Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 63

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 60Archive 61Archive 62Archive 63Archive 64Archive 65→Archive 70

Is the reference desk now a joke site and a chatroom

(Not 'begging the question' but a complaint)

How about we change the intro to "Users leave questions on the reference desk and Wikipedia volunteers work to help you find the information you need ignore them and chat amongst themselves whislt making wisecracks"

The computing, maths, and science desk don't seem to suffer from this problem.83.100.250.79 (talk) 13:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

If the question has been dealt with or seriously attempted, there is no real problem with having a bit of fun surrounded by <small></small> tags. But some of those examples you listed (and I've noticed quite a few others) are worrisome and I think we should be taking our OPs and their queries seriously. We appear to have crossed a line somewhere if this kind of thing is considered acceptable. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I feel like I might be becoming a nuisance, always referring to older threads, but this thread has an earlier discussion on the topic. I agree with 83.100 that a wave of jokes has been flooding some of the desks recently, and I admit that I'm not a fan of reading joke answers before anyone even attempted to answer the question. Break's over, deskians, let's get back to work. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
While the Reference Desk can be an awesome resource, the "witty" side comments, in-jokes and other nonsense is getting too much, and this is not a new problem either. I've seen questioners getting really angry at this sort of thing in the past, only to be told that Wikipedia is a free resource run by volunteers as if that's some sort of excuse for people ignoring the purpose of the Reference Desk and engaging in their own banter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avrillyria (talk • contribs) 14:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Hear hear. And while we're at it, can we please make an effort to refer to sources (WP pages, or outside) in our answers. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Considering that our primary purpose is to provide references, I think that is a very good idea. Although it's a lot of fun to provide answers in general out of our own experience and expertise, we all need to work on citing sources. Nimur (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I totally agree!10draftsdeep (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I consider links to previous discussions on a topic to be very helpful in resolving an issue. Thanks! --Sean 13:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree that we sometimes veer off-topic a little too quickly. To be fair, though, the Caesar tribune question was at least succinctly and swiftly answered before things went off-sides. It's easy to go overboard on this kind of stuff, especially in an environment like WP, where we strive to be neutral and to maintain the proper tone at all times while editing articles; all the more temptation to let loose a bit where the rules are more lenient. I'm not sure what can be done about this other than self-policing, maybe the occasional comment on a user talk page or something. Matt Deres (talk) 01:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I concur that the signal-to-noise ratio has gotten worse, though I think some amount of side discussions relevant to the question are useful to the OP in seeing other facets of the issue. My comment here, for example, does not answer the question directly, and I had doubts about posting it, but I decided that it improves the overall response and I stand by it. Straight-up joke comments that do not contribute to the answer -- and I'm thinking of one RD regular in particular -- should be reined in. --Sean 13:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Whom? 90.208.66.97 (talk) 14:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I think it's best not to make this thread about one person. --Sean 15:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
We all know who. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't. That's why I asked. (I'm fine with Sean's response.) 90.208.66.97 (talk) 21:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Jiminy Cricket ? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 11:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I too have indulged in the occasional lame jest (all I'm capable of, I fear) at the ref desks; but even more often I've given the matter a second thought and restrained myself from posting a witticism that seemed apt and hilarious at the time—particularly when it would have been the first response to a question. I agree that we all need to be somewhat circumspect in giving free rein to our senses of humor in this forum, and that a little more professionalism and a little less waggery (as well as a little less blind speculation in place of sourced answers—something I've also caught myself in) would not be a bad idea. Deor (talk) 21:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

One thing that would help is if the questioner would come back and mark it "resolved" or even just say "thank you", and that would end it. Some do, but often they don't, and they leave themselves open to rambling by many editors, not just moi. When information is posted with no acknowledgment, as often happens, there's no way to know if that's truly what the questioner wanted to know, unless it's as obvious as the nose on your face, which it often is not. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Trouble is that many of our questioners don't know how to mark things as resolved, and in any case, we are a volunteer service function, so it's not really for us to expect such things. And in many cases, I've seen relevant information get added after the OP has given thanks (and sometimes I've seen them come back and thank again). So long as the answers are relevant to the OP question, it's hard to ever say that a thread is "resolved", unless it's an open-and-shut "read our article" answer (and the respondent has actually checked our article to be sure the answer is really there). And sometimes threads include an interesting fork too. Franamax (talk) 22:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
They don't have to literally use the "resolved" template, they could use normal editing to say "thank you", and then a regular visitor could post the "resolved" template, which does not preclude adding more info, but it suggests that the OP feels like he got the info he needed. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Sure, it's nice when they say thank you, but I still don't see the purpose of the "resolved" template. It's really a decision of the individual responder: do you thjink that the question has been adequately dealt with, or do you think you have something pertinent to add? If you think the OP has already been answered, then don't add anything (especially not just because you feel like you should comment on every thread). If you have something new to add, do it (but please people, actually read the previous responses so we don't end up with a series of identical answers). If you feel the need to add something witty, which will usually be a response to one of the regular's answers or comments, do it in small and double-indent to make it clear that it's not intended as a serious addition. In all these cases, individual restraint and self-editing is the key. We don't need formal structures if we all exercise our own inner voices telling us "time to shut up now". :) Franamax (talk) 22:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Obviously we can't control what the questioner does. Maybe the "resolved" template is overkill, although I've seen it used a few times. In any case, the questions get archived within a week or so, whether they get answered or not. I think the most recent use of "resolved" was when that one guy posted yet another quiz question and another user (not I) said DO NOT ANSWER in big bold letters and marked it "resolved" or "done" or something. I don't see a big problem with adding comments that restate previous comments, i.e. to reinforce those comments - or, of course, to contradict previous comments if necessary. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I can see the rationale for using a "resolved" template in the case you describe as a hint to others not to keep on answering. It's always amazing to see the first responder say "we don't do homework", then other earnest editors come along and do the homework anyway. But I think the better response when you definitely want the discussion to end is to use either a collapse box ({{hidden begin}}/{{hidden end}}) or to remove the question altogether, leaving an explanation with a pointer to the RefTalk discussion and a back-pointer on your RefTalk thread to your removal diff. This gets the point across a little more smoothly than banner headlines.
And I'm not talking so much about reinforcing previous comments, what I see all too often is clear evidence that the responder didn't even bother to read the previous activity in the thread, they read the original question and blindly clicked "edit" to get their own comment in. Like when the first answer points to a source, then the fith answer points to the exact same source as if it's a new contribution. I don't see how this is respectful of the OP's time reading the answer to their question, nor to the efforts of the previous respondents. A good example is when the first answer is "we don't do homework" and then someone else answers the question without outlining why they don't think it's a homework question. We all need to work together to ensure coherence in our responses. Of course though, if you have a contrary answer, post away. But as pointed out, we digress... Franamax (talk) 01:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved and unresolved

Since the discussion is now veering off the "joke room" topic, let me subhead it.

