that it will remain visible for longer, and is more likely to be copied by web sites out of our direct control. And that's actively harmful. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Ten. Guilty as charged, and your preceding post was -- well, TLDR, what can I say ;) -- but, ok, yes: one wiki-demerit justly given and duly accepted. :)

I really am "supposed" to be on a "wikibreak" at the moment, though -- just thought I'd tried to get in a word edgewise real quick here on a point or two while I had the chance.

Interesting issues going on, and a definitely a question or two on the desks I regret having mostly missed out on. I'll be here-and-then-gone-again regularly for at least a few weeks it looks like -- apologies in advance for anything I might say in that time that is just cluelessly out-of-context etc :P Cheers, WikiDao ☯ 16:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Have now read your preceding post, Ten. And I must say again that I could not possibly agree more. The nature and possible extent of problems like that became very clear to me over the course of the "N.I.M." → "Comet Egypt" saga. If you get a chance to read my comments in the "Concerns about how the WP:U policy made this problem possible" section of my present talk page, I think it'd become clearer that I am in complete agreement with you about the sorts of BLP issues you describe which Misplaced Pages may inadvertently have direct (and in sometimes unforseeable ways even very harmful) real-life consequences.

So in this case the personal info got removed and the BLP-scrubbed question got a variety of responses from a lot of RD regulars. (I regret I have not yet had time to read those responses myself, but I'm sure they were mostly good ones;). Pending further consideration, I think that outcome is probably as it should be, at least in this specific case. And since as far as I know that thread on the Hum desk (I think) hasn't been removed yet, I assume you yourself are reasonably acceptant of that fact, too? WikiDao ☯ 20:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Stairfall

I just removed this section, section header and all, because it looks like trolling for conflict over the ref desk guidelines against giving medical advice, specifically advice pertaining to treatment. I would normally give some benefit of the doubt, but the IP was blocked just last month, and is back today with multiple edits, all of which are destructive. I reported the IP on WP:AIV, and the IP has now been blocked. Red Act (talk) 04:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It's obviously a trolling question. If a real centenarian fell down a hundred flights of stairs, the obvious answer would be, "Call the funeral home." ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Further, it is not possible to fall down 100 stairs - let alone 100 flights of stairs (note: a flight of stairs is more than one stair, usually about 20 stairs). If it is 100 stairs, at an average of 7 inches per stair, that is a 58 foot fall. That means that the stairs pretty much continue in a straight line for 58 feet. It is rare to have stairs continue in a straight line for more than 20 feet. Often, they only go up about 5 feet and then turn in condos. Assuming it is a straight shot up each floor, this person would have to fall down 20 stairs, turn, fall down 20 more, turn fall down 20 more, turn, fall down 20 more, turn, and fall down the last 20. That is simply not reasonable. If you consider it to be 100 flights of stairs - that would be impossible. Even buildings like the Empire State Building don't have 100 flights of continuous stairs. It has 87 flights of stairs max - and they are not truly continuous, but nearly so. I have yet to see a 100 floor condo, so once again this claim is impossible. Now - I've wasted enough time on this troll... on to the next one. -- kainaw™ 20:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I get the impression, kainaw, that you are getting frustrated here...Aaronite (talk) 03:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

What about spiral stairs? APL (talk) 05:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

A 100-story spiral staircase? Yikes. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Come to think of it, falling down the up escalator might do it. 207.81.30.213 (talk) 05:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thus falling down one flight of stairs a hundred times, yes? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if it's possible to fall down 100 stairs in Batu Caves? They do tilt a bit and I don't think they are truly continous so perhaps not? Not a condo of course. Nil Einne (talk) 07:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe a condo for bats. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

And monkeys? Nil Einne (talk) 07:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey, maybe he took a misstep at the top of the "I fell" Tower? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

At this point I must bring up one of Myron Cohen's stories, about a guy who had been on time to work every day for decades. One day he showed up an hour late, looking all banged up and disheveled. The boss asked, "What happened?" The employee said, "I fell down 20 flights of stairs." The boss said, "And this took an hour?" ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Removed question

I removed the question "Where do babies come from?" See the question HERE. I did so in the interests of not feeding the trolls. The OP was a new User who has already been warned about vandalism. Dolphin (t) 06:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

If you wanted to start a lively discussion, you could have answered, "They're a gift from God." ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Trolling-only, and now indef'd. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I would like to mention that trolls feed on provocation. Removing a question that is perfectly ok just because it was asked by a "troll" is in fact feeding the troll the food they live on. Provoking such a response is their bread-and-butter.