I don't know if I'm alone in this, but I haven't been entirely sure how to react when a question's considered resolved, sometimes with a sticker, and others (sometimes including the original enquirer) praise the answers, but upon second thoughts I think my own answer might have been significantly deficient or insufficiently responsive (e.g. a recent question on the Miscellaneous Ref. Desk about the reality if any behind the 1930's German "stab in the back" legend; not that my answer was wrong or irrelevant, and in fact it drew unsolicited third-party praise on my talk page, but it might have been rather incomplete and not directly responsive). Would an "Unresolved" template (distinct from the various "unresolved dispute" tags) be useful? —— Shakescene (talk) 23:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

An interesting idea - like the big question-mark template that's used in WP:ANI sometimes? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I recall having seen some big arguments at the WP:HELP desk about using templates at all, since they take up space both in wiki-text and page-load time, and there were questions about their overenthusiastic/premature use.
What I use at WP:VPT, when I'm sure that I've clearly resolved a question (i.e. when the OP says "thanks, I tried that and it works perfectly!") is my own short markup, stolen from the tomb of the unknown Wikipedian :) :
✓ Resolved. Editor wasn't using a computer to access Wikipedia. Franamax (talk) 01:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Shakescene, in your own example where you decided that your own answer was insufficient, I'd suggest prefacing your followup with:
✗ Wait, I wasn't clear enough before!
Here's what I should have said...
I still think that use of formal templates at the top of a thread can be problematic in several ways. But these are just thinking-thoughts, not proposed solutions. Franamax (talk) 01:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Not long ago, adding resolved tags came up on the Help Desk's talk page. While I felt that the person who brought it up was being purposely obtuse, I think that reading though the conversation there may be pertinent here. -- kainaw™ 01:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I think Fuhgettaboutit's comments of 01:25 16Apr09 are most apropos to the situation on our desks here. Plus they linked to the even earlier discussion I was thinking of, which is where I got the idea for my condensed markup which uses up hardly any bytes - so I see now that mine is actually original art. World, upon thee I bestow my inestimable gift! :) Franamax (talk) 01:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

"Seriously, this isn't a chat room" template

Per the discussion above, I have created Template:Refdeskchatty, which can be dropped on user talk pages as a gentle nudge towards reining in the recent chat room tendencies. I believe this template should be used sparingly, and only in the most egregious cases. --Sean 17:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Let the template bombing begin (just joking). Hopefully fear will prevent its ever needing to be used. Thanks.83.100.250.79 (talk) 22:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I think the text in the template in reasonable, but I'm not generally in favour of templating stuff like this. In my experience, a personal message is less likely to be taken as an attack or to put the "target" in a defensive position. While I haven't gone through every single regular contributor, I'd be greatly surprised if there was a single one that didn't chat or joke at least once in a while. The problem really comes from the degree of chatting, not any individual instance (though joking about before the question has been answered at all would be close). What I'd like to avoid is A templating B the first time B cracks a joke that rubs A the wrong way, thus compelling B to template A (and possible C, D, and E, etc.) every time they provide a reply that isn't 100% germane to the question in their opinion. By keeping things personal and informal it's easier to everyone to remain positive - and nobody wants the black mark that a "naughty you" template gives. Just my $.02. Matt Deres (talk) 02:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with this sentiment. I'd hate to see RD templates being used even once, warning/advice templates may seem benign, but IMO they're a pretty dismissive way of dealing with problems. We're all reasonable people here and to be successful on the RD's, you pretty much have to be able to express yourself well - so any notes about excessive or inappropriate kibitzing can just as easily be framed the same way.
I have kind of an impression of the editor identity Sean refers to above ("I'm thinking of one RD regular in particular" - "Whom?" - "I think it's best not to make this thread about one person" - does anyone else find that a bit ironic?) and I was thinking a day before this came up about dropping them a note. Unfortunately, they don't seem to have email enabled. We need to be very kind about this sort of discussion, unless it's clear trolling. I'm as guilty as anyone of dropping in <small> comments that seem funny to my own warped sense of the world. I'd always appreciate someone letting me know privately that they think I'm going too far, but I know that if I got a template on my talk page, I'd feel rather bruised. Polite notes is the way to go IMO. Franamax (talk) 04:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm as guilty at times as the next editor here [remember we're lonely people without real lives who crave virtual company ;-).] , but I agree with the earlier point about the problem arising from the accumulation and extension of banter, rather than in any one individual aside or any one editor's behaviour. I don't like the idea of plastering the template on any individual's talk page, but a small, very mildly worded template for the Ref Desk thread itself might be helpful if posted at the point where the banter seems to be overtaking the original question (often, say after the second or third non-germane exchange). Not so much to criticise any one other editor's previous posts, but just to say it's time to stop or slow down the extraneous back-and-forth in favour of pondering (and hopefully actually answering) the original query. If worded generally enough, such a template could also be used to indicate that non-jocular discussions are moving off-track. e.g. a recent thread at the Language desk, when the inquirer asked if there was a word for the surrender of rights that accompanies military enlistment, which diverted into a polite but slightly-heated debate about whether military recruits surrender any more rights than new hires at a civilian job. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I think a separate but related problem is that OPs are not asked to try to stay involved in the ensuing responses to a question posed. Too many of these "questions" are little more than "stump the reference desk folks," or attempts to set off some sort of creative/intellectual response. I think that can get a little tiresome and tedious, although sometimes it is done well, and everybody is "refreshed" by it. I think that what I would like to say is that the use of the reference desk is a two-way street, involving responsibilities for civil discourse on both sides. I am probably not in favor of any "template" solutions but I will have to ask myself to find out. Bus stop (talk) 06:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
My initial thought on this is that no, we're a one way street. Part of sitting at a desk is that people come up and ask you stuff and at some point they go away. Sometimes they will do that in the middle of you answering the question, but that's just how life works. Sometimes they're just trying to piss you off. Doesn't matter, we choose to sit behind the desk, providing the service. Sometimes they actually say thanks. (And lots of people do say thanks here!) Basically, anyone who wants to try to provide answers here is first of all a servant. That's how I see it anyway, and I'm trying out a renewed emphasis on sourcing or w/linking my responses (but I know it won't last). Franamax (talk) 12:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
When I ask a question, I try to respond as little as possible. I'll answer clarifying questions, and I'll try and redirect if I think the answers are veering too far off course, but I try to stay out of it. I'm interested in what insight Ref Deskers have to offer, and my experience (here and elsewhere) is that when the OP keeps interjecting, the answers seem to trail off (unless the OP is being confrontational). That's really why I've never thanked the answerers* - if someone with a brilliant insight comes along at day seven, seeing a "Thanks!" may put them off responding because they think the question is over. The only safe time to add a thanks is after the question is archived ... but then no one sees it because the question is archived. (* So I'll do it here: "Thanks Ref Deskers! You've been a real help.") -- 128.104.112.179 (talk) 15:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Regarding your small text, my point was that while many of us might be thinking of one user in particular, there's no reason to think that it's the same user! As for templates vs. a hand-written response, my feeling is that because templates are less personal, dinging someone with one says "your post strays outside of community norms for this area of the site" rather than "I have enough of a personal problem with your post that I've taken the time to dig up links to these old discussions". I don't see much reason to debate it, though; just don't use it if you prefer a personal message. --Sean 14:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
And for this IE user, what you think is small text, however coded, is not small on my screen, but the same size as the rest of the text. Not everyone realizes you are doing anything except respond "factually" to the question, unless one looks at the edit page. // BL \\ (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm guessing that you have a relatively low-resolution monitor then. Unfortunately, there's no way to control how any particular browser chooses fonts and sizes when it renders HTML. (That's actually the point of HTML, it's context-independent and each end-point renders it however it thinks best.) The <small> notation is the best we can do, but that's why I try to double-indent my "joke" comments on the Desks themselves. Franamax (talk) 23:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review the essay Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humour. Best wishes. User:MiszaBot II (talk) 02:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think WP:DTTR applies here. If an experienced user makes a silly mistake in article space and you respond by hitting them with {{Uw-test1}} (which, among other things, welcomes them) then they'd have reason to be offended. But if only 10% of a certain experienced refdesker's posts are actually helpful to the OP, then we can be reasonably sure that said desker isn't familiar with the "rules" and templating them is not so bad. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 16:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Language desk questioner appears to be successful troll

see Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language#Muimota Previous example Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2009_August_16#Abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz and many other examples I cannot be bothered to find. The questioner had it made clear to them that we are not here to answer riddles previously.83.100.250.79 (talk) 21:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

e.g. [1], [2]. Posts are from various IPs starting 88.77. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 14:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
There was another where they got asked to stop..
It's this [3] that bemuses me - they already have two answers - one of which is nonsensical - why ask?83.100.250.79 (talk) 15:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
That's one of the IP's that keeps asking questions he already knows the answer to, just to pose a trivia quiz on a given ref desk. First time I saw one of those, about a-through-z, I thought it was a sincere question and tried to give a sincere answer. At some point it became obvious the IP was just jerking us around, and other users (not I) have threatened to have him range-blocked. Now that's taking things seriously. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
This guy is pretty puzzling. The questions he asks do seem generally like the kinds of things one would be asked in a linguistics class, but his examples are so bizarre that it makes me wonder. I do wish he'd explain himself... -Elmer Clark (talk) 22:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
If you follow the track of these kinds of questions he's been asking, it's perfectly clear that he already knows the answer and he's just playing games with those who initially thought his questions were sincere. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

User Baseball Bugs

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.

I'm archiving this. The subject editor has drawn their very own lineage underneath it. Time will tell if they are serious about responding to feedback or not. This thread represents a step in WP:DR, but it's not productive to continue at this time IMO. Franamax (talk) 01:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Acknowledge that it was that dastardly User:hydnjo drawing the moustache, not Bugs. :) Franamax (talk) 02:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I've already asked this editor twice to take the reference desk more seriously. This edit [4] is the final straw for me. I've mentioned this on the editors talk page. To be honest this account is starting to look like it's main reason for existance is vandalism. That's my opinion.83.100.250.79 (talk) 13:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The editor won't listen to me, will someone else explain it to them please.[5] 83.100.250.79 (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
To be bluntly honest, you are using an anon IP and you haphazardly deleted Toto Baggins' signature on his comment. So, asking me to take sides against someone who is using a user account, which allows me to see a history of edits attributed to the user, who has not decided to be sloppy with deleting other people's edits is a rather large request. This is not a case of anon IP bashing. It is a case of being able to view the history of edits between two users - one which has a clear history and the other does not. So, I'm left looking at the recent sloppy edits. -- kainaw™ 14:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Why don't you check my contributions? It's easy to to [6] and yes it is an example of "anon IP bashing- what else is it?" I'm not aware I accidentally deleted any signature -where?83.100.250.79 (talk) 14:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
No I can't easily find these sloppy edits, (except where a page was blanked accidentally a few days ago) why not give the example, so I could fix it and apologise.83.100.250.79 (talk) 15:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I have been directly communicating to BaseballBugs on my talk page about this issue; moments after I started that discussion, the issue was reported to Administrator Noticeboard (I don't know who did that). I think we have made the point to Bugs. I hope he agrees that we can solve this issue without a block or any other administrator's intervention, but this really depends on how cooperative Baseball Bugs is willing to be. His contributions are sometimes helpful and are appreciated. However, he has continued to make disruptive joke commentary on the reference desk despite repeated discussions, messages, and eventually warnings. On my talk page, he brought up some valid concerns, but his repeated joke posts are breaking Wikipedia to make a point. I sincerely hope we can resolve this without needing a block. Edited from my earlier comment at the ANI Nimur (talk) 14:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

[7] After being asked to stop, they do this. 83.100.250.79 (talk) 16:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I've asked them to discuss problems or issues on the talk page, and not to bring stuff up on the main reference desk pages.83.100.250.79 (talk) 16:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I count at least 5 behavioral complaints against the above IP address on his talk page. Assuming it's just one user and not a hundred, he needs to clean up his own act before attacking me. And he's also acting in a discriminatory/prejudicial way. The comment he cited above was in response to several off-topic comments by others. Yet I don't see him schlepping those guys here or to ANI. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I didn't report you to this page, I left a message on your talk page, and a message on the reference desk talk pages. What other editors do doesn't make what you do ok. Also if I get a complaint I try to improve. Why don't you do the same?
If I got those complaints and continued to do the same things and not try to improve I would have been banned a long time ago wouldn't I. So please stop suggesting that I should "clean up my act"83.100.250.79 (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Notice how the subject refuses to recognize the basic issue at hand. It is as if the defensive behavioral trait of blaming others for his actions is the default response. Is there a remedial action page that the user can be mentored at? Once denial is overcome, mentoring should be able to correct the undesirable editing traits. Perhaps a workshop could be setup that would reward correct behavior and lead the editor to be productive in the community. Erector Euphonious (talk) 16:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Hard telling whether you're talking about me or the IP, as your comments could apply to either one. P.S. What's your particular interest in the banned user Axmann8? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