Best not to feed them that way. Better to answer neutrally (you also removed my own response, btw, which was simply "Human reproduction") or else ignore it altogether (unless of course it is clearly problematic per the guidelines). WikiDao ☯ 12:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

And I say that by answering the question, you legitimize them and give them a foot-in-the-door, which at least in certain cases should not be done. Obviously, philosophical differences here, and some degree of case-by-case is needed. When a question looks odd, see what other stuff the editor has written, and see if he looks like a troll or not. But anyone coming here and seriously asking "where do babies come from" has got significant issues that need to be addressed, which we are not qualified to do. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Do we have any RD regulars who have acknowledged themselves to be teachers/educators in real life? I seem to recall perhaps FisherQueen and HiLo48 are or were, right? Are there others who want to acknowledge that? Because I think we would all benefit from their insight(s) on this issue.

Seems to me (not a teacher/educator) though that in an "educational environment" if you let kids "get to you" and come down too intolerantly on them when they are just asking something stupid to get a rise out of you -- even if they really have been more problematically trouble-making in the past -- that just is not very productive or useful or educational to anyone. I'd like to hear perhaps a specialist's opinion on that notion if possible, though. Thanks, WikiDao ☯ 13:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

If you want to relate the trollish behavior here to trollish behavior in the classroom, it is somewhat similar. In class, I have had students ask purposely stupid questions just to waste time. I feel that they want to do what they can to avoid learning. So, they try to waste time on off-topic stuff. On the RD here, I feel that the trolls want to see how much time they can waste. The primary goal is to get responses. I have investigated a few trolls and the ones who consider themselves to me most successful try to get extra responses by cutting/pasting questions from places like answers.yahoo (or whatever that is called). So, in class, I simply refuse to discuss off-topic questions. On the RD here, I suggest simply deleting ANY questions from known trolls - even if they are perfectly legitimate questions. -- kainaw™ 14:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to mention "why" I believe that the trolls are competing to see who can get the most responses... Check the other websites where the trolls gather to brag about how cool they are, like encyclopediadramatica.com - you will see references to how many "idiots" they get to waste time responding to the questions. -- kainaw™ 14:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Well I guess the trick in that case is to not let them waste time.

So: either ignore it, or briefly provide something topically informative (all I did here was say "Human reproduction" for example), or if it can be turned into something informative, interesting, or educational to others who do want to learn -- despite whatever intentions the questioner may have had in asking -- then such opportunites as those should be exploited for all they're worth whenever possible imo. WikiDao ☯ 14:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how anyone could possibly believe that "where do babies come from" is not a trolling question. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

For those not fixated at groin level the question "where do babies come from" generates inquiry into the origins of Consciousness and the characterization of Individualism studied by René Descartes, John Locke, Hegel, Sartre, Anatta in the Nikayas and Mahāyāna, Ayn Rand et al. with critical repercussions on assumptions of Human rights, initiation of Personality development and stances in the Abortion debate. The question can also relate to baby animals though not specifically to the ones from Australia. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

At some point, a teacher recognizes that a child is unwilling or unable to function in the classroom environment in a way that doesn't disrupt the ability of the teacher to teach and the right of his fellow students to learn. At that point, the child is removed from the classroom, and gets sent to see the principal or headmaster. These edits illustrate such conduct. (I'll also observe that we're at risk of mis-framing the situation; the closest physical-world analogy for our space here is a library reference desk, not a classroom. What happens in the library if you scrawl "Fuck you!" on the wall, then walk over to the reference desk and ask for help?) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Certainly agree with that general sentiment, Ten, and fully also with Bugs' point below.