What I do, everywhere, is raise question that I have not seen others raising. If you don't like the questions I raise, then ignore them. When someone raises a question on the help desk, it can lead to more questions, and more information. It can also lead to absurdity. Or a combination. Just try to do your best and I'll try to do my best. Ya dig? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Here, we again see a response to the inquiry, but denial seems to be firmly rooted. The change of topic and focus of blame on others seems to be firmly rooted if not an automatic response. Edit history seems to show this as a consistent response to any negative inquiries. Erector Euphonious (talk) 17:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The above user is an alleged newbie who seems to really know his way around, hence I have very little regard for his sincerity or his words. Even responding to him is a questionable practice on my part. Also note that while yelping about my alleged denials, he also avoids answering inquiries about himself. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Bugs, here is my suggestion. Stop any sarcastic remarks at the desk, I have not reviewed the edits listed here or at ANI, but I suggest you take another look at your editing style. Once you do so, there will be no issue, any further action by editors, IP socks, or not, will be in violation of our policies, and you can take action appropriately. Sephiroth storm (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Fine, I'll leave the sarcastic remarks to the other editors that the IP did not see fit to drag here. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I think the point Erector Euphonious is trying to make incidentally, does anyone imagine Attenborough's voice when reading the paragraphs in italics? is that you're attacking the individual instead of his argument. Which seems to be true. Vimescarrot (talk) 18:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Users who question the behavior of others, and then have their own behavior questioned in kind, often claim it's a "personal" attack. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay. So? Vimescarrot (talk) 18:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
So the guy just below (WTWAG) has the right sense of perspective. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Now we observe an uninvolved editor attempt to assist. Though the subject is approached in a completely non aggressive fashion, the instinctive denial response is immediate. Caution is the best approach in situations like this. It may just be that this behavior cannot be corrected through reason. Time should tell if reward and punishment are more effective in correcting the condition. Erector Euphonious (talk) 19:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Fer shur, and I want you to know that I do appreciate your attempt to assist. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 19:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Grow a sense of humor. Bugs is doing absolutely no harm. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. His constant unhelpful, sarcastic comments are detrimental to the Reference Desks, and are at times almost antagonistic to the point of trying to goad a reaction out of people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avrillyria (talk • contribs) 22:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I've been a little concerned with this user's recent contributions as well. Humor on the Reference Desk is fine, but it should wait until the question has been answered - constantly responding to legitimate questions with (sometimes somewhat snarky) attempts at humor really hurts the Desk more than it helps. I was also very concerned by his apparently unilateral decision to remove this question, and his defense of his actions greatly increased my concerns rather than placating them. I see from your user contributions that you've been a (very) regular contributor to the Desks for many months, with quite a few helpful responses. It concerns me that you don't seem to have developed a very good sense of Desk etiquette in that time. I would suggest scaling things back and taking a more passive role for a little while, with an emphasis on getting a better feel for the general atmosphere here, while toning down on the jokes and leaving things like question removals to others. Again, it does seem like you're generally an asset to the Desks, but there are some things you need to address. -Elmer Clark (talk) 22:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Why the bloody L are you bringing that up here, when I already answered you on the other page? That question to me reads like he's hoping to find a certain type of victim to hate-crimes. You read it differently than I do. But that doesn't make you any better or smarter than I am. It's just how we see things. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Sure. Both interpretations are possible. In situations like that, the right response is to assume good faith and certainly is not to remove the question without discussion. And I was mentioning that mostly as an aside; I was mainly addressing the original subject of this posting, your many joke responses. -Elmer Clark (talk) 23:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Fine. I won't remove any other questions, no matter how offensive they seem. I'll leave that for you all, the experts in such things. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we should draw a line under this and close it for now. Bugs has had a few unfair shots taken at him but also some very good advice given. It's time now to see whether he takes the good advice on board. He's been pretty defensive, but it's hard to respond well when you feel that you're getting assaulted from all sides. Time will tell now. Bugs, FTR, you were indeeed the "certain editor" I was referring to above. There is a fine line between being mostly helpful and occasionally funny, and taking pleasure in seeing your own comments sitting on the thread while you congratulate yourself on your own brilliance. In my experience you're an intelligent editor and you will be able to take on board the valuable feedback you've gotten lately, and draw yourself back onto the right side of the line. Remember that if you have doubts about a thread, you can always come here for discussion on it. And please remember too that a bunch of us are touchy about responders treating our OP's badly, since it threatens our own ethos of why we participate here in the first place. And with that, can we all now give Bugs some space for a week or two? If he doesn't take the comments on board, we can always revisit this subject. Franamax (talk) 00:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

______________________________ line _______________________________ hydnjo (talk) 01:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

As you can see, we come from a long and distinguished line. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Planet colour guy

This sounds like the planet colour guy. If my answer isn't sufficient for him, I recommend deletion. --Tango (talk) 21:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Fixed the link for you. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Very well could be. I notice that he's asked Steve a question 'off desk' - that was one of PCG's hallmarks too, wasn't it? I seem to remember that Steve was getting quite irritated by it the last time it happened. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, he did the same with me - I got equally irritated. --Tango (talk) 21:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Then he's won. That's trolls' real aim - to piss people off. My advice: stay cool, and don't give in to the temptation to get irritated. Otherwise they win and we lose, yet we, and not they, have control over whether we allow this win-lose outcome to occur. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
This troll is heartbreaking. I think we can all agree that replacing the front page with "WILLY ON WHEEEEEEELS!!!!1!" is high comedy, but to troll a small handful of linguistics nerds with implausible unattested words is just pathetic. Get help, Planet Color Guy! --Sean 15:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand. Vimescarrot (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Think this is about person below - maybe they posted in the wrong section, or maybe they are the same, I don't know.?83.100.250.79 (talk) 23:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
No idea if this guy is a Willy-sock, but check out this page for some interesting reading regarding vandals and WP. Matt Deres (talk) 01:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I was just saying that at least Willy had ambition, which PCG seems to utterly lack. --Sean 04:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
What I meant was, I don't understand how this question is an issue. It's poorly phrased and not clear, but I don't understand how it's in any way problematic... Vimescarrot (talk) 14:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
It's not entirely clear to me, but I think people have been getting questions of a similar type where the user gets answers, but won't take them on board, and just re-asks the question in a different way later on.83.100.250.79 (talk) 15:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to come into this a few days later: yes, the editor in question is PCG. For background, his account was indef blocked (across all Wikimedia projects, I believe) last year for a combination of community exhaustion for bad editing plus repeated personal threats to other users. Since his IP return, I've monitored his contribs, making sure he understands that 'pedia space is absolutely off-limits but allowing the RD as an outlet of sorts. However, I notice that there have been several comments of exasperation (as the one here) since -- is it time to enforce the block fully? I figure that, in light of the original block, I should have already made user talk off limits, and will do so the next time I notice him editing such. — Lomn 18:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Is this User:Freewayguy, by the way? That name comes to mind from your description of his history. Yes, I do remember interacting with him (if it's the same person) on this page before when he was trying to get himself unblocked. He's got some sort of mental health problem, IIRC. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, if memory serves that was one of his many aliases. --Tango (talk) 18:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's the account under which he was blocked. I'm not aware of other accounts, but he did switch signature styles several times a week. — Lomn 19:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
If it is the same guy - I'm not convinced that he's doing this in bad faith. I could imagine someone with some kind of obsessive/compulsive need to know everything possible - to understand every tiniest detail - within some narrowly focussed topic. Assuming good faith, therefore, I think it's important to be crystal clear with him that we aren't going to keep answering essentially the same question over and over again - and that when we're done answering, we're not going to entertain followup questions. But I don't think setting the admin's on him is justified unless/until we can prove that there is bad faith or explicit rule-breakage going on. This is a tricky one though - the guy can be annoying as all hell. SteveBaker (talk) 20:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I pretty much agree with that. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Is this a case where the "first responder" or "clued-in regular" could put a collapse box around the thread, with the title being "Answered, please do not respond further"? Plus notice here on the talk page. The nice thing about a collapse-box is that it takes things relatively off-line but doesn't erase them completely, and it avoids the awkwardness of "resolved" templates - where seemingly in this case the Q never actually gets resolved. Just a suggestion. Franamax (talk) 23:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
When I worked at a real life refdesk (in a bookstore), there was a guy who obviously had a piece missing who would come in at least once a week with an enormous and grubby printout of hundreds of books on cacti. These were not general-interest fare and there was basically no chance that we had a single one of them, which didn't dissuade him from asking about each one. You could tell who the new employees were because they didn't coincidentally have to take a bathroom break when "Cactus Guy" came through the door. --Sean 05:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Did you ever attempt to order the books for him? There was a guy a bit like that when I worked in Tandy's. Every single morning, he'd be out front from about 8am, waiting for the shop to open. Then he'd come in to buy a single AAA battery. He'd been doing it for years, apparently. I once made the mistake of asking him if he'd like me to order him a whole case of the things for him and he got really upset with me. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
In very VERY slight defense of this guy... I found his website once. He has a lot of pages that describe what it would be like to colonize other planets and goes into detail about what the temperature would be and what the place would look like (including colors). So, he isn't just being a complete ass. He is attempting to add information to his website. He simply doesn't "get it" when he gets an answer that he doesn't like. -- kainaw™ 16:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I think it's also the case that he'll re-ask some time later if he doesn't understand the answer given. He doesn't seem to like asking people to elaborate at the time, if you know what I mean. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Not Censored

I know that Wikipedia isn't censored. We basically all moderate it ourselves (those of us with common sense), but what about the stuff that we can't moderate, as in the internal workings of Wikipedia itself? I got this captcha the other day and I couldn't believe my eyes. Who writes these? --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 16:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, but this doesn't seem to have anything to do with discussing the operation of the Reference Desks. --LarryMac | Talk 16:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I expect that is "heads" and "hits" combined at random. Larry is right, this has nothing to do with the ref desk, though. I suggest you file a bug on the [bugzilla.wikimedia.org bugtracker] saying the word "hits" (and "hit" if it is there) should be removed from the list of possible words (I think the captcha list is handled by the sysadmins, although I could be wrong). --Tango (talk) 16:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I knew this was the wrong place to bring it up, but of all the places I could think of, it was the 'most' appropriate out of them all. Couldn't think of anywhere else. And, of course I knew it wasn't deliberate and was a combination of two other (completely innocuous) words, but here an unfortunate combination was produced. I will do that, Tango, thanks. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 17:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
If you can't think of anywhere, then WP:VPM is a much better place than here. Algebraist 17:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Alternatively, the Wikipedia:Help desk is intended for people with questions about Wikipedia. --Tango (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
What happened to the 92-5=? type - were they too elitist?77.86.47.174 (talk) 00:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Too ineffective. Algebraist 02:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe anyone writes individual captcha's. They are generated by a pseudorandom generator in a program (that someone wrote). I think we must accept occasional "unfortunate" combinations as the price of the technology. Requiring both letters and numbers in captcha's will reduce such accidents, but not eliminate them. An example is PEN15 (which was once issued as a vehicle registration plate in the U.K.). Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I've seen this same discussion come up many times about this exact captcha. I don't know where to find exact links to the conversations, but it was decided that it was a combination of "heads" and "hits", and that there really isn't anything to do about it. It wasn't actually saying a "bad word", but you were looking for it. :) Some may not even notice. Besides, it's not viewed as an extremely offensive word, at least in the US. It's even allowed to be said on television. I wouldn't really worry about it. hmwith☮ 20:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Presumably there is a wordlist somewhere that these words come from. Just remove "hits" from the list and you are done. --Tango (talk) 23:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

When are so called helpers going to stop trolling people who ask questions

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language#Origin_of_phrase Hello , me again. Could there be some sort of agreement that treating the questioners like SHIT is not acceptable.87.102.94.154 (talk) 11:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Such agreement exists. We can't force everyone to adhere to it, though -- any sufficiently determined jerk will be able to offend someone. I hope you'll recognize the offending response as being distinctly outside the norm before railing against us in the future. — Lomn 13:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
How is answering in some kind of bizarre riddle format "treating questioners like shit"? It's only unhelpful. Vimescarrot (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree. It isn't trolling, it is just unhelpful. --Tango (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Reviewing this, yes, the first response had too many arcane clues - but with just a little more polishing it might have actually promoted what I think should be our primary aim - helping the questioner to develop their own research skills and discovery process. A little subtle wiki- and ext-linking would have made that answer quite helpful and maybe allowed the OP to find the answer themselves. Our better course is to try to educate the answerer on what the RD's are all about. Franamax (talk) 01:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Medical Advice Removal (Sept 17 2009)

Removed this question and replaced with our RD-MED template. Nimur (talk) 20:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it could get much more obvious than that. Well, there's the PMS eyeache thing I replied to rather than replacing, but it's close. :-). 23:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Good removal. Antenatal stuff is serious business - the only advice we should ever be giving in this situation is 'talk to a qualified medical professional'. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I have checked all the section headings in the language reference desk archives, and I have found dysfunctional links in section headings on the following month pages. When I visited the day pages, I examined the section headings and theorized reasons for the dysfunctional links, as specified in parentheses below. Where I have mentioned IPA symbols, foreign characters, and quotation marks, I consider them to be less likely problems than other features which I mentioned with them. I have not taken any liberty to correct any of these headings retroactively, but some editors might be in a position to do so. Especially, I suggest that someone examine this matter and either revise the software to prevent such problems, or mention in the welcome area all characters and wikicodes to be avoided in section headings. I have not checked the archived pages of other reference desks, but they possibly have similar problems.