Here we are just talking about "where do babies come from?" though. Not a problem. Should be answered in any "educational" environment, in this case with a link to the Human reproduction article without further comment. If the person has subsequently been blocked, then the removal at that whole thread was ok by me at that time. But not before that point, in this particular case, is all I'm saying. WikiDao ☯ 14:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of trolling is to get a reaction, any reaction, so whatever you do will be feeding the troll. If a seemingly legit and acceptable question is asked by A Known Troll, they probably deliberately made it very obvious who they are to see if you'd delete their otherwise perfectly acceptable question. Deleting it after people spent (and wasted, once the section is removed) time answering gives the troll their kicks. There is really just one sensible route to take; delete things if they are problematic to the desks. 85.68.85.117 (talk) 14:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

delete "if and only if" they are problematic, is what I am saying -- without regard for past problems WikiDao ☯ 14:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Banned users are not allowed to edit, even when their edits are theoretically "legitimate". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I can agree with that, Bugs. Once they get banned, that's that, I agree. WikiDao ☯ 14:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Bugs had to make that statement because we repeatedly have some IPs argue that banned users should be allowed to ask questions. Eventually, they are identified as banned users themselves who take part in the discussion only to derail attempts at discussing how to handle trolls. -- kainaw™ 14:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

If I can answer a question then I shall do so. I reject the vigilantism that I see here. I support WikiDao who treats the question "where do babies come from" sensibly without introducing an irrelevant judgment of the particular questioner. John 8:7 (think about it). Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Trolling is fine, unless they misspell something, then it becomes a crisis. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Bugs, provocative OT sarcasm is what you think is fine and you correctly spelled a good word for it. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

"OT"? "Overtime"??? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Off topic. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not off topic. You think it's just fine for improper questions to be posted, yet you go ballistic over misspellings. Your priorities need some re-thinking. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

We do well to answer important sensible questions and it was heartwarming to see your twofold agreement. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

What? Was there a problem with my spelling? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Under Kainaw's Offtopic Deletion Theorem expounded upon in this very thread, everything in this thread from Bugs's needless provocation of Cuddlyable3 through to the end of the thread (this post) should be deleted, as it is all off topic. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Cuddly's sense of priorities is all wrong, and pointing that out IS on-topic. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of trolls not being allowed to post ...

Julie Dancer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Adaptron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Taxa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Inning (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
71.100.5.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I think it's pretty clear that User:Inning, is the same person as banned User:Adaptron and possibly banned User:Taxa as well. Similar writing styles, similar uncomprehending rudeness, and identical obsessions.

It's probably only a matter of time before he's banned again, is there anything that could speed up the process? APL (talk) 17:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

A sockpuppet investigation? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Probably too old for an effective technical investigation, so the "duck test" might be required. Can you provide some diffs where the similarity is most striking? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm primarily referring to their single-minded obsession with replacing all legal prose with single-access keys describing all possible dos and do-nots. Adaptron,Inning.

It's not just interest in the same obscure topic. It's the style of posting where a leading question is asked, and then for the remainder of the thread the poster is apparently trying to convince everyone else.

In fairness there's someone in the 71.100.* who has a similar obsession so maybe it's not as rare as I first thought. APL (talk) 20:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It's uncanny. Yep, you've pretty well got me convinced. But I wonder, is there enough to convince an admin? Or would it be better to just deal with the current user's behavior? And maybe challenge the user a bit on this question? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm persuaded. I imagine that a checkuser would be able to confirm that all the accounts are coming from the same IP block (Verizon 71.100.*), but it really isn't required. Creating sockpuppet accounts in order to evade an existing block is sufficient grounds for a permanent block of the new account, even leaving aside the fact that the individual appears to be using his socks to resume the same behaviour. Is there any reason why I shouldn't block right now? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you want a real reason or an "Oh my God! We could be blocking an innocent troll!" reason? -- kainaw™ 14:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Ha! (You couldn't possibly mean to suggest that editors who start out wasting time on the main Ref Desk pages often graduate to wasting time on this talk page because they've discovered they'll get a lot more leeway here...could you?) Yes, I'm wondering if there's a 'real' reason. I don't spend much time on the Humanities Desk, so I can't really gauge the effect that Inning/Adaptron has there. I wasn't involved in the blocks of the original account(s), and I'm not really familiar with all the circumstances of the case or the account's on- or off-Reference Desk contribitions (if any). I'm saying only that as an administrator I'm satisfied that Inning is a sockpuppet of the named currently-blocked accounts, and that I will block Inning unless someone proposes a reasonable, specific, constructive alternative course of action. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks like other users are getting frustrated with him as well. User_talk:Inning#February_2011