(square brackets in another heading on the same day page not problematic)

This problem occurs also on the following page, unless I change the displayed part of the affected link.

-- Wavelength (talk) 00:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I am striking out from my message a portion which appears to be inaccurate. -- Wavelength (talk) 04:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I am revising my introduction for the sake of clarity. The underscore is to indicate inserted text and not to indicate emphasis.
-- Wavelength (talk) 15:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

This will likely cause our archivemaster Steve Summit to have a brain explosion. Most of the problems appear to be caused by a mismatch between the way the parser handles "anchors" and scsbot's way of transcibing them. I've looked at a few cases and I can pick out two:
  • In the italics case, LangRef-01Sep-Q#4, hovering over Q4 gives the link [8], whereas the bot is transcribing [[Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2007 September 1#consultation on stress on word ''Chinese''|consultation on stress on word ''Chinese'']] as the link. The "'" (single-quote) character is disallowed in URL's and it looks as though the wiki parser just drops them in the heading-to-address translation.
  • And in the case of your own upage .../Answers (why so many J questions), the square braces (which are also disallowed in a URL) are being replaced with escape-sequences in the TOC of the archive page [9], whereas the bot transcript onto your own page keeps the brackets as square, which the parser then refuses to render as a valid link.
Hehe, does that make it any clearer lol? Certain characters are not allowed in web URL's and every piece of software handles them differently. I think Steve is AWOL right now, so the coder answer might be delayed. In the meantime, I'd suggest you just fix up the links or ignore the problem. People can still just call up the day-page for the archive. Whether or not the archive search function is being affected, I dunno. My hour is up on this one! :) Franamax (talk) 02:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Short answer: it's a known bug. —Steve Summit (talk) 21:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Maybe it would be acceptable (for now) to proactively (?) fix headings that won't archive right. This not being considered a violation of "don't edit others posts" since there's a good reason (call it formatting) to do it.83.100.251.196 (talk) 13:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, I really do need to fix the bug, but until then, I don't think it's worth worrying about, certainly not to the extent of running around editing people's subject lines, or trying to teach people how to avoid the troublesome forms. —Steve Summit (talk) 21:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I am such an idiot. Here I've been feeling guilty about not having fixed this bug for so long, when it turns out that for the most part I did fix it, back on March 2 of this year. (You'll notice that most of the examples User:Wavelength pointed out are earlier than that.)
There was at least one remaining bug which I'd never been aware of, involving "discussions having been moved to another desk". (Actually, the real problem was a section with no detectable date at all.) I think I've fixed that now, too.
If anyone notices any more such broken links going forward, feel free to let me know. (And if I seem dismissive, stating that it's a known bug which I haven't managed to fix, feel free to remind me that I have managed to fix the known bug, and that the one you're reporting must therefore be a new, different one. :-) ) —Steve Summit (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Taxa

User:Taxa is back, treating the Reference Desk as his soapbox and making a high number of extremely inappropriate posts. This is not unprecedented. Please do not encourage him by responding. Malcolm XIV (talk) 10:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I am interested in his opinion. You have inserted yourself where you are unwanted. I suggest you go away and take your vendettas along with you. Thanks for a whole lot of nothing.

Note, also, that the IP address 70.171.239.21 (who wrote the unsigned comment above) is very likely to be Taxa himself. His own IP address is in the range 71.1* and he has been caught in the past using a false signature to disguise this (ie normal text formatted to resemble a Wiki signature) [10]. He has twice reverted my efforts to collapse his trolling thread on the Humanities desk about "Irish vs Germans in America"; I have no intention of breaking the three-revert rule to deal with him, so I'm taking it to Admin. Malcolm XIV (talk) 11:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I actually find this attempt to link me up with him, so you can attack this other said person, to be rather flattering. I wish I had an account, but alas, that seems to be too much trouble and not the same trouble you're getting at. I have talked with Baseball Bugs before, but not you or Taxa. I haven't even seen Taxa before today, but I've seen your name and thought you were some kind of fop or dandy. You're just a troll though.

ok I don't think IP address 70.171.239.21 is anything like User:TAXA , (unless there is a deliberate attempt to mislead by using different styles and apparent interest - which would be wrong under WP:AGF and I just wouldn't believe anyone would waste their time like that anyway..)
So lets forget about that link please.
And also try to avoid personal attacks as well as accusations of sockpuppetry and stop the mudslinging etc. (both of you)
however I agree that Taxa's posts are too soapboxy, (I've mentioned it already to them), wouldn't it be a better idea to talk to them, before going to the admin board...83.100.251.196 (talk) 11:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
The length of his sentences, the way he punctuates (note the overuse of commas), the fact that they're both trolling along similar lines and the fact that Taxa has done exactly this sort of thing before... All of these are sufficient for me. It's not a question of wasting HIS time in an elaborate deception, it's about wasting OUR time.
For this reason, I am not going to spend another second dealing with this blatant misuse of the Ref Desk. I'll leave it in others' hands.Malcolm XIV (talk) 11:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
The anon IP has been blocked.83.100.251.196 (talk) 13:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
As an aside it seems that many of these problematic questions come from posters who appear to be describing a purely local view, or a view of the world as they see it rather than being based in global reality. It might be helpful to consider trying to point out that the theories they have are not shared or confirmed by the majority of the population before calling troll.
Also consider that their experience of what the general population thinks or does might not match yours - eg they might live in a strict amish, or hassidic jewish community with little outside contact. (though I would hope they would be self aware of this)83.100.251.196 (talk) 13:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be better to do that, than jump and say 'meaningless post' which doesn't help them much. Also trying to extract an answerable question through requests for clarification may help a lot.
I accept though that that is not really part of what we have to do on the reference desk - but it's an option.83.100.251.196 (talk) 13:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