APL (talk) 15:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Pirate Bay referral removed

Here, I removed WikiDao's referral of a querent to The Pirate Bay to obtain a copy of obviously copyrighted content, and the subsequent small-texted discussion about this. We don't assist copyright violations on the Reference Desk. Yes, I know some people claim piracy is legal in some locales; but we don't assist copyright violations on the Reference Desk anyway. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Would a link to the Misplaced Pages article have been acceptable, for future reference? 82.43.92.41 (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

No; that's just a winking, coy way of doing the same thing, just as it would be if you referred them to "Gur Cvengr Onl" or obfuscated the message in some other way. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

But it's well known The Pirate Bay offers downloads of copyright material; telling someone that isn't "assisting copyright violations", otherwise almost every news sites in the world has assisted copyright violations by simply mentioning the site. I do understand that there was some kind of intent to direct someone to copyright material rather than simply stating facts, but I don't think linking to Wikipedias article crosses the line. 82.43.92.41 (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't think there was a clear consensus for deleting this sort of thing. If there is it's very rarely enforced. APL (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Uh, to be more clear, I've seen posters refereed to television clips on youtube, song lyrics sites, The Home of The UnderDogs, Google results of dubious providence, and even occasionally torrent sites or p2p programs. All with no problem.

I think this is the first time I've been aware of something like that being removed as even though it wasn't a direct link to a file. APL (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• PirateBay should be made impossible to link to from WP if we are going to be serious about that site per WP:LINKVIO. (Similarly to the way edits with spam-blacklisted sites in them get spewed back permission-denied at you if you try to link to 'em.) I'd be okay with that. It was wrong for me to provide that link. I apologize for doing so. Pending any developments that may change my mind about that, I will endeavor to never provide a link to that site again. Sorry for the time and trouble this issue may have caused. WikiDao ☯ 22:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I think in general the policy is that we don't aid people in pirating media directly. But we've had long, drawn out discussions of how much we want to abide by that. The end purpose, as I see it, is not so much the "we obey the laws of a particular nation to the letter, either because we want to or feel we have to," but because we don't want the Reference Desk, on the whole, to be the kind of place where people chat about pirating media.

If I were drawing the lines as to what kinds of answers in this regard were acceptable, I would find, "you can probably find it online at a torrent site, but we won't help you with that here" to be about the extent of such an answer. Direct links are over the line. Saying "this particular torrent site" is borderline and I would lean against it. But these are just my own inclinations. It's obviously subjective.

Before this degenerates into an argument about the legality or morality of pirating (as such discussions inevitably degenerate), I would just suggest that we frame this in terms of the sort of Reference Desk we want to participate in. It'll cut through a lot of the back and forth which doesn't seem to convince anyone of anything anyway. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Meh. I largely agree with Mr. 98. I would never link to a specific torrent or other instance of copyright protected material, but it seems a little naive to not allow anyone to mention the existence of media on the web that violates someone's copyright in some jurisdiction. I guess I wouldn't really have a problem with the reference desk turning into a place that "people chat about pirating media", though I certainly wouldn't be participating in it. That's the point though: no one has to participate in any threads that they are uncomfortable with. Heck, if it were up to me, I'd let people be armchair doctors here to, but my opinion is a minority one in that regard. Buddy431 (talk) 23:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Good removal, Comet Tuttle. Misplaced Pages as a project depends on respect for the copyrights held by its contributors to keep its content free and open; there is very little tolerance for hypocritical infringement of other content creators' rights.

Incidentally, what is with the Reference Desk this week? Copyright violations and BLP policy violations are just about the two biggest bright-line no-nos as far as Misplaced Pages's content rules go, and we're challenging both of them at once? Really? This talk page isn't an appropriate venue at which to overturn project-wide policies. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes let me agree again that it was a good removal, CT.

I guess that makes two demerits duly-accepted today then, Ten.

I agree that linking to thepiratebaydotcom is just wrong, whether or not that is made explicitly clear at eg. WP:LINKVIO (which I had been culpably aware of before providing that link, too). The truth is, I just wasn't thinking. I should have thought better about it.