AGF no longer applies. Taxa is a sockpuppet of a well-known Ref Desk troll. [11] [12] [13] [14] Observe also the similarity between the responses given above by 70.171.239.21 and those given by User:Multimillionaire (another sockpuppet of the same user) when called out on his abuse of the Ref Desk. Malcolm XIV (talk) 13:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The edit I don't understand is the changing of signature. I tend to agree with the sentiments expressed at [15] - ie that the condition here is youth, poorly worded questions, and 'out of the box thinking' rather than an attempt to annoy or troll. Right or wrong labelling Taxa as a sockpuppet seems unfair (speaking as someone who has been briefly blocked for a false accusation of sockpuppetry I tend towards caution in this area).
I would suggest either to leave the questions to others, or take a deep breath, and attempt to get closure on whatever question can be extracted from their posts. I really don't like it either when we have to teach rather than answer, and when any answerable question is obscured in a maze of personal experience, and blinkered through linear thought processes.
Beyond that I think asking for comment (and an explanation of the odd signature editing) from TAXA on this page would be a good idea.83.100.251.196 (talk) 14:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Also is it not possible for an admin to check if TAXA's IP resolves to the same as the anon IP? Which should settle things - I would agree that there are sufficient grounds for this to be acceptable.83.100.251.196 (talk) 14:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
That would require an SPI. Although asking an admin (or suggesting, as I did) to block all accounts on that IP address, could also tell us something. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
ok I don't know what a SPI is, I've asked TAXA to comment [16].83.100.251.196 (talk) 14:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Sockpuppet investigation (see WP:SPI). In cases where you're not sure of some procedure someone has mentioned, you can usually figure them out by typing wp: (followed by whatever the initialism was, no spaces) in the search box. Matt Deres (talk) 15:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I looked at SPI so was trying to figure out if it was one of these painful sounding proceedures: System Packet Interface, Security Parameter Index, Service Package Interpreter, Stateful Packet Inspection, Sensitive personal information... 83.100.251.196 (talk) 17:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Because the accusation lacks specificity as to what is allegedly being promoted or soapboxed there is no creditable accusation to which I might respond. There is not even enough specificity for me to suggest that you view The Future of Food to get the full story of which I may have only paraphrased. I am certainly not promoting anything except that perhaps you watch the documentary to get the full and more accurate story. In any case I only get a few days at a time to post questions to the reference desk so it may seem I have at times posted excess questions and engaged in dialog surrounding them because I must either make full use of the opportunity to post in the little time I have or not post at all. I do not maintain an alternate user account and as I recall the change to my signature was made at the request of several members who wanted to post on my user talk page but clicking on my user name took them to the definition of taxa instead. In absence of specificity I can say little more than this except that by my observation Malcum X seems to enjoy singling out persons whom he thinks he will be able to harrass. -- Taxa (talk) 18:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Please don't try to pull the wool over people's eyes. As these links show [17][18], you were altering your signature to make it plain text which did not link anywhere, in a botched attempt to cover up that you were also the known (and multiply banned) Ref Desk troll with an IP address in the range 71.100*. It did not link to the definition of taxa; it did not link anywhere. Please do not pretend that it did.
Furthermore, you were asked politely on a number of occasions to stop doing it and refused. Only when you were warned ("Multiple editors have asked you to change your signature because it is disruptive. Please do so. Nakon 17:15, 6 May 2008" [19]) did you stop doing it.
If you still feign to be unclear about the nature of the accusations, I will spell it out for you: your account is a sockpuppet of the banned user 71.100.164.179, also known as Multimillionaire, Barringa, Mimus polyglottos, Kadiddlehopper, Dichotomous, Julie Dancer, Adaptron, Ἀριστοτέλης, Leasing Agent and no doubt many others. Malcolm XIV (talk) 19:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I suggest you stop doing this, it's not WP:AGF without evidence, and looks like you are attempting to provoke the user. If you have a belief that this user is a sockpuppet you should take it to the WP:SPI as given above.
What you are currently doing is simply attacking another user.83.100.251.196 (talk) 19:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Did you look at the diffs I provided? This [20] is evidence that Taxa has an IP address in the same region as all the sockpuppets listed above. He also shares the same MO. That is evidence. Malcolm XIV (talk) 19:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
That's 71.100.6.147 the blocked editor is 70.171.239.21 I'm not an expert on IP address but 70<>71 and I have had experience of different editors getting 83... IP's when I too get an 83... IP. So as far as I know that is not convincing evidence. I understand that there are similarities in style (both users post 'soapboxy' type questions) - that causes suspicion in my eyes, but not proof.
I've mentioned this on WP:ANI , so that hopefully an admin with suitable checkuser powers will be able to resolved this. I've also requested that someone else tell you to 'cool down' since I think your going over the top a bit, and I have to admit some sympathy with Taxa's statement that it's a bit like bullying. WP:AGF has not been overidden here.
83.100.251.196 (talk) 19:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
However, the IP address 71.100.164.179 (that of the blocked sockpuppeteer) is considerably closer to 71.100.6.147. I take objection to your suggestion that I am "bullying" or going "Over the top". I am merely providing the facts, and pointing out when User:Taxa fails to do so. Malcolm XIV (talk) 20:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry about that (I still have no idea if the closeness is significant) - I referred to your messages to User:Taxa - such as that on the ref desk - where you claimed that they were a sockpuppet. Seeing as no one is actually vandalising, or disrupting at the moment I would suggest waiting for someone else to take a look, as I have requested.83.100.251.196 (talk) 21:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) ok from that I can assume that the username issue was a technical problem (which you have now fixed), and that you are not using any sockpuppets. It's not clear what the significance of "schaum" is but I guess that is not relevent here.
However if your main aim in posting questions is to get people to read a book then that's not acceptable. I don't want to misinterpret your words, so I'll assume that your questions have purpose in themselves, beyond an attempt to get us to read the book you mention.
I would recommend though that you ask (or phrase questions) without the preconception of a single source to be responded to or read. Unless the book source is the primary topic in which case please make that clear in a question.
My main concern is that if you ask questions with the viewpoint of a single source in mind; either to be responded to, or proved or disproved then that is very close to soapboxing. Also remember that any promotion of a viewpoint is not allowed. I think it will be obvious to you that you are very close to the point where you actually are soapboxing, or promoting, or seeking an opinion.
Also please try to avoid the mudslinging, I don't like MalcolmXVI's blanket assertations that you are definately a sockpupper, as I think that is unfair without evidence. However it would be best to avoid returning any insults at this point, and hopefully we can all go back to normaility. Thank you.83.100.251.196 (talk) 19:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
FYI, "Schaum" is German for variations on foam, froth, etc. The closest cognate is "scum". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 19:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
User:froth ??? 83.100.251.196 (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Taxa has now been blocked indefinitely. Malcolm XIV (talk) 12:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed Request for Medical Advice