Also, I am rarely at the Entertainment desk, and I just honestly felt a bit disoriented and confused while there earlier today. I'll just try to stay away from there from now on. Sorry again for any trouble that linkage may have caused. Let's all just accept the spirit-and-letter of wikipolicy on this point and move on now without spending any more time on it, ok? WikiDao ☯ 01:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is questioning your intentions, WikiDao, at I don't. As far as I'm concerned, what's gone on here is a good example of WP:BRD: so long as the boldness is done in good faith and the Discussion stays on topic and people learn from it, it's a positive experience. Matt Deres (talk) 02:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Link to protracted discussion last time this came up here. I won't go there again, except to say that I disagree with the removal of references to a specific torrent site. --Viennese Waltz 08:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Cuddlyable3's 'editable' posts - redux

Despite the overwhelming consensus reached above against Cuddlyable3 implementing unsigned, 'editable' posts on the Reference Desk (see #EDITABLE responses, above), he's gone ahead and started doing it anyway. This is his first use of the new technique, which incorporates no signature and instead links to User:Cuddlyable3/EDITABLE. I have replaced this with the {unsigned} template to identify the author: . I have also asked Cuddlyable3 not to implement his new process against consensus: .

As Nimur noted in the last discussion, Cuddlyable3 has been around long enough to be aware of WP:POINT. While I hope that a block won't be necessary to dissuade Cuddlyable3 from further fruitless pursuit of his personal projects here, I am not heartened by his previous track record in this area. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

If he wants to make his own edits "editable", I don't see the problem as such. Long as he doesn't try to impose that concept on anyone else. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:TPO 1st bullet. Any questions? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

That bullet does not specify the construct you've invented, and the prior discussion (initiated by you) of "EDITABLE" was not supportive of your proposal. We need to sign our RD posts - that is clear by convention and the application of WP:Talk to the RD. If one wishes to prepend a well-formed sig with "editable" or somesuch non-disruptive word, that is the editor's prerogative. -- Scray (talk) 14:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I also have little problem with this, as the EDITABLE clearly links to Cuddlyable's sub page, effectively a signature. Yes, it's a bit pointy, but as long there is no expectation on others, I'm not going to shout too loudly. Having said that, Cuddlyable, would you consider also including your signature, so that it becomes "EDITABLE post by Cuddlyable3"? I'd be much happier with that solution Worm 14:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes that was condidered in arriving at Point 5 of the proposal. I think there is a danger of misunderstanding such a compound signature, and an EDITABLE post is not meant to be marked as owned by anyone. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The "owned by anyone" was the point of debate. The consensus of the previous discussion was that the Reference Desk posts are owned by the person who posts them. The cannot be "owned by anyone". Therefore, to conform to consensus, you should take ownership of your posts, but you may allow them to be edited by others. -- kainaw™ 15:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments left using the above method do not include a normal signature or timestamp. I was lectured at length about how disruptive not signing ones posts with a normal signature is, even when the post is fully attributed to the editor 82.43.92.41 (talk) 14:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes there is the lack of timestamp. It becomes timestamps if edits occur. The time information is not lost because one has recourse to the page history like in mainspace articles. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

It was explained to you before that page history is not an acceptable alternative to signatures on a talk page. APL (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

This is clear WP:POINT behavior. He asked about doing something, there was overwhelming consensus against it, then he went and did it anyway.

This was turned down for a number of good reasons. It's confusing, ugly, and achieves nothing.

It's one more thing that new users have to learn about before comprehending what's going on here. As the reference desk is one of the very few talk pages intended for non-editors and other newbies it is about the worst possible talk page on WP to test-market potentially confusing new policies.