Removed request for medical advice. 23:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a good catch to me - no complaints here. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes but why remove? Wouldn't it be better to box off?83.100.251.196 (talk) 10:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
It shouldn't be answered and current answers don't need to be viewed. Why keep it? Vimescarrot (talk) 13:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
In my five or so years here, I have seen both deletions and attempts to "box off" requests for medical advice. The only way to keep it from being answered is to remove it. Once, I saw a user remove the notice that the question should not be answered so he could answer it and pretend he never saw a warning. It is more difficult to locate deleted questions, reinstate them, and then answer them. -- kainaw™ 15:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the text of the question should be removed. The only caveat is that we want the OP to see the medical disclaimer, so that they understand why their question was removed. That's why I usually leave at least the heading present (if the OP had a bookmark to the heading, for example, we don't want to break that). The degree of deletion depends on a variety of considerations, though. Nimur (talk) 15:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
this is why I disagree with leaving something on the page. Even though the question has been removed, two people have seen the removal as a driving reason to provide an answer. If the thing was just removed entirely, nobody would answer it. -- kainaw™ 22:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
We can't win. As you said, if we had simply deleted it, then two responders wouldn't have felt the need to reply. But, we would also have been censoring the question rather than redirecting it to a medical professional; I think that this is an example where the OP should have been encouraged to ask a doctor, because he/she is probably embarrassed to ask as it is. Censoring them will probably further that embarrassment and discourage them from actually asking a doctor; which we don't want to do. On the other hand, we should take a stricter stance to people who decide to ignore the medical-advice-removal and post answers anyway. Nimur (talk) 23:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with Nimur that the neatest way to handle these is to leave the heading intact, for the OP's benefit; and to replace the question with some kind of standard box or template or something that says "go see a professional", to either implicitly or explicitly discourage amateur doctors or lawyers from weighing in. The original question is in the history if someone is curious about it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
It may be worthwhile to remind people at this point that we do have a standard process for removing medical advice requests; you can find it at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice#Dealing with questions asking for medical advice. The process there evolved precisely because there's no other way to get helpful people to stop trying to answer a question — regardless of what harm their uninformed guesses might do. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

LEGO bricks

Where is the proper place to ask questions about LEGO bricks? --88.78.233.71 (talk) 15:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

If in doubt, place it on the Miscellaneous desk. It might be redirected to another desk (conceivably, Science, for example). Nimur (talk) 15:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah - the Misc desk is just the place...unless it's something about the science of Lego - or the linguistics of Lego or whatever. SteveBaker (talk) 23:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Too bad we don't have a desk for the religion of Lego. ;-) --98.217.14.211 (talk) 12:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Also, if you have medical or legal questions about Lego, you'd better consult a professional. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 12:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, so don't eat the bricks and ask us what to do. Googlemeister (talk) 16:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

October 2006 Help Desk archives

I see that I have reached the end of the archives in the current format. I guess that means I go to the other archive for older questions.

But does what I've found mean there were fewer questions on the dates before October 21?Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I found my answer. [21] It turns out those old archives stop at October 21, 2006. Weird how the new format is used for a handful of older questions.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Oops, wrong talk page. I went back and looked, and the link to here was in a description of what to do about bot problems.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Computer Desk - Nonsense Removed

I just removed some content from the Computer desk. If there's any dispute about this, or if anyone thinks these might have been a legitimate question/response edit, please restore it. Nimur (talk) 17:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a legitimate (homework-based) question, but a useless response. I'll restore the question. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 08:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
That's one of the most bizzare responses I've ever read. Nil Einne (talk) 17:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Soapboxing

Given recent events, I think it would be a good idea to have a prescribed method to deal with soapbox type questions. I don't think deletion is a good idea (because it just stirs up the nest and causes them to swarm..) - I'm thinking of something like the box used for a closed discussion eg

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.

Soapboxy Question goes here...

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

I think it's important not to delete, and also to make it clear that the discussion is closed. But it needs some 'tagline' explaining why the discussion was closed, and why in a polite and concise way. Can anyone come up with a method, message, and proceedure that is workable.83.100.251.196 (talk) 13:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not keen on this idea. It explicitly violates WP:AGF and I see a problem about giving a reason why one has judged a post as being soapboxing. It is a judgement that the poster is unlikely to accept easily and the box could be misused because it looks like an administrative action. The price of keeping a low threshold for any user to post "any" question is that some unwelcome posts are unavoidable, but IMO that is an acceptable price. Think of it as an intellectual challenge to provide a sensible answer to a silly question. The value of the Ref. desks is discovering that there can be many good answers to a question. That value is diminished by introducing an unnecessary new way to shut down discussion. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Cuddlyable3's position. If soap-boxing is an issue, inform the responsible person on their talk-page; if it is a recurring problem, we can take more drastic measures. By its very nature, it's a spectrum, ranging from mild asides and one-off comments; to persistent and clear violations of our standards which interfere with the question. But, the grey-areas in the middle are debatable, and need to be handled on a case-by-case basis. This sort of template attempts to draw a thick black line around the issue, which I believe is counterproductive. Nimur (talk) 15:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the above as well. I think it's also worth adopting a policy of not worrying too much about it — nobody will die, and if things are getting wildly out of hand (e.g. nothing but paragraphs and paragraphs of vitriol), then there's really very little harm in just ignoring it. After a few days it'll get archived away like the rest, and I've seen far more love lost and tempers flared by trying to argue about whether something is a legitimate post than is often in the answers/questions themselves. The stakes are pretty low and we all know how to ignore topics. This applies, of course, to the gray area cases, not the blatant trolling. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 16:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Help!

Can someone take a look at this Wikipedia: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)

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: [22] I would guess that a doctor would tell a patient the same thing, only at greater expense and with less detail. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 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 What's up, Doc? 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.

Removed medical advice

The thread Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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)

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)

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|(talk) 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)

User:Megatrip

[23]

Had to restore a question [24]83.100.251.196 (talk) 23:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Spam?

[25]

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 What's up, Doc? 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 What's up, Doc? 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 What's up, Doc? 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)

Baseball bugs

Wikipedia: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. [26] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

Joke Room, revisited

Apparently the lengthy discussion above didn't mean a lot to some people: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 Wikipedia.
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 "Wikipedia is not your web host, forum etc" Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site as well as other parts of that page - including "Wikipedia 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)

Non answers removed - both starting with an insult.

[27]

[28]

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 Wikipedia 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)

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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia into Japanese? Of course, this will mean that the new article will need to be placed on JP Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia (many of which have no equivalent on JP Wikipedia) would I be linking back to the relevant articles on EN Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 [[en:Articlename]] syntax (look at the bottom of a popular article like Barack Obama for examples). Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thread at the Reference Desk

Resolved

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 ([29]), 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 Wikipedia - [30]. 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 Wikipedia 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?" [31] What's the Latin for "condescending remark"? →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 DissidentTalk 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 What's up, Doc? 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 talk 17:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. It was PST who mis-characterized the situation. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 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 What's up, Doc? carrots 00:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
The saddest part of the story, is that PMA has decided to retire from Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia than his/her positive contributions (something with which I totally disagree). --NorwegianBlue talk 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 Wikipedia 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 talk 20:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
If you don't "rate individual editors on a maturity scale" then why make a comment about "learn[ing] 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 talk 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 talk 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)

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 [[link to Ubuntu, Knoppix, or whatever]]", it would be fine by me. But if it were the only suggestion offered, I would consider it unhelpful, but certainly not trolling. --NorwegianBlue talk 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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Archive_63&oldid=1100197787"