I propose that these be edited back to Cuddlyable's standard signature, or a sinebot-style generic signature. APL (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

There are two issues here, both I believe are pretty clearly covered in existing guidelines and policies. One is the need to sign your posts in an acceptable manner. If this is not done by the editor making the post, any other editor is free to indicate the provenance, for example by adding the {{unsigned}} template. That is standard procedure and not to be undone. Second, there is the general need to respect consensus, which we all have an obligation to do. Consensus in the thread above concerning "editable" responses is not hard to read - overwhelmingly against the notion. There was a late suggestion to allow CA3 to tag their own edits in such fashion, but that was not fully addressed, and certainly there was no agreement that CA3 should sign with a manifesto link. For my purposes: RD edits should always be signed as discussed in guidelines and any attempts to remove added sigs is blockable; and if editors wish to remove the "editable" tag as not having gained consensus I would support them on that too. This is not rocket science here, we all have to recognize that we can't just do exactly whatever little thing we want here regardless of whether large numbers of other editors say it's a bad idea. Franamax (talk) 15:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

You might not argue that way when we are all dead. I intend everything I post to Misplaced Pages to be my incremental contribution to building the Public domain i.e. "owned by no one", of knowledge, not personal agrandisement (though I correctly attribute any re-use of another's IPR).. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

That is fine, Cuddlyable. If you refuse to abide by talk-page conventions, restrict your contributions to article space, and do not contribute to the talk-pages, or the reference desk. Nimur (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

(e/c w/Nimur)

That's nice. Unless your intent is to participate in the reference desk in a non-disruptive way, as defined by policy and consensus, then you are not welcome here. APL (talk) 16:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be heavily confused about the difference between the Reference Desk and the Article Space of Misplaced Pages. If you want to incrementally increase knowledge, edit in the Article Space. If you want to give information that you own, edit on the Reference Desk. -- kainaw™ 16:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages reference desk works like a library reference desk. Users leave questions on the reference desk and Misplaced Pages volunteers work to help you find the information you need. Any questions? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I have a question: why are behaving so boorishly? If this is your attitude, stay the hell off the ref desk. Friday (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I have yet to visit a library reference desk where one librarian answered a question and another librarian tries to rewind time and alter what the first librarian said. In my experience, one gives an answer and another gives an answer - just like this reference desk. -- kainaw™ 16:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

You are talking about chatter with librarians, I hope you find a library where there are librarians that are more interested in helping you.than in having you know their names. But if the library gives you a printed reply intended to be arkived, you will reasonably assume it was not written alone by the junior janitor who couldn't handle the question properly without help.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

On some side notes and not to distract from yet another consensus forming above which does not agree with your own view, thanks CA3, I'm perfectly capable of comtemplating my own mortality and I have very little interest in your own, though I do wish you a long and happy life. You seem rather confused though - nothing you have ever contributed here is in the public domain, you need to click on one of those many blue-links in the editing interface. You explicitly own all your creative contributions here, you have only licensed them under GFDL and latterly CC-BY. If you seek to contribute material that is absolutely free-free-free, you need to put a specific disclaimer on your user page. Franamax (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't give out legal advice about IPR because someone might think that coming from you means it's all reliable. Disclaimers on user pages can't do what you say. You couldn't know that THIS is in public domain and I contributed it. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Listen Cuddlyable, if I ask a question, come back to see one detailed response, and then come back the next day to see that there's still only one response then I'll assume that no one else has contributed to my answer.

By hiding your corrections in the original post, you've made it LESS LIKELY that the corrections will be heeded.

Surely you can understand how a question/answer that a user will check repeatedly over a small period of time needs to be handled differently than an article intended to be a timeless resource? APL (talk) 16:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

(And that assumes that the second answer is more correct than the first one. IF the 'correction' is an error, the correct version now no longer exists, but editors will remember that the question was answered correctly and not realize that it now requires correction, even though it didn't previously!) APL (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

This is all a pity in a way. At least a year ago, right around the point where I took the pledge to refer to sources (and found myself with much less to say), a thought struck me: wouldn't it be cool if we could have a special box for each Q where we would get all wiki on the answer? We would all work together to make a mini-article for the response, with sources and all, even correct spelling and grammar. I discarded the notion mostly because I don't think querents here will have the patience to wait 5 days for the "right" version to be assembled and somehow approve-stamped, and because - you know, everyone has their own preferred version, it could get nasty. But I still think it would be really cool if there was a fast way to put up an article-worthy response. Just dreaming, and this go-round taints my own Utopian notion. Oh well... Franamax (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

If a questions is about a noteworthy topic, there is no reason that a question couldn't spawn an article. However, most questions here are not noteworthy. Most don't want to put in much more effort than "No, you're theory that every scientist who ever existed is wrong is not valid." -- kainaw™ 17:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